Referees/Officials

[Mikejl]

It isnt poor and it isnt just an off day, its blatant fucking cheating and the less conspicuous way of going about trying to manipulate results.

We have faced it all season long.

This - reffing one team disproportionately to the other for similar conduct is how it gets under the radar - backfired on them yesterday as we got the 2 goals & the Mahrez slip up

 

[waspish]

Any player/manager talking about referees decisions before or after games should be fined and a ban for 1 game a repeat offence by any player from the same team its a bigger fine and 3 game ban for the player or manager a 3rd repeat offence dock the team 1 point plus a fine and a ban again.

 

[Mikejl]

At least he should be neutral in that game, had we (or liverpool) been there it would have been a joke appointment for an 'altrincham' supporter.

I don't give Spurs a prayer, based on Alty boys performance at the Etihad & other Chelsea matches this season, I imagine he is looking forward to a stash more roubles to arrive in an account somewhere

 

[quiet_riot]

Found this amusing:

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

When Pep says the only thing he has to learn about English football is how the referees conduct the game, it shows how he's cottoned on and hopefully will be wised up and find a way to get the players to overcome any injustices we receive during our games next season.

 

[manchester blue]

http://www.skysports.com/football/n...ges-ahead-of-the-201617-premier-league-season

He booked the defender, Jesus should have been allowed to stay on

So thats two of the new rules this idiot got wrong, apart from when Silva argued and was booked. He did nothing when two of their players ran over to the Assistant and argued in his face.

Running to contest decisions, arguing face-to-face with officials, and "visibly disrespectful" actions will result in yellow cards.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

So thats two of the new rules this idiot got wrong, apart from when Silva argued and was booked. He did nothing when two of their players ran over to the Assistant and argued in his face.

Running to contest decisions, arguing face-to-face with officials, and "visibly disrespectful" actions will result in yellow cards providing the culprits are clad top to bottom in sky blue attire.

The last bit explains why we are treated differently.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

I am hoping against hope that for the last home game of the season we have a referee who fully understands the Laws of the Game and has the courage to apply them in the most even-handed way - something which has been conspicuous this season at The Etihad by its clear absence.

But there again, I do believe it's Pawson. Any relation to the Baggies CB? I better stick with 'despair' - hope is getting the better of me!

 

[manchester blue]

The last bit explains why we are treated differently.

I'm grateful he got the two kicks thing right though. That was a good spot from him and one he could have quiet easily turned a blind eye to had he wanted to.

 

[Brendan110_0]

Got the rub of the green for the first time this season, doesn't balance out the bad calls against us though by a fair margin!

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

I'm grateful he got the two kicks thing right though. That was a good spot from him and one he could have quiet easily turned a blind eye to had he wanted to.

He's a pedant. That kind of thing would make his day. I can just imagine him dining out for years on the strength of spotting the double touch. I just wonder how much Willie's histrionics persuaded him to apply the Laws of the Game strictly - and not listen to the jug-eared, crisp-munching Foxes' fan! Willie was quite adamant before the ball hit the netting!

 

[OB1]

Erm, no we weren't. There's no evidence Sterling touched the ball and he wasn't remotely in Schmeichel's line of sight

Correct.

Obviously, he lifts his foot but that does not make him offside if the rules still include (and I think these are latest rules):

"clearly attempting to play a ball which is close to him when this action impacts on an opponent or
making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball"

Sterling's swipe at the ball had no impact: Kasper had already been done and was not unsighted by Raheem.

 

[OB1]

Found this amusing:

That's very funny.

 

[machine9]

One thing I've noticed is if it's a 50/50 decision,or a way to influence the game in a way it benefits the other team these refs are doing it.weve see it all season penners not given ,fouls that give the other team scoring chances.look at silvas booking yesterday no wonder he went mad ,it's a throw in but again the ref gives them another opportunity to score.we see it the players see ,look at the Chelsea home game the sending offs,pure frustration.its just so obviously blatant.

 

[moon]

Mentioned it before but when a player goes of for injury he cant come on till the ball has been played that rule.

It a rule that's always annoyed me
When the injured player is fouled
The one who caused it gets to stay on the pitch giving them an advantage

 

[Centurions]

A player has to be in an offside position, and commit an "offence".

Offside position

Sterling was inches offside, but you need video evidence to be convinced. It's so close I don't think in real time a linesman can give it after all a player is not in an offside position if level, and what is meant by level? Technically no player can ever be level. I am sure you could make an argument to say that a player is level if it is not possible for an observer standing 30 m away on the touchline to determine a difference. A players hands and arms do not come into it. It's the position of the torso.

Offside offence

The relevant part of the rule.....

• clearly attempting to play a ball which is close to him when this action impacts on an opponent or
• making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

I think Sterling attempts to play the ball even though he claims he did not, but did it impact on an opponent? I would say yes to this aspect, but it's clearly open to interpretation.

The view from behind Sterling shows that he was nowhere close to Schmeichel's line of sight and his claims that he obstructed Fuchs path to the ball was laughable as he never even twitched towards it. MotD claimed that if Sterling wasn't there then Schmeichel would have been stood 2 yards to his left, how the hell they came to that conclusion I've no idea.

 

[lasereyes]

We got the better of it. The game was won by a goal and we were wrongly awarded one. Claiming anything else based on the odd free kick or a random booking is laughable.

I assume you are on the pisstake. I hope you are, as this post makes zero sense.

 

[lasereyes]

The view from behind Sterling shows that he was nowhere close to Schmeichel's line of sight and his claims that he obstructed Fuchs path to the ball was laughable as he never even twitched towards it. MotD claimed that if Sterling wasn't there then Schmeichel would have been stood 2 yards to his left, how the hell they came to that conclusion I've no idea.

Agreed - and Sterling or no Sterling, Schmeichel wasn't within a country mile of that shot

 

[Neville Kneville]

Interesting decision in favour of Real Madrid tonight.

Just like the rags, when they need it, they get it.

 

[franksinatra]

Interesting decision in favour of Real Madrid tonight.

Just like the rags, when they need it, they get it.

Kinkladze scored a few like that.