Ref Watch

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

Yep commentator desperately screaming no penalty great tackle when Jesus was wiped out also disgraceful. How is that acceptable commentary?

It's acceptable to the City-hating morons that seem to have been let into the Amex last night and the host of cretins who cheered along with it. Oh, and whoever that inmate from the nearest loony bin was who was entrusted with a whistle.

 

[joenorth]

Some of these decisions made against city are given very quickly and never seem to be scrutinised as much as others including off side decisions, the non pen on jesus, I've still not seen a close up and if the defender gets a slight touch on the ball, the ball was still in play but jesus cannot get to it as he was taken out, as for cavani's goal they are just guessing.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

That last night is the worst officiating I've seen us have, and we've had some belters!
Good job we override it by being mint.

That match could so easily have been one where the three points were crucial. I bet the club is breathing that the title was in the bag before Attwell delivered his masterclass.

 

[Paladin]

lol

Not only is that not a foul by Stones, it is a foul by their goalkeeper on Stones. He jumps on Stones' head. The fact the he is a goalkeeper doesn't give him immunity from the Laws of the Game. He isn't allowed to clear out everything in front of him in an attempt to get the ball.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

That match could so easily have been one where the three points were crucial. I bet the club is breathing that the title was in the bag before Attwell delivered his masterclass.

to be honest, I think they took the opportunity to put that on BT, stick in between Sky's 2 games and load the deck with Attwell and Moss because the game didn't matter. It's exactly the sort of game that's easy to mess with without drawing unwanted scrutiny. The cover-up afterwards says it all.

 

[The slaughtered lamb]

Yep commentator desperately screaming no penalty great tackle when Jesus was wiped out also disgraceful. How is that acceptable commentary?

Pretty sure I heard the bt commentary accuse Gundog of histrionics. They have no professional pride, just whoring themselves out.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

Some of these decisions made against city are given very quickly and never seem to be scrutinised as much as others including off side decisions, the non pen on jesus, I've still not seen a close up and if the defender gets a slight touch on the ball, the ball was still in play but jesus cannot get to it as he was taken out, as for cavani's goal they are just guessing.

The Cavani goal had the advantage of being scored by a home player at The Swamp. He was offside when the goalie kicked it, Fernandes wasn't, but he missed it, and that should render Cavani offide. But, hey ho, that's the way PiGMOL do it!

 

[Dirty Harry]

In an absolute melee of unbelievably shite decisions by that cheating twat atwell tonight the most baffling was when he gave a foul against Stones on their keeper just because he dropped it, fucking useless bent bastard and Moss can fuck off aswell.

VAR is meant to be there to improve the game and come to the correct decisions, all it is is bent bastards backing up whatever decision the other bent bastards have made on the pitch

Law 12: Fouls and Misconduct​

IMPEDING THE PROGRESS OF AN OPPONENT WITHOUT CONTACT

Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the opponent’s path to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.

All players have a right to their position on the field of play; being in the way of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent.

A player may shield the ball by taking a position between an opponent and the ball if the ball is within playing distance and the opponent is not held off with the arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent.

They need to brush up on their knowledge, Stones stood there is not an offence, so we''l put that under "we don't even know the rules/we'll make it up as we go along to suit", take your pick.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

Not only is that not a foul by Stones, it is a foul by their goalkeeper on Stones. He jumps on Stones' head. The fact the he is a goalkeeper doesn't give him immunity from the Laws of the Game. He isn't allowed to clear out everything in front of him in an attempt to get the ball.

Ah, but these LotG only apply when we have a knowledgeable ref with the bottle to call what the Laws demand of him (Are there any?). Last night we had the GhostGoalWhistlingWanker. I'm sure that Attwell would walk down his local high street and anyone who stumbles would have the satisfaction of the nearest shopper being carded!

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

Law 12: Fouls and Misconduct​

IMPEDING THE PROGRESS OF AN OPPONENT WITHOUT CONTACT

Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the opponent’s path to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.

All players have a right to their position on the field of play; being in the way of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent.

A player may shield the ball by taking a position between an opponent and the ball if the ball is within playing distance and the opponent is not held off with the arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent.

They need to brush up on their knowledge, Stones stood there is not an offence, so we''l put that under "we don't even know the rules/we'll make it up as we go along to suit", take your pick.

But they do have a law that they always fall back on - If a player falls to the ground it could be a foul so nobody will argue 'cos I've got a pair of coloured cards in my pocket.

It's a great get out of jail for those who are pretty clueless, even with the aid of a TV screen.