Media bias against City

[coleridge]

Is that the presenter of the one show?

Oh yes...

 

[Bill]

Put it this way.

With our average attendances, we could fill all PL grounds, with 1000's of fans to spare, bar Arsenal and the Rags.

That aside. Was sat in the canteen today surrounded by United fans. All they had to say was empty seats and the Emptyhad, with the odd 20 PL titles thrown in.

As we all know, and we keep on repeating on here, and amongst ourselves, United fans have got nothing left to throw at us.

Empty seats is the new 34 Years, ticker banner, Massive, Ciddy, nobody knows your name, Stockport, and a whole host of other jibes that are no longer used by their support.

you can put all those comments under one heading.

fear.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

There's something wrong with that sentence but I'm afraid if I'm more specific it might push you over the edge.

I did wonder about the wording after I'd posted, but had to return to my post-Christmas mayhem and wasn't able to rectify my error :-)

 

[Bodicoteblue]

I agree with him - it shouldn't result in a free shot on goal as he actually wasn't going anywhere, he invited the challenge which duly came - however the rules, as they stand, state that this should be a penalty, so the presenter is being a nob.

IMO he should have got an indirect free kick
Also IMO, we shouldn't have to rely on a last minute penalty to beat everton at home

A foul inside the penalty area - in this case "tripping or attempting to trip an opponent" results in a penalty kick.
It matters not a jot in which direction the attacking player is travelling, nor which part of the penalty area the foul occurs,if the foul occurs , it is a penalty.
An indirect free kick will be awarded, in the penalty area to an attacker on the grounds of obstruction.
There was no obstruction committed.
We could have been 7-0 up - a penalty is a penalty , it doesn't matter what the score is. We wouldn't have relied on it , it should simply have been awarded because that would have been the correct course of action.

 

[2sheikhs]

I disagree. I say penalty because it was foul in the box. But no card because he wasn't through on goal.

 

[silverback]

Hypothetical for the naysayers:
If the ball is cleared from the penalty area and the only two remaining players are the goal-keeper and an opponent, the goal -keeper punches the opponent. Penalty or not?

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Hypothetical for the naysayers:
If the ball is cleared from the penalty area and the only two remaining players are the goal-keeper and an opponent, the goal -keeper punches the opponent. Penalty or not?

Not a great comparison in my opinion. That's not a foul; it's violent conduct.

The description under the linesman is:
Whenever the assistant referee signals for violent conduct and the signal is not seen immediately:
• if play has been stopped for disciplinary action to be taken, the restart must be in accordance with the Laws (free kick, penalty kick, etc.)
• if play has already restarted, the referee may still take disciplinary action but not penalise the offence with a free kick or penalty kick

My understanding is:
If the ref sees it, he'll have stopped play to deal with it. So penalty.
If the linesman gives it, it depends whether play is ongoing at the time.

 

[dickie davies]

Not a great comparison in my opinion. That's not a foul; it's violent conduct.

The description under the linesman is:
Whenever the assistant referee signals for violent conduct and the signal is not seen immediately:
• if play has been stopped for disciplinary action to be taken, the restart must be in accordance with the Laws (free kick, penalty kick, etc.)
• if play has already restarted, the referee may still take disciplinary action but not penalise the offence with a free kick or penalty kick

My understanding is:
If the ref sees it, he'll have stopped play to deal with it. So penalty.
If the linesman gives it, it depends whether play is ongoing at the time.

When Dickov was playing for Blackburn and Distin for us, an incident like this happened
The ball was cleared from our penalty area and Dickov being the character he was did that windy uppy thing on Distin
Distin reacted by pushing Dickov away, but did so by putting his hand in Dickov's face
Dickov went to ground like he'd been shot. The ref knew something was going on between them and kept an eye on it
As soon as Dickov hit the ground, the whistle was blown, Distin sent off and penalty awarded

My mate said that it was an off the ball incident and although the sending off was correct, a pen shouldn't have been given

 

[Rolee]

I agree with him - it shouldn't result in a free shot on goal as he actually wasn't going anywhere, he invited the challenge which duly came - however the rules, as they stand, state that this should be a penalty, so the presenter is being a nob.

IMO he should have got an indirect free kick
Also IMO, we shouldn't have to rely on a last minute penalty to beat everton at home

Says who? The ball was still in play when Stones up ended him.

Regardless a foul, is a foul, is a foul. Penalty no doubt about it. Can't believe this is even a debate.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

When Dickov was playing for Blackburn and Distin for us, an incident like this happened
The ball was cleared from our penalty area and Dickov being the character he was did that windy uppy thing on Distin
Distin reacted by pushing Dickov away, but did so by putting his hand in Dickov's face
Dickov went to ground like he'd been shot. The ref knew something was going on between them and kept an eye on it
As soon as Dickov hit the ground, the whistle was blown, Distin sent off and penalty awarded

My mate said that it was an off the ball incident and although the sending off was correct, a pen shouldn't have been given

I think it falls under:

"A direct free kick is awarded.... if a player...in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
• strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
• pushes an opponent"

So, if it's in the area, and the ref sees it, a penalty is correct.
Just my opinion from the wording.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Says who? The ball was still in play when Stones up ended him.

