Today's referee

[Pigeonho]

Marriner was awful yesterday, properly terrible display.

I have no real arguments with the Kolo Toure or Zabaleta bookings, both were worthy of cards. However in Kolo's case the foul came out of frustration that he didn't get a freekick for yet another foul against him by Ba, who spent the entire game fouling the City centre halves without being pulled up for it.

Rodwell's booking was a joke. He was warned earlier for cleanly winning the ball in a tackle and then was booked for failing to connect with Ivanovic who was throwing himself to the floor.

The penalty I don't have much issues with, I felt it was pretty clear and we'd have been screaming for it if it was the other way round. So, no, no issue with the penalty itself. What I do have an issue with is that the play reached that point and allowed Hart to bring Ba down. Ba was all over Kolo Toure when the ball was lumped over his head, something which seems to have been ignored by virtually eveyone in the media. He had his arms over his shoulders as they turned to chase the ball, and he was clearly impeding Toure, which allowed him to get past and into the box, yet another Marriner error.

The final statistics, if you believe the BBC Website, were that possession yesterday finished at 50% each. Now, given we had the same amount of the ball as Chelsea, and we were the ones who clearly played far better, creating more chances and winning the game, you'd be forgiven for thinking, at worse, the foul count would have been pretty even. No, Chelsea committed just 5 fouls during the 90 minutes compared with City's 19! Sky had similar stats, with Chelsea shading possession 53% to 47% but City "winning" the fouls count hands down by 20 fouls to 5!

So are you saying the stats are manipulated for some reason? If so, why? Why would they do that? What is to gain?

 

[BigBarry]

Embarrassing this lot

It makes you wonder how totally incompetent these referees really are along with their assistants.

According to you lot they are givin a simple directive that we don't win and yet even when they have a perfect excuse to reduce us to 10 men at 0-0 they don't.

Cringing.....

 

[Matty]

Marriner was awful yesterday, properly terrible display.

I have no real arguments with the Kolo Toure or Zabaleta bookings, both were worthy of cards. However in Kolo's case the foul came out of frustration that he didn't get a freekick for yet another foul against him by Ba, who spent the entire game fouling the City centre halves without being pulled up for it.

Rodwell's booking was a joke. He was warned earlier for cleanly winning the ball in a tackle and then was booked for failing to connect with Ivanovic who was throwing himself to the floor.

The penalty I don't have much issues with, I felt it was pretty clear and we'd have been screaming for it if it was the other way round. So, no, no issue with the penalty itself. What I do have an issue with is that the play reached that point and allowed Hart to bring Ba down. Ba was all over Kolo Toure when the ball was lumped over his head, something which seems to have been ignored by virtually eveyone in the media. He had his arms over his shoulders as they turned to chase the ball, and he was clearly impeding Toure, which allowed him to get past and into the box, yet another Marriner error.

The final statistics, if you believe the BBC Website, were that possession yesterday finished at 50% each. Now, given we had the same amount of the ball as Chelsea, and we were the ones who clearly played far better, creating more chances and winning the game, you'd be forgiven for thinking, at worse, the foul count would have been pretty even. No, Chelsea committed just 5 fouls during the 90 minutes compared with City's 19! Sky had similar stats, with Chelsea shading possession 53% to 47% but City "winning" the fouls count hands down by 20 fouls to 5!

So are you saying the stats are manipulated for some reason? If so, why? Why would they do that? What is to gain?

What I'm saying is that when a game is even in terms of possession, and one team is better than the other, that it seems highly unlikely that the better side will outfoul the other by a ratio of 4 to 1. Yet that's what the BBC and Sky say. Do I think they manipulated the stats? Of course not. Do I think the referee manipulated the game by consistently giving fouls against city for "dubious" reasons? Yes. What his potives were is open to debate.

 

[Pigeonho]

Marriner was awful yesterday, properly terrible display.

I have no real arguments with the Kolo Toure or Zabaleta bookings, both were worthy of cards. However in Kolo's case the foul came out of frustration that he didn't get a freekick for yet another foul against him by Ba, who spent the entire game fouling the City centre halves without being pulled up for it.

Rodwell's booking was a joke. He was warned earlier for cleanly winning the ball in a tackle and then was booked for failing to connect with Ivanovic who was throwing himself to the floor.

