Today's referee

[laserblue]

I saw it too, and a very dire performance it was, laughable at times. When you say 'bent performance', how do you mean? What was to be gained by him being bent? Was he Bent towards Chelsea? If so, why? I can't see what he would gain by being bent either way...

As I posted earlier, I simply don't believe anyone reffing at PL level can be that incompetent so you have to wonder what motivation he had to put in a performance like that. Nobody knows why and we can speculate all day long. Maybe it was that he just had it in for City on the day.

If you're so convinced that refs can't be bent what about Lee Mason? He put in some shockingly biased performances when reffing City over he last few years. Twice towards the end of last season he was scheduled to ref City games but pulled out of both at the last minute due to 'family reasons'. However, on at least one of those occasions those family reasons didn't prevent him from reffing another PL game on the same day. On top of that he hasn't reffed a single City game this season.

Prestwich Blue knows the reason why, as well as the reason why Peter Walton suddenly and unexpectedly resigned mid season last year. And if you seriously believe that Walton wasn't bent then you probably also believe a fat bloke in a red suit comes down your chimney on Christmas Eve.

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

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?

it's simple, we have Barry, Yaya and Rodwell. All 3 are the most cynical type of midfielder who trip and push opposition players over to break the play up or because they've been beaten, in the case of Rodwell it's just the case that he has no composure and barges in in ridiculous areas of the pitch and gives silly fouls away.

They really rack up the tally quickly but many with blue specs, as happens up and down the country, don't see anything other than a legbreaker on the opposition as a foul.

 

[moomba]

It is not just the referees that wind me up it is the overall inconsistency that we all have to witness week in week out. They should be made accountable for their decisions and should be made to answer reasons decisions were made on key incidents.
They don’t help themselves and prime example was the Red card at the Capital Cup final. Okay letter of the law says it is a red card. You tell me any true football fan watching that game Swansea coasting it 3-0 up about to get a penalty and Bradford has not had a shot even a corner at that point of the game.
Did he really need to send him off he would have gained and all referees would have gained so much more respect if he had just issued a yellow and came out afterwards and said yes it was a red but why ruin all those fans days further.
Just came across as a right fucking wanker.

But the thing is, his assessors in the stands will be ensuring he is following the letter of the law and had he not, he might not get a final again. He had to send him off, regardless.

which is why both he and Marriner will get good assessor's reports for this weekend despite the fact 99% of blues on here think he was shit.

Marriner won't. I've got no problem with the red card though.

Imagine if he didn't send him off and Bradford somehow got back into the game.

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

But the thing is, his assessors in the stands will be ensuring he is following the letter of the law and had he not, he might not get a final again. He had to send him off, regardless.

which is why both he and Marriner will get good assessor's reports for this weekend despite the fact 99% of blues on here think he was shit.

Marriner won't. I've got no problem with the red card though.

Imagine if he didn't send him off and Bradford somehow got back into the game.

Marriner will if you pay any attention to the Laws of the Game.

 

[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?

it's simple, we have Barry, Yaya and Rodwell. All 3 are the most cynical type of midfielder who trip and push opposition players over to break the play up or because they've been beaten, in the case of Rodwell it's just the case that he has no composure and barges in in ridiculous areas of the pitch and gives silly fouls away.

They really rack up the tally quickly but many with blue specs, as happens up and down the country, don't see anything other than a legbreaker on the opposition as a foul.

I know mate, it's just Matty appeared to be suggesting they are only blowing against us and for reasons which maybe a little suspect.

 

[without a dream]

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?

it's simple, we have Barry, Yaya and Rodwell. All 3 are the most cynical type of midfielder who trip and push opposition players over to break the play up or because they've been beaten, in the case of Rodwell it's just the case that he has no composure and barges in in ridiculous areas of the pitch and gives silly fouls away.

They really rack up the tally quickly but many with blue specs, as happens up and down the country, don't see anything other than a legbreaker on the opposition as a foul.

Bollocks. You get booked almost straight away for those type of fouls, GazBaz does anyway, if they were constantly making them they'd never be on the pitch. Rodwell has played what 3 starts? I think we can discount him from the stats over the entire season.

 

[the originalkippaxman]

But the thing is, his assessors in the stands will be ensuring he is following the letter of the law and had he not, he might not get a final again. He had to send him off, regardless.

which is why both he and Marriner will get good assessor's reports for this weekend despite the fact 99% of blues on here think he was shit.

Marriner won't. I've got no problem with the red card though.

Imagine if he didn't send him off and Bradford somehow got back into the game.

I think there would have been more chance of Jimmy Saville being called as witness for his own court case.

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

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?

it's simple, we have Barry, Yaya and Rodwell. All 3 are the most cynical type of midfielder who trip and push opposition players over to break the play up or because they've been beaten, in the case of Rodwell it's just the case that he has no composure and barges in in ridiculous areas of the pitch and gives silly fouls away.

They really rack up the tally quickly but many with blue specs, as happens up and down the country, don't see anything other than a legbreaker on the opposition as a foul.

Bollocks. You get booked almost straight away for those type of fouls, GazBaz does anyway, if they were constantly making them they'd never be on the pitch. Rodwell has played what 3 starts? I think we can discount him from the stats over the entire season.

we're talking about yesterday which he played in and gave a number of silly fouls away, he was the same v Leeds.

Remember Jones in the Liverpool match where he sent Barry off? he gave him 7 or 8 before getting rid of him that night, was begging Mancini to sub him as you could see it coming a mile off, Prem refs are more lenient than you're taught to be at grass roots for persistent fouling, but ultimately it comes down to the mentality that it's easier to let the game carry on after a niggly foul with a quick freekick than make a big deal out of it and hold the game up and annoy people even more, which is why even at grass roots you tend to be more lenient in your totting up and having a quiet word as opposed to dishing out cards.

 

[mancboy123]

Rodwell got booked for a great slide tackle where he clearly won the ball yesterday and the commentators said well hes been booked because he followed through? Why dont they just go the whole hog and ban slide tackles in the game as thats the way its going!

 

[Klopp Flop]

Bent as fuckk



'Pigeonho' .... Just fuck off to ragcafe pls