Even if he had got a touch, that would still have been a foul anywhere else on the pitch.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Ref Watch
- Thread starter Chi-town blues
- Start date
Hinchcliffe is so bad, continuously biased against us. He just sucks the life out of the enjoyment of the game, it's all about why the defending was so bad, never about how great the build up and the actual goal was. I know he was a defender but ffs. I suppose it is the sly sports narrative he is expressing.Yes the Fosbury Flop is a good comparison for some divers particularly Salah.
From now on l will be keeping an eye on refs but also commentators who instantly agree with refs decisions benefiting the favoured teams (whether playing or not).
They are in straight away, so emphatic even in unclear or confusing incidents.
Hinchcliffe opened my eyes to this with his instant decisions in the three penalty calls on Wednesday.
There was a slight deviation of the ball. That said there was no clear evidence that the keeper was the cause of this. Just as likely to be the ball hitting a divot in the pitch, which is looking shite at the moment.Fair enough. As I say, to me, it looks like there is a slight deviation in the path of the ball on both clips. If there is one, it must come from the 'keeper.
I'm not going to labour the point further, as I don't want to fall out with anyone over the incident. But the important thing isn't whether or not the goalkeeper touched the ball (something Chris Foy said Moss would have looked for) but whether he committed a foul, which he definitely did.
richardtheref
Well-Known Member
Having met a number of PL officials I would like to think neither but have no idea how to explain it. Would like to think 1 or 2 of them would be saying they thought it was a foul & got out voted. Surely not all of them thought no penalty.Indeed,would you go as far as saying it was cheating or just bias against certain teams ..
Mike Cledford
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2019
- Messages
- 5,248
- Team supported
- Man City
I don't know what's gone wrong with him. It seems to be more than toeing the sly TV line. I had him after scoring the 5th against the rags as my screen saver for ages.Hinchcliffe is so bad, continuously biased against us. He just sucks the life out of the enjoyment of the game, it's all about why the defending was so bad, never about how great the build up and the actual goal was. I know he was a defender but ffs. I suppose it is the sly sports narrative he is expressing.
My concern was that on three occasions he gave his view straightaway and each time in was same as the official decision as confirmed by the officials on and off the pitch. Is that coincidence or more?
Hinchcliffe’s take was that Foden had fallen over without McCarthy touching him, even the official verdict couldn’t run with that one.I don't know what's gone wrong with him. It seems to be more than toeing the sly TV line. I had him after scoring the 5th against the rags as my screen saver for ages.
My concern was that on three occasions he gave his view straightaway and each time in was same as the official decision as confirmed by the officials on and off the pitch. Is that coincidence or more?
richardtheref
Well-Known Member
I have City ladies twice in the FA cup even though the FA fully aware I am a City fan. The 1st time I rang them and was basically told not to tell anyone at the groud & in any case you support City not City ladies.It was very low down the football chain. The game was City Youth v Walsall Youth, maybe in the early nineties. City won 2-0. Lee was chairman at the time. He came into our dressing room, introduced himself, and welcomed us to Maine Road. Nice touch.
The appointment was made by Manchester County FA. There are no club allegiance problems at that level.
I have to believe he just missed the contact at the time. I’m sure he’s watched it back and feels a bit silly now.Hinchcliffe’s take was that Foden had fallen over without McCarthy touching him, even the official verdict couldn’t run with that one.
eastmanc
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2010
- Messages
- 10,238
- Team supported
- Manchester city
He said that he jumped over the tackle, which was plainly not the case. It was ridiculously obvious it was a penalty.Hinchcliffe’s take was that Foden had fallen over without McCarthy touching him, even the official verdict couldn’t run with that one.
crazyg
Well-Known Member
Edited for accuracy.I have to believe he just missed the contact at the time. I’m sure he’s watched it back and feels satisfied now.
gray740
Well-Known Member
Hinchcliffe is so bad, continuously biased against us. He just
But but he's our non bias ex manchester city player representative,the arsed nosed cretin.I have erased his goal from the 5-1 as well the ball bag.cant believe that turd played for us ffs.sucksks the life out of the enjoyment of the game, it's all about why the defending was so bad, never about how great the build up and the actual goal was. I know he was a defender but ffs. I suppose it is the sly sports narrative he is expressing.
