Ref Watch

Trevor Morley's Tache said:
By far the easiest way to cover up corruption is to convince people you are just incompetent.

If the PiGMOL want to try and sweep this under the carpet, they'll blame him 100% and demote him to the lower leagues. Let's wait and see, but their next course of action will be VERY telling.
Click to expand...
They'll do fuck all, think they're above reproach.
Never complain, never explain.
 
Dave Ewing's Back 'eader said:
PiGMOL will always have an 'interpretation' or explanation as to why a player is offside this week but not the week before, and vice versa. The only 'black 'n white' that remains of the LotG is where PiGMOL will tell you that black is white and white can occasionally be black!
Click to expand...
Yip spot on,simply they move the goalposts when it suits and to explain away any controversial decisions,we have seen and heard it all before and it will continue to happen..
 
If it happened at the other end, in our favour, there would already be a rule change announced.
Amazing isnt it, how all contentious decisions in our games v Dippers, Rags always go against us. Remember the pathetically soft penalty Oliver gave them at ours in the 6-3 and our ruled out goal at Anfield
 
Dave Ewing's Back 'eader said:
PiGMOL will always have an 'interpretation' or explanation as to why a player is offside this week but not the week before, and vice versa. The only 'black 'n white' that remains of the LotG is where PiGMOL will tell you that black is white and white can occasionally be black!
Click to expand...
Penalty decisions especially can be explained any way you like.

For example Peter Walton is particularly insistent on arguing black is white and white is black. In one case a couple of years ago I recall his explanation of justifying a certain decision was to describe what we saw as an optical illusion. Perhaps that's what happened with Rasfords offside. It was an optical illusion and if we wore red tinted glasses we would see it was not offside,?
 
Tommy_Catons_Perm said:
Penalty decisions especially can be explained any way you like.

For example Peter Walton is particularly insistent on arguing black is white and white is black. In one case a couple of years ago I recall his explanation of justifying a certain decision was to describe what we saw as an optical illusion. Perhaps that's what happened with Rasfords offside. It was an optical illusion and if we wore red tinted glasses we would see it was not offside,?
Click to expand...
Using the likes of Walton and other ex referees as the go to for a rational and objective explanation is a waste of time.
They'll use phrases like "subjective", "open to interpretation" and "grey area" to try and explain away gaffs by their mates.
The laws are objective and the easiest way to get an answer is to read them.
When Rodri came from an offside position and tackled Mings to set up Bernardo against Villa a couple of years back, Walton said live on air that the laws said this shouldn't have stood when the laws (at the time) said that it should.
If Walton told me water was wet I'd ask for a second opinion.
There was a big outcry and the law was changed mid season.
Law 11 about offside is objective and that "goal" on Saturday should never have stood based on this. The issue is Attwell failed to apply these
 
blueinsa said:
He now says it was the wrong decision and he wouldn’t have given it.

Of course, we all know whatever they are told to do via the earpiece is why they actually do!

Cheating bastards.

I’m getting angrier and angrier about this as the hours go by.
Click to expand...
Is there a link that shows him changing his opinion please mate?
 
blueinsa said:
He now says it was the wrong decision and he wouldn’t have given it.

Of course, we all know whatever they are told to do via the earpiece is why they actually do!

Cheating bastards.

I’m getting angrier and angrier about this as the hours go by.
Click to expand...
Like Taylor at the Etihad v Chelsea Pre-VAR when he put his finger to his ear before reaching for a card?
 
Several years ago shortly after Clattenberg had retired as a PL ref he was back up in his native North East flashing off a £20k plus watch to all and sundry. A friend of mine asked him how he got it and he said Sir Alex Fergusson gave it to him. Why would he be the recipient of such a watch. The mind boggles.
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
Several years ago shortly after Clattenberg had retired as a PL ref he was back up in his native North East flashing off a £20k plus watch to all and sundry. A friend of mine asked him how he got it and he said Sir Alex Fergusson gave it to him. Why would he be the recipient of such a watch. The mind boggles.
Click to expand...

For blowing up a minute early in the 6-1 game, before it got embarrassing?
 
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.
 
HypnoticBlue said:
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.
Click to expand...
You don’t need City, just twat those that are in range, forget about those out of.
 
Has the FA not charged us with surrounding the ref or whatever because even they can sympathize with just how shafted we were?
 
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
 
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

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.
www.espn.co.uk 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.
 
SebastianBlue said:
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

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.
www.espn.co.uk 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.
Click to expand...

Wtf ? When being so far offside becomes the reason to allow it.
 
SebastianBlue said:
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

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.
www.espn.co.uk 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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Dethred said:
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
www.skysports.com www.skysports.com
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top