Ref Watch

[simon23]

Completely disagree he's run after the ball to within about a centimetre of it shaping up to shoot before Fernandez takes it away from him.

agreed..but he doesnt play the ball which he has to

for me he affects the city defenders decision making but that aint in the rules

 

[blueinsa]

As always with you you just cant handle us losing....toys out of pram.

the rule is wrong...the refs interpritation or that wrong rule in this instance is correct as neither the ball is played by Rashford nor does he impede a city defender.

Take it on the chin

Losing I can take, it’s fucking idiots I struggle with and sadly their will be loads of them on here tonight to keep you company.

 

[willipp]

Ref showed his hand when he let Erickson chop down a breaking city player in the first minute. Then let their left back continuously foul mahrez over and over again.

 

[dctid]

Complete inability to defend?

We conceded two goals: one was egregiously offside (no team can defend that farce) and then another right after when all the momentum had completely shifted to United (and even then Eddie was unlucky not to prevent it). Apart from that we handled everything they threw at us.

These takes are getting more and more ridiculously by the week.what happened

Complete inability to defend?

We conceded two goals: one was egregiously offside (no team can defend that farce) and then another right after when all the momentum had completely shifted to United (and even then Eddie was unlucky not to prevent it). Apart from that we handled everything they threw at us.

These takes are getting more and more ridiculously by the week.

Liverpool game 2 -1 concede within 1 minute there are other examples - defensively we are shit end of

 

[colinthewindowcleaner]

There seem to be more maybe not so important decisions, that the referee took an age to decide, as though he was awaiting instructions

 

[zandvoort blue]

As always with you you just cant handle us losing....toys out of pram.

the rule is wrong...the refs interpritation or that wrong rule in this instance is correct as neither the ball is played by Rashford nor does he impede a city defender.

Take it on the chin

Please define "playing the ball" as surely running after it is playing it. The rule is there for the situation where a player is stood still or not involved in the play.

 

[Beanhead]

Not by the laws of the game...

The ref was right..the law is wrong

No you are completely wrong Simon. Interfering with play includes making movements to the ball that cause a reaction from the opposing players.. he shielded the ball slowed the play, completely draw attention of two City players and the keeper.

If Rashford is not there Eddie is not where he is.. the moment Rashford moves towards the ball it is interference.. fainting a shot is effectively taking the piss out of the rules.

 

[the-ecstacy-of-eight]

As always with you you just cant handle us losing....toys out of pram.

the rule is wrong...the refs interpritation or that wrong rule in this instance is correct as neither the ball is played by Rashford nor does he impede a city defender.

Take it on the chin

* clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent

Is running with the ball (without touching it) in front of him and shaping to shoot not attempting to play a ball which is close to him?

Is our keeper, who prepares himself for the shot not an opponent?

Nowt wrong with the law pal, it's the interpretation which is wrong here.

 

[Beanhead]

No you are completely wrong Simon. Interfering with play includes making movements to the ball that cause a reaction from the opposing players.. he shielded the ball slowed the play, completely draw attention of two City players and the keeper.

If Rashford is not there Eddie is not where he is.. the moment Rashford moves towards the ball it is interference.. fainting a shot is effectively taking the piss out of the rules.

Directly from the FA website.. there go Simon.. explain that one..

• • making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

 

[simon23]

Losing I can take, it’s fucking idiots I struggle with and sadly their will be loads of them on here tonight to keep you company.

You clearly cant take it...calling anyone an idiot who dares to not believe that the refs are deliberately screwing us over (do you believe in lots of conspiracy theories)

You may not like facts but its in black and white in the laws of the game...

The law doesnt account for interfeering with play other than by impeding/blocking/intefering with the movement of the player (defenders).

Ive already said the law is wrong - as for me Rashford DOES interfere with play as he affects the defenders decsions...but this aint in the rules.....and Fernandes certainly aint offside thats for sure.

Whats the excuse for the second goal?

 

[DTKOAG]

Not took him long to influence games...

 

[Don Karleone]

 

[Sky Blue]

Not by the laws of the game...

The ref was right..the law is wrong

Was it fuck right. Only a moron would think otherwise.

 

[Chak19]

You clearly cant take it...calling anyone an idiot who dares to not believe that the refs are deliberately screwing us over (do you believe in lots of conspiracy theories)

You may not like facts but its in black and white in the laws of the game...

The law doesnt account for interfeering with play other than by impeding/blocking/intefering with the movement of the player (defenders).

Ive already said the law is wrong - as for me Rashford DOES interfere with play as he affects the defenders decsions...but this aint in the rules.....and Fernandes certainly aint offside thats for sure.

Whats the excuse for the second goal?

The excuse for the second goal is that it would've never happened if the refs didn't cheat us a few moments earlier.

 

[simon23]

* clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent

Is running with the ball (without touching it) in front of him and shaping to shoot not attempting to play a ball which is close to him? - really good question as for me it is but it is about physically playing the ball or attempting to which he does neither of

Is our keeper, who prepares himself for the shot not an opponent?...yes, but he doesnt intefere with the movement of the keeper (opponent) towards the ball

Nowt wrong with the law pal, it's the interpretation which is wrong here.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

There seem to be more maybe not so important decisions, that the referee took an age to decide, as though he was awaiting instructions

The second Foden offside call was a case in point. I think that was an off-field decision for the lino to put his flag.

 

[cheekybids]

It was fucking bent & teams are aware they can foul at will with no risk of free kicks in dangerous positions or of picking up yellows. Advantage will be played when no striker in the box as they are on their arse.

Casemiro has been given a free pass to never be given a foul against him & Malacio & The fat **** Shaw did the same.

I’ve just heard nonsense on Optus from Gallagher about why it’s allowed. It’s fucking bent & you know it’s bent when you are told something different to what you can see.


Bent, fucking bent!

 

[kippaxwarrior]

Not by the laws of the game...

The ref was right..the law is wrong

The ref was wrong
VAR was wrong
You're wrong

 

[Bill the Blue]

Indefensible, It's fkin bent..

We've been fucked over big time.

Not a fkin cat in hell's chance we'd be given that decision..!

Just to confirm, it's fkin bent..

 

[Jesus H Gabz]

agreed..but he doesnt play the ball which he has to

for me he affects the city defenders decision making but that aint in the rules

What about standing in front of a keepers eyeline in an offside position, but not making a move towards the ball? We’ve seen ample of those over the years, nothing to do with touching the ball