I’m guessing he’s gutted. Nobody likes to make a mistake, especially one that has been broadcast to the world. I’d ask City fans to cut him some slack, he represented our club with distinction and scored one of my all time favourite goals. The blame for this lies with the refereeing team.Edited for accuracy.
What, if anything, is the fall out from this for Jon Moss and Andy Madley? Is Moss required to provide some form of explanation as to how and why he managed to detect a slight touch on the ball from their keeper even though he was 35 yards away with an obscured view and, will somebody ask Madley what bit of the footage made him agree? Or, as we all suspect, is it just ignored and everyone moves on as if it never happened? I can't bring myself to believe 'corruption', largely because of the huge number of individuals who would have to be complicit but to dismiss this, and several other incidents this season, as genuine mistakes is equally as difficult to accept.Having met a number of PL officials I would like to think neither but have no idea how to explain it. Would like to think 1 or 2 of them would be saying they thought it was a foul & got out voted. Surely not all of them thought no penalty.
If it was United or Liverpool they would have already received a public apology from PGMOL, and Moss/Madley would be dropped (not that the mistake would have been made in the first place)What, if anything, is the fall out from this for Jon Moss and Andy Madley? Is Moss required to provide some form of explanation as to how and why he managed to detect a slight touch on the ball from their keeper even though he was 35 yards away with an obscured view and, will somebody ask Madley what bit of the footage made him agree? Or, as we all suspect, is it just ignored and everyone moves on as if it never happened? I can't bring myself to believe 'corruption', largely because of the huge number of individuals who would have to be complicit but to dismiss this, and several other incidents this season, as genuine mistakes is equally as difficult to accept.
I've not heard anything that confirms Moss' view on the incident. Everything is speculation about him. One of the panelists said maybe Moss thought their 'keeper got a touch on the ball, but this is just supposition.What, if anything, is the fall out from this for Jon Moss and Andy Madley? Is Moss required to provide some form of explanation as to how and why he managed to detect a slight touch on the ball from their keeper even though he was 35 yards away with an obscured view and, will somebody ask Madley what bit of the footage made him agree? Or, as we all suspect, is it just ignored and everyone moves on as if it never happened? I can't bring myself to believe 'corruption', largely because of the huge number of individuals who would have to be complicit but to dismiss this, and several other incidents this season, as genuine mistakes is equally as difficult to accept.
Moss didn't have a clear view of the impact. He couldn't have had one. He was too far away, and if Macarthy did touch the ball, there is no way Moss saw that.
For me, this is entirely on Madley. There is nothing to say that Moss communicated with him. We only have the TV companies saying this went to review.
Anybody reviewing that can see a foul, from any camera angle. That is all that matters. Moss missed the foul, so it is a clear error, and to almost every person who has seen the incident, an obvious error.
The only person who has said no penalty is Hinchcliffe, and I'm pretty sure he would change his mind given the chance. Even City haters like Walton say it was a penalty. Every football fan of every persuasion says it was a penalty. The incident didn't even need a lot of time for a review. Every camera angle makes it immediately clear, it is a penalty. It doesn't need someone who has played at a high level to see that it was a penalty.
Madley is at fault here. The question now is, was he acting under instruction. The fact that PGMOL have not commented, to me, means that in their eyes he made an honest error, and will not be punished, or be made to attend retraining. It is far more likely that he is acting under instruction (from Dean) to not give us anything. After all, they can always fall back on the old excuse that in their opinion, it wasn't a clear and obvious error. But to us, they are all clearly and obviously bent.
What would be your explanation for how Madley came to the conclusion that it wasn’t a penalty?I've not heard anything that confirms Moss' view on the incident. Everything is speculation about him. One of the panelists said maybe Moss thought their 'keeper got a touch on the ball, but this is just supposition.
Moss didn't have a clear view of the impact. He couldn't have had one. He was too far away, and if Macarthy did touch the ball, there is no way Moss saw that.