The penalty I don't have much issues with, I felt it was pretty clear and we'd have been screaming for it if it was the other way round. So, no, no issue with the penalty itself. What I do have an issue with is that the play reached that point and allowed Hart to bring Ba down. Ba was all over Kolo Toure when the ball was lumped over his head, something which seems to have been ignored by virtually eveyone in the media. He had his arms over his shoulders as they turned to chase the ball, and he was clearly impeding Toure, which allowed him to get past and into the box, yet another Marriner error.

The final statistics, if you believe the BBC Website, were that possession yesterday finished at 50% each. Now, given we had the same amount of the ball as Chelsea, and we were the ones who clearly played far better, creating more chances and winning the game, you'd be forgiven for thinking, at worse, the foul count would have been pretty even. No, Chelsea committed just 5 fouls during the 90 minutes compared with City's 19! Sky had similar stats, with Chelsea shading possession 53% to 47% but City "winning" the fouls count hands down by 20 fouls to 5!

So are you saying the stats are manipulated for some reason? If so, why? Why would they do that? What is to gain?

What I'm saying is that when a game is even in terms of possession, and one team is better than the other, that it seems highly unlikely that the better side will outfoul the other by a ratio of 4 to 1. Yet that's what the BBC and Sky say. Do I think they manipulated the stats? Of course not. Do I think the referee manipulated the game by consistently giving fouls against city for "dubious" reasons? Yes. What his potives were is open to debate.

He had a stinker, and i'd say that's pretty much all it was, a stinker. He could easily have had a stinker and gave us dubious decisions our way, but he didn't. Had it been Arsenal v Southampton yesterday, for example, and he had reffed just as bad, what would his motives have been then? There's no reason for him to have given us a shit game yesterday, none that I can think of anyway. Can you think of any?

 

[Matty]

I've had a spare few minutes so looked into City's stats for the season. These show clearly that 1 of 2 things must be true. Either:-

A - Manchester City are one of the dirtiest, cynical sides in the Premier League.

or

B - Manchester City are extremely harshly treated by the refereeing fraternity, for some reason.

We have played 27 league games this season, in that time we have committed 327 fouls (all figures courtesy of the BBC) whereas we have only been fouled against on 243 occasions. Given our possession stats over that time (I don't have a breakdown here but suffice to say we tend to have more possession than the opponent) this seems high. To look at it another way, in those 27 games we have committed more fouls than the opponent on 18 occasions, with the opponent committing more fouls than us on just 6 occasions (with 3 occasions the foul count was even). On only 6 occasions have we committed less than 10 fouls in a game, whereas our opponents have committed less than 10 fouls against us on 16 occasions. On 7 occasions we have committed 15 or more fouls, only Reading have committed 15 or more fouls against City all season (and we still managed to commit 11 fouls that game, despite having more than 60% possession).

So, is it the case that everyone else is playing Gary Lineker football whereas we're Chopper Harris? Or is it that referees seem to have a desire to blow the whistle when we put in a challenge, but not when our opponent does so?

 

[MSP]

He couldn't wait to point to the spot but if he'd red carded Hart he'd have been subject to serious media scrutiny and Hart would 100% have had the red card rescinded.

Red cards are rescinded only for serious foul play that were wrong decisions. No chance Hart's one would be rescinded if it happened. It would be one game suspension.

 

[Pigeonho]

I've had a spare few minutes so looked into City's stats for the season. These show clearly that 1 of 2 things must be true. Either:-

A - Manchester City are one of the dirtiest, cynical sides in the Premier League.

or

B - Manchester City are extremely harshly treated by the refereeing fraternity, for some reason.

We have played 27 league games this season, in that time we have committed 327 fouls (all figures courtesy of the BBC) whereas we have only been fouled against on 243 occasions. Given our possession stats over that time (I don't have a breakdown here but suffice to say we tend to have more possession than the opponent) this seems high. To look at it another way, in those 27 games we have committed more fouls than the opponent on 18 occasions, with the opponent committing more fouls than us on just 6 occasions (with 3 occasions the foul count was even). On only 6 occasions have we committed less than 10 fouls in a game, whereas our opponents have committed less than 10 fouls against us on 16 occasions. On 7 occasions we have committed 15 or more fouls, only Reading have committed 15 or more fouls against City all season (and we still managed to commit 11 fouls that game, despite having more than 60% possession).

So, is it the case that everyone else is playing Gary Lineker football whereas we're Chopper Harris? Or is it that referees seem to have a desire to blow the whistle when we put in a challenge, but not when our opponent does so?