Regardless a foul, is a foul, is a foul. Penalty no doubt about it. Can't believe this is even a debate.

I agree it's obvious - if it's a foul in the area, it's a penalty. where the player is in the area is irrelevant.

 

[moomba]

I don't even get the "he wasnt going anywhere" argument. The ball wasnt irretrievable, the defender had gone to ground. If he wasnt fouled he was in a great position to do something.

 

[Chris in London]

I don't even get the "he wasnt going anywhere" argument. The ball wasnt irretrievable, the defender had gone to ground. If he wasnt fouled he was in a great position to do something.

It's completely irrelevant. It was either a foul, in which case it's a penalty kick, or it wasn't/

The 'wasn't going anywhere' argument has one object only, namely to take some of the sting out of the argument that City were wrongly denied a clear penalty.

 

[blueinsa]

It's completely irrelevant. It was either a foul, in which case it's a penalty kick, or it wasn't/

The 'wasn't going anywhere' argument has one object only, namely to take some of the sting out of the argument that City were wrongly denied a clear penalty.

For wasn't going anywhere see unnatural arm position or not enough to make him go down etc.

Stop fucking interpreting the laws of the game and apply them instead and most of the controversy will disappear overnight.

 

[Chris in London]

This is why the media perception of our club matters.

With taggart, referees were scared not to give penalties. Had that been the rags at the swamp five years ago, that referee would know that if he wrongly refused to give the penalty he would be absolutely lambasted and it would be all over the media for days, and he will be refereeing at Scunthorpe the following week.

With us, he knows that even a complete stonewall like the one on sterling will have a few lines in the newspaper reports if he doesn't give it, and even though there is pretty much universal agreement that he should have given it, it will be forgotten about the day after tomorrow, and he will be refereeing a top flight game the next weekend.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

It amuses me and amazes me that the Law on direct free kicks has taken on the added weight of 'pundit philosophising and analysing' to the point where people think it is now the law. Contact free kicks are awarded, or should be awarded as below:

A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

• kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
• trips or attempts to trip an opponent
• jumps at an opponent
• charges an opponent
• strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
• pushes an opponent
• tackles an opponent

Take yer pick from that lot. Whatever happened at the death is adequately covered.

Rigger East, read, learn, inwardly digest. I look forward to the next penalty that this moron awards! I bet you a pound to a punt it's as soft as my left buttock!

 

[Colin Bell's Boots]

It amuses me and amazes me that the Law on direct free kicks has taken on the added weight of 'pundit philosophising and analysing' to the point where people think it is now the law. Contact free kicks are awarded, or should be awarded as below:

A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

• kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
• trips or attempts to trip an opponent
• jumps at an opponent
• charges an opponent
• strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
• pushes an opponent
• tackles an opponent

Take yer pick from that lot. Whatever happened at the death is adequately covered.

Rigger East, read, learn, inwardly digest. I look forward to the next penalty that this moron awards! I bet you a pound to a punt it's as soft as my left buttock!

And probably for the Rags !

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

This is why the media perception of our club matters.

With taggart, referees were scared not to give penalties. Had that been the rags at the swamp five years ago, that referee would know that if he wrongly refused to give the penalty he would be absolutely lambasted and it would be all over the media for days, and he will be refereeing at Scunthorpe the following week.

With us, he knows that even a complete stonewall like the one on sterling will have a few lines in the newspaper reports if he doesn't give it, and even though there is pretty much universal agreement that he should have given it, it will be forgotten about the day after tomorrow, and he will be refereeing a top flight game the next weekend.

And the chance of a top final would still be in line.

I remember Crappybugger reffing a Dipper derby. In added time he awarded a Red Dipper pen, straight up the other end and Joeloninho gets hauled down by St Jamie. No pen! Clear as the ex-bald spot on his head - a stoner. It was two whole seasons before Crapps reffed at Goodison. There is no transparency within the game re referees. We only hear about these instances when some ex-ref has a book out or a slot on a chat show and they want to make a humorous splash!

 

[colbee59]

I don't think we'll get any decisions against Everton in cup if Liverpool beat Stoke the night before, as they will all want a Merseyside final

 

[blueinsa]

I don't think we'll get any decisions against Everton in cup if Liverpool beat Stoke the night before, as they will all want a Merseyside final

Are you suggesting that the tv companies and sponsors will want that dream game to maximise revenues and they would go out of their way to make it happen?

I think i know the answer unfortunately,