Ref Watch

[Burtonblue]

I will when it's shown on a highlights reel. You may be waiting sometime though.

Cheers mate!

 

[SamTheGuru]

Manchester City’s magnificent 23 game unbeaten away record was ended on the south coast today after a quite remarkable performance from Stuart Atwell

It was a team performance!! Stuart Atwell, Jon Moss and the prick providing the narrative, Peter Walton.

 

[Gundog’s Gundog]

Scandalous is the only way to describe the officiating tonight

 

[PistonBlue]

Can someone put a gif of the Gundogan tackle in the first half
How the fuck was that not a red?!?
Maybe I imagined it....

You must have missed Peter Walton's clear explanation of why it wasn't a red. Basically, the guys leg was bent and there was no force.

 

[Burtonblue]

You must have missed Peter Walton's clear explanation of why it wasn't a red. Basically, the guys leg was bent and there was no force.

Was watching the game without volume but am not surprised at that **** Walton’s totally biased interpretation.
He never gives us anything.

 

[1961_vintage]

That has to be up there with one of the worst refereeing performances ever, in years to come I won't be shocked if there's a match fixing scandal

Reminded me of Riley at the swamp v Arsenal. Shocking and, even worse, they will get away with it.

 

[Paladin]

He actually claimed in his after match interview that he didn’t know if he touched it or not ? You know when you’ve touched a football travelling at 50mph....Prem couldn’t wait to give him the assist to end the argument

If proof were ever needed of corruption, it's this. One of the purposes of VAR is to overturn incorrect refereeing decisions. If the referee or lineman thought Fernandes got a touch on the De Gea pass, VAR's job was to verify the touch. (Quite how they thought Fernandes touched the ball is another matter - they didn't see any deviation in the path of the ball after it went near to him).

So with all the camera angles available, they just need one that shows the touch from Fernandes. Have they found one yet? No. Was there one that the VAR saw that the rest of us didn't see? Probably not, but if there is such a clip showing the touch, let's see it now so we can put the debate to bed.

If they don't produce evidence of the Fernandes touch, then we know the decision was bent. Because without conclusive proof of the touch from Fernandes, the decision has to be offside, and the goal has to be cancelled.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Has he ? Fair enough then, I like the guy, if he's done something daft then fair play to him, Pep clearly wasn't wanting out lot involved, I think he likes him too. Heat of the moment adrenalin stuff probably.

That's right.

BBC quoted his as apologising for over-celebrating in front of the City staff. He blamed it on emotion, but says it was unprofessional of him.

 

[nmc]

"How can someone watch this and decide it isn’t a penalty?"

They simply applied the "Aston Villa keeper lunges at Phil Foden and clearly takes him out" line of thought and ended up at with the same decision....

City?

No Foul, play on!

BENT sums it up to a tee.

That’s not an error by the officials... it’s corruption. Needs to be called out.

 

[swinton blue]

If proof were ever needed of corruption, it's this. One of the purposes of VAR is to overturn incorrect refereeing decisions. If the referee or lineman thought Fernandes got a touch on the De Gea pass, VAR's job was to verify the touch. (Quite how they thought Fernandes touched the ball is another matter - they didn't see any deviation in the path of the ball after it went near to him).

So with all the camera angles available, they just need one that shows the touch from Fernandes. Have they found one yet? No. Was there one that the VAR saw that the rest of us didn't see? Probably not, but if there is such a clip showing the touch, let's see it now so we can put the debate to bed.

If they don't produce evidence of the Fernandes touch, then we know the decision was bent. Because without conclusive proof of the touch from Fernandes, the decision has to be offside, and the goal has to be cancelled.

This is where its wrong. The goal was given so they have to find a clear and obvious error. Because they haven't seen a definitive angle to say he didn't then the goal stands.
If the goal was disallowed I would hedge my bets they would have found an angle to overturn it.
Why do you think they only showed one angle of Jesus non penalty? Because they were petrified that another angle would have given them the answer they didn't want