Referees/Officials

[Neville Kneville]

It was very, very subtle, given the final score.....

The final score would not necessarily be the important part, if a ref were being paid off (which I doubt was the case, he just favoured Barca & Bayern because he is a shithouse who bends over for the 'elite').

 

[Terra Passenger]

The final score would not necessarily be the important part, if a ref were being paid off (which I doubt was the case, he just favoured Barca & Bayern because he is a shithouse who bends over for the 'elite').

I actually think that the ref might have been subconsciously in favor of Barca. I also think that it's idiotic for a ref with his prior history of fucking up calls against City should have been referring such an important match.

So... in the end... meh.

BIg fuckup to let this particular ref be in charge of our match against Barca.

Predictably he made several dubious calls.

Unfortunately his bad calls went against City.

And yet we won by a two goal margin.
==========

So now, even though we've won big aginst Barca, the ref is a clear cheat, UEFA is corrupt, and we can't trust any UEFA ref going forard.

Totally avoidable if UEFA management were competant enough to select a different ref - either with no history with Barca/City or with a completely spotless record against these teams.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

It isn't and, most importantly, our club owners know for certain that it isn't so accept it & get over it.

Refs are bent, managers are bent and players are bent. We've had our share of them at City as well.

Might as well chuck it in then and I can't believe you willingly hand over your cash, if you know its all bent.

 

[gazinho]

Yup. He had a clear view of all those decisions and intentionally made biased calls. No chance in hell that he made several mistakes with a poor view. Or that he didn't want to award early yellows and let a clear early yellow go for that reason. After all, no ref has ever, ever, made multiple mistakes in a match - so mistaken calls are clearly out.

Moreover, as a cheater, he was totally inept - could have awarded a penalty for Messi going down in our box - what a terrible call for a cheating ref.

And he could easily have sent Sterling off for several subsequent fouls - holy cow, what an inept cheater!

Yup - it's clear that UEFA has conspired against us and that the ref was totally biased - really lucky that the ref was inept and allowed us to win.

The evidence in favor of the ref being a cheat is overwhelming - bizarre that anyone might conclude otherwise.

This is my favourite part of your one man crusade to defend the worst referee ive ever had the misfortune of attending 2 games he's been 'in charge' of.

I genuinely cant think of any fouls Sterling committed in the whole game even after his booking for having the audacity to be kicked

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Might as well chuck it in then and I can't believe you willingly hand over your cash, if you know its all bent.

I'm not sure why I do either but it's probably because sometimes, like Tuesday night, like the 6-1 of the 5-1 at Norwich in 2012 (when Foy had every intention of doing us over if he could) the shit just doesn't work.

 

[Terra Passenger]

This is my favourite part of your one man crusade to defend the worst referee ive ever had the misfortune of attending 2 games he's been 'in charge' of.

I genuinely cant think of any fouls Sterling committed in the whole game even after his booking for having the audacity to be kicked

:-)

I do seem to be on an island. But I also think that the majority of City fans simply think that the ref had a very bad game but wasn't a cheat.

In the second half, Sterling did commit at least one (and I think actually two or maybe more) clear fouls.

A completely bent ref would have absolutely sent Sterling off after either of these fouls.

 

[Tugay One Cup]

But not sending Sterling off and not awarding a penalty when Messi went down?

In the second half, Sterling did commit at least one (and I think actually two) fouls.

A completely bent ref would have absolutely sent Sterling off after either of these fouls.

There was no foul on Messi and there was no bookable offence by Sterling. Not even borderline.

Do you agree that - hypothetically speaking - if the referee was on the take, the best way to go about securing a result wouldn't be to disallow the other team's goals and to send off their players for no reason?

If someone, somewhere wanted to influence the game, it would throw the entire game into disrepute by being so obviously one sided. It would be far more beneficial to play the long game and not be so explicit so as to keep the wheels turning without drawing so much attention.

Like I stated much earlier in the thread, I'm no conspiracy theorist but all sides must be considered in order to draw any reasonable opinion rather than flat out accusations or flat out denials.

 

[Terra Passenger]

There was no foul on Messi and there was no bookable offence by Sterling. Not even borderline.

Do you agree that - hypothetically speaking - if the referee was on the take, the best way to go about securing a result wouldn't be to disallow the other team's goals and to send off their players for no reason?

If someone, somewhere wanted to influence the game, it would throw the entire game into disrepute by being so obviously one sided. It would be far more beneficial to play the long game and not be so explicit so as to keep the wheels turning without drawing so much attention.

Like I stated much earlier in the thread, I'm no conspiracy theorist but all sides must be considered in order to draw any reasonable opinion rather than flat out accusations or flat out denials.

But there was an opportunity to make a questionable call for a foul against Messi in our box. And Sterling clearly fouled and was called for such.

In both cases, the ref had ample opportunity to make borderline/questionable calls against City - and yet failed to do so.

Let's say I was paying the ref to cheat. Given the non-calls for Messi going down in our box and multiple post-yellow card fouls by Sterling with no sending off - would I be happy with the ref's performance? No way in hell.

If the ref was a cheat - he was a totally incompetent cheat.

 

[gazinho]

:-)

I do seem to be on an island. But I also think that the majority of City fans simply think that the ref had a very bad game but wasn't a cheat.

In the second half, Sterling did commit at least one (and I think actually two or maybe more) clear fouls.

A completely bent ref would have absolutely sent Sterling off after either of these fouls.

I actually dont think he was a cheat, I just think that certain (mainly historically the more successful) teams in the upper echelons of European football get more protection and favourable calls from referee's, just as united seemed to do in the league for many a year.

What I must disagree with though is Sterling didnt commit 1 foul in the second half never mind any he 'could' have been booked for!

 

[Tugay One Cup]

But there was an opportunity to make a questionable call for a foul against Messi in our box. And Sterling clearly fouled and was called for such.

In either case, the ref had ample opportunity to make borderline/questionable calls against City - and yet failed to do so.

Let's say I was paying the ref to cheat. Given the non-calls for Messi going down in our box and multiple post-yellow card fouls by Sterling with no sending off - would I be happy with the ref's performance? No way in hell.

If the ref was a cheat - he was a totally incompetent cheat.

Why would you be paying a single referee to throw just the fourth game of a group that Barca are already topping when that willingness to take bribes could be extended to favour them over the course of the entire competition?

The former would be too risky for little short term gain whereas the latter would give room for subtlety and potentially provide much bigger rewards.

Hypothetically, that is.