Stephen230
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2022
- Messages
- 7,351
- Team supported
- MCFC
For blowing up a minute early in the 6-1 game, before it got embarrassing?
Ref Watch
- Thread starter Chi-town blues
- Start date
For blowing up a minute early in the 6-1 game, before it got embarrassing?
HypnoticBlue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2014
- Messages
- 1,023
So MOTD concluded it was a ridiculous decision and it was offside, and today DG said it was offside, and they all had a laugh about it, and every rag I have spoken to since have all said obviously it was offside haha. And at my sons football practice tonight one of his coaches who is a rag agreed and when i said I'm pretty much done with watching it anymore as it's pointless and obviously corrupt as its just about money and selling the PL brand, his reply was "its always been about the money".
If you had a business and your staff were as bad as the officiating appears to be then you'd be out of business or you'd sack em' all and get new staff, so the PL & FA & PiGMOL aren't incompetent they are quite clearly bent and corrupt and just use all the tools at their disposal, VAR and other bullshit statements after an iffy decision so they can justify it, or if they can't then just shrug their shoulders and say it's one of those subjective ones that could go either way, except it never does goes the other way does it.
Our owners should be shouting from the highest point about how unjust it is and that they'd be looking into legal proceedings against the so called officials and the hapless decisions, rather than just getting drybümmed again.
Come on City ffs sort out this bunch of corrupt w4nkers once and for all.
If you had a business and your staff were as bad as the officiating appears to be then you'd be out of business or you'd sack em' all and get new staff, so the PL & FA & PiGMOL aren't incompetent they are quite clearly bent and corrupt and just use all the tools at their disposal, VAR and other bullshit statements after an iffy decision so they can justify it, or if they can't then just shrug their shoulders and say it's one of those subjective ones that could go either way, except it never does goes the other way does it.
Our owners should be shouting from the highest point about how unjust it is and that they'd be looking into legal proceedings against the so called officials and the hapless decisions, rather than just getting drybümmed again.
Come on City ffs sort out this bunch of corrupt w4nkers once and for all.
The Future’s Blue!
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 Dec 2019
- Messages
- 10,531
- Team supported
- City
You don’t need City, just twat those that are in range, forget about those out of.
eyalluvitt
Well-Known Member
Our 800 lawyers should be taken of FFP duty and go on the offensive with the PL , demanding either a point because corrupt officiating or replay the last 10 mins at an empty Trafihad with us allowed to play all 8 of our defenders
SebastianBlue
President, International Julian Alvarez Fan Club
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 57,003
We can count ESPN and Dale Johnson among the football industrial complex that has been mobilise to justify and legitimise Atwell’s decision to give United’s offside goal.
www.espn.co.uk
Apparently Akanji was “never within playing distance of the ball” and Rashford’s positioning had no impact on Akanji, whilst everything else was in keeping with the laws of the game.
The gas has been turned up well beyond the lights’ operating thresholds for this farce.
The VAR Review: Unpacking Marcus Rashford's offside in Manchester derby
A look at the big VAR rulings in the Premier League, with the controversial decision not to give Marcus Rashford offside the headline.
Apparently Akanji was “never within playing distance of the ball” and Rashford’s positioning had no impact on Akanji, whilst everything else was in keeping with the laws of the game.
The gas has been turned up well beyond the lights’ operating thresholds for this farce.
cheekybids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 10,169
We can count ESPN and Dale Johnson among the football industrial complex that has been mobilise to justify and legitimise Atwell’s decision to give United’s offside goal.
The VAR Review: Unpacking Marcus Rashford's offside in Manchester derby
A look at the big VAR rulings in the Premier League, with the controversial decision not to give Marcus Rashford offside the headline.
Apparently Akanji was “never within playing distance of the ball” and Rashford’s positioning had no impact on Akanji, whilst everything else was in keeping with the laws of the game.
The gas has been turned up well beyond the lights’ operating thresholds for this farce.
Wtf ? When being so far offside becomes the reason to allow it.
Shocking that this twat actually came to the right conclusion.
www.skysports.com
Ref Watch: Should Bruno Fernandes' goal have stood against Manchester City? Dermot Gallagher's verdict
Bruno Fernandes equalising goal in the Manchester derby was allowed to stand despite Marcus Rashford appearing to interfere with play from an offside position; Referee Stuart Attwell deliberated over the decision with VAR Michael Oliver for 60 seconds before awarding the goal
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 11,616
We can count ESPN and Dale Johnson among the football industrial complex that has been mobilise to justify and legitimise Atwell’s decision to give United’s offside goal.
The VAR Review: Unpacking Marcus Rashford's offside in Manchester derby
A look at the big VAR rulings in the Premier League, with the controversial decision not to give Marcus Rashford offside the headline.
Apparently Akanji was “never within playing distance of the ball” and Rashford’s positioning had no impact on Akanji, whilst everything else was in keeping with the laws of the game.
The gas has been turned up well beyond the lights’ operating thresholds for this farce.
I used to read Johnson's articles to get an unbiased view on controversial decisions, but really he is just an intellectual Peter Walton. They all seem to forget that Ederson is an "opponent" "attempting to play the ball" by positioning himself for a shot from Rashford. What else do they expect him to do? Rush out and clear the ball and Rashford out safe in the knowledge that he is offside? Yeah right. Play to the whistle they tell you. They expect him to have one eye on Rashford and one on Fernandes so he can react to both? On what planet?
Johnson: "The real case for discussion is about Ederson, and whether his actions would have changed had Rashford not been there. Perhaps, but Rashford doesn't impact the goalkeeper's ability to come and play the ball. He may affect his choice to do so, and how he might shape for a save, but the law doesn't discuss how a player might behave differently if the offside player isn't present; it only discusses the ability of an opponent to play the ball."
Ederson's problem was Rashford in any goalkeeping scenario, he is quite rightly looking right at him and positioning himself to save the shot. That is all his ability as a goalkeeper can allow him to do in that situation. Rashford shouldn't have been there, then his ability as a goalkeeper would allowed him to rush out and clear. The mind really boggles that they can't get their heads around this.
Still fuming.
SebastianBlue
President, International Julian Alvarez Fan Club
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 57,003
The decision was so bad not even Dermot ‘I think he got it about right, and here’s my nonsensical explanation for why’ Gallagher could support it.Shocking that this twat actually came to the right conclusion.
Ref Watch: Should Bruno Fernandes' goal have stood against Manchester City? Dermot Gallagher's verdict
Bruno Fernandes equalising goal in the Manchester derby was allowed to stand despite Marcus Rashford appearing to interfere with play from an offside position; Referee Stuart Attwell deliberated over the decision with VAR Michael Oliver for 60 seconds before awarding the goal