pride in battle
Well-Known Member
No...
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.
The Stones Goal
- Thread starter MCFC1993
- Start date
abu13
Well-Known Member
Rag i know messaged me to say there is a well known conspiricy to ensure City win 5 titles on the trot, he then went on to say that it wont matter anyway when we are found guilty of the 115 and thrown out of the league.
So the same organisation that has charged us with 115 charges is also conspiring to ensure we win the league?
Is anyone else struggling with his logic?
So the same organisation that has charged us with 115 charges is also conspiring to ensure we win the league?
Is anyone else struggling with his logic?
mexico1970
Well-Known Member
Rag i know messaged me to say there is a well known conspiricy to ensure City win 5 titles on the trot, he then went on to say that it wont matter anyway when we are found guilty of the 115 and thrown out of the league.
So the same organisation that has charged us with 115 charges is also conspiring to ensure we win the league?
Is anyone else struggling with his logic?
The force is strong with that fuckin' genius mate :)
Tricky_Trev
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 32,191
I honestly think the focus would be on the poor goalkeeping.I think it's a goal but let's be honest, loads of people on here would be complaining if it was given against us.
Gray
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 May 2004
- Messages
- 25,081
- Team supported
- ABU & The Bus Wreckers
Logic and Rag fans doesn't quite ring true does it?Rag i know messaged me to say there is a well known conspiricy to ensure City win 5 titles on the trot, he then went on to say that it wont matter anyway when we are found guilty of the 115 and thrown out of the league.
So the same organisation that has charged us with 115 charges is also conspiring to ensure we win the league?
Is anyone else struggling with his logic?
citizen_maine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 May 2011
- Messages
- 13,553
You lost me at "Rag I know..."Rag i know messaged me to say there is a well known conspiricy to ensure City win 5 titles on the trot, he then went on to say that it wont matter anyway when we are found guilty of the 115 and thrown out of the league.
So the same organisation that has charged us with 115 charges is also conspiring to ensure we win the league?
Is anyone else struggling with his logic?
Bournemouth Blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Mar 2015
- Messages
- 1,943
Well the Rags are doing their best to stay out of the title race, so maybe they are part of the conspiracy
sandiegoblue
Well-Known Member
Looks to me like the goalie had a little push on Bernie which must be OK, and also the goalie knows he’s fucked up in not coming for the cross. He just lays there as a beaten man with no complaints whatsoever.
It's definitely not offside.
Did Bernardo foul Sa in the split second whilst the ball was in play, before Stones headed the ball? Probably not. He may have impeded him slightly, but also, Sa pushed Bernardo, so it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. Plus in the light of Arsenal's regular tactics, Bernardo can't be penalised due to precedent. So no foul. Therefore it's a goal.
The thing that gets me is when was the onfield decision arrived at that the goal shouldn't stand. The linesman didn't raise his flag for at least four seconds after the goal was scored. (He went out of shot after four seconds on the only footage I've seen). If he truly thought there was an active offside, he would have flagged instinctively, and immediately. It smacks of a collaborative decision - or an instruction.
That decision was easily and correctly overturned, but it's far more common to go with the onfield decision, saying "there wasn't enough in it".
To me, it seems they gave themselves the best opportunity to disallow the goal.
As for O'Neill saying Manchester City receive favourable decisions, he surely must realise the ridiculousness of that comment. We are hated by the PL, PGMOL, most clubs and their fans, broadcasters, all other media and anyone else I may not have mentioned.
Did Bernardo foul Sa in the split second whilst the ball was in play, before Stones headed the ball? Probably not. He may have impeded him slightly, but also, Sa pushed Bernardo, so it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. Plus in the light of Arsenal's regular tactics, Bernardo can't be penalised due to precedent. So no foul. Therefore it's a goal.
The thing that gets me is when was the onfield decision arrived at that the goal shouldn't stand. The linesman didn't raise his flag for at least four seconds after the goal was scored. (He went out of shot after four seconds on the only footage I've seen). If he truly thought there was an active offside, he would have flagged instinctively, and immediately. It smacks of a collaborative decision - or an instruction.
That decision was easily and correctly overturned, but it's far more common to go with the onfield decision, saying "there wasn't enough in it".
To me, it seems they gave themselves the best opportunity to disallow the goal.
As for O'Neill saying Manchester City receive favourable decisions, he surely must realise the ridiculousness of that comment. We are hated by the PL, PGMOL, most clubs and their fans, broadcasters, all other media and anyone else I may not have mentioned.