It's all well and good pointing the stats out, but what I want to know is why they would do this, the refs I mean. If the stats are true and they are blowing against us more than they do for us, why are they doing that?

 

[bernabias home shirt]

I've had a spare few minutes so looked into City's stats for the season. These show clearly that 1 of 2 things must be true. Either:-

A - Manchester City are one of the dirtiest, cynical sides in the Premier League.

or

B - Manchester City are extremely harshly treated by the refereeing fraternity, for some reason.

We have played 27 league games this season, in that time we have committed 327 fouls (all figures courtesy of the BBC) whereas we have only been fouled against on 243 occasions. Given our possession stats over that time (I don't have a breakdown here but suffice to say we tend to have more possession than the opponent) this seems high. To look at it another way, in those 27 games we have committed more fouls than the opponent on 18 occasions, with the opponent committing more fouls than us on just 6 occasions (with 3 occasions the foul count was even). On only 6 occasions have we committed less than 10 fouls in a game, whereas our opponents have committed less than 10 fouls against us on 16 occasions. On 7 occasions we have committed 15 or more fouls, only Reading have committed 15 or more fouls against City all season (and we still managed to commit 11 fouls that game, despite having more than 60% possession).

So, is it the case that everyone else is playing Gary Lineker football whereas we're Chopper Harris? Or is it that referees seem to have a desire to blow the whistle when we put in a challenge, but not when our opponent does so?

It's all well and good pointing the stats out, but what I want to know is why they would do this, the refs I mean. If the stats are true and they are blowing against us more than they do for us, why are they doing that?

Come on pige you know why :)

 

[Matty]

I've had a spare few minutes so looked into City's stats for the season. These show clearly that 1 of 2 things must be true. Either:-

A - Manchester City are one of the dirtiest, cynical sides in the Premier League.

or

B - Manchester City are extremely harshly treated by the refereeing fraternity, for some reason.

We have played 27 league games this season, in that time we have committed 327 fouls (all figures courtesy of the BBC) whereas we have only been fouled against on 243 occasions. Given our possession stats over that time (I don't have a breakdown here but suffice to say we tend to have more possession than the opponent) this seems high. To look at it another way, in those 27 games we have committed more fouls than the opponent on 18 occasions, with the opponent committing more fouls than us on just 6 occasions (with 3 occasions the foul count was even). On only 6 occasions have we committed less than 10 fouls in a game, whereas our opponents have committed less than 10 fouls against us on 16 occasions. On 7 occasions we have committed 15 or more fouls, only Reading have committed 15 or more fouls against City all season (and we still managed to commit 11 fouls that game, despite having more than 60% possession).

So, is it the case that everyone else is playing Gary Lineker football whereas we're Chopper Harris? Or is it that referees seem to have a desire to blow the whistle when we put in a challenge, but not when our opponent does so?

It's all well and good pointing the stats out, but what I want to know is why they would do this, the refs I mean. If the stats are true and they are blowing against us more than they do for us, why are they doing that?

I'm not sure why you think I would know the answer to that. I'm sure there are numerous reasons, ranging from our "tactics" looking clumsy at one end of the spectrum (therefore a 100% innocent reason) through to guidance from above to punish Manchester City football club for the perceived way we have "changed" football and "bought" the title (therefore a 100% corrupt reason). I'm not saying I believe either of these extremes is true, however what I do believe is that Manchester City are not a cynical, dirty side who foul the opponent as a tactical way to gain an advantage.

 

[the-ecstacy-of-eight]

Had it been Arsenal v Southampton yesterday, for example, and he had reffed just as bad, what would his motives have been then?

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue

What you've said is all IFs & BUTs isn't it. He didn't do as you said, he refereed us, and he had an absolute shocker, bemusing many, many people with his totally inconsistent decisions, which mainly went in the opposition's favour.

As for reasons and motives, who knows...
Perhaps he favours United and wants them to win by a landslide.
Perhaps he simply just doesn't like City
Perhaps he doesn't like the fact that City have gatecrashed the party and thinks it'd be a giggle if we didn't make the top 4.
Perhaps he's just a bit of a tw@t and likes to wind people up?

Who knows

The consistent inconsistency of some of the refs we've had this season make me think that something smells rotten in Denmark, maybe it's somebody's feet or maybe it's a rotten fish, who knows?