For me, this is entirely on Madley. There is nothing to say that Moss communicated with him. We only have the TV companies saying this went to review.
Anybody reviewing that can see a foul, from any camera angle. That is all that matters. Moss missed the foul, so it is a clear error, and to almost every person who has seen the incident, an obvious error.
The only person who has said no penalty is Hinchcliffe, and I'm pretty sure he would change his mind given the chance. Even City haters like Walton say it was a penalty. Every football fan of every persuasion says it was a penalty. The incident didn't even need a lot of time for a review. Every camera angle makes it immediately clear, it is a penalty. It doesn't need someone who has played at a high level to see that it was a penalty.
Madley is at fault here. The question now is, was he acting under instruction. The fact that PGMOL have not commented, to me, means that in their eyes he made an honest error, and will not be punished, or be made to attend retraining. It is far more likely that he is acting under instruction (from Dean) to not give us anything. After all, they can always fall back on the old excuse that in their opinion, it wasn't a clear and obvious error. But to us, they are all clearly and obviously bent.
The line from Sky at the time was that Moss thought he had seen a slight touch on the ball from McCarthy and that VAR couldn't see any evidence to disprove that. That's completely inexplicable in my opinion for all the reasons we've all stated previously. I'm just interested to know what, if any, form of come backs there are for gross incompetence from professional referees. It would appear none.I've not heard anything that confirms Moss' view on the incident. Everything is speculation about him. One of the panelists said maybe Moss thought their 'keeper got a touch on the ball, but this is just supposition.
Moss didn't have a clear view of the impact. He couldn't have had one. He was too far away, and if Macarthy did touch the ball, there is no way Moss saw that.
For me, this is entirely on Madley. There is nothing to say that Moss communicated with him. We only have the TV companies saying this went to review.
Anybody reviewing that can see a foul, from any camera angle. That is all that matters. Moss missed the foul, so it is a clear error, and to almost every person who has seen the incident, an obvious error.
The only person who has said no penalty is Hinchcliffe, and I'm pretty sure he would change his mind given the chance. Even City haters like Walton say it was a penalty. Every football fan of every persuasion says it was a penalty. The incident didn't even need a lot of time for a review. Every camera angle makes it immediately clear, it is a penalty. It doesn't need someone who has played at a high level to see that it was a penalty.
Madley is at fault here. The question now is, was he acting under instruction. The fact that PGMOL have not commented, to me, means that in their eyes he made an honest error, and will not be punished, or be made to attend retraining. It is far more likely that he is acting under instruction (from Dean) to not give us anything. After all, they can always fall back on the old excuse that in their opinion, it wasn't a clear and obvious error. But to us, they are all clearly and obviously bent.
aguero93:20
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2013
- Messages
- 90,256
- Location
- Hunting Cats.
- Team supported
- Some gobshites in day-glo green and black.
Here's your answer to that.Madley is at fault here. The question now is, was he acting under instruction. The fact that PGMOL have not commented, to me, means that in their eyes he made an honest error, and will not be punished, or be made to attend retraining. It is far more likely that he is acting under instruction (from Dean) to not give us anything. After all, they can always fall back on the old excuse that in their opinion, it wasn't a clear and obvious error. But to us, they are all clearly and obviously bent.
NEW 20:00 AVL
Referee: Paul Tierney. Assistants: Ian Hussin, Dan Cook. Fourth official: Andy Madley. VAR: Jarred Gillett. Assistant VAR:
WOL 20:00 LIV
Referee: Craig Pawson. Assistants: Lee Betts, Harry Lennard. Fourth official: Mike Dean. VAR: Andy Madley. Assistant VAR: Darren Cann
Hoping for City to drop points and trying to recreate a title race is the obvious answerWhat would be your explanation for how Madley came to the conclusion that it wasn’t a penalty?
St.Pauli support
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 5,800
He thought about City being top anyway through all the oil money and cheating FFP and about the envelope and then decided Foden is a diving **** trying to cover up his blatant dive by stumbling and playing on.What would be your explanation for how Madley came to the conclusion that it wasn’t a penalty?
Certainly it cannot have anything to do with video footage.