United (A) | Post Match Thread

We all the decision is bollox but it’s time to move on and drop it as it’s not gonna any difference but piss us off .
 
HibbertStreetKid said:
If Rashford is not on the scene both Akanji and Ederson get to that ball well before Ratboy - thats inteference. Not took Howard Webbs boys long to work in their favour.
Click to expand...
This.
Why is it so hard for some people to understand.
All this “he didn’t touch the ball bollox “

It matters not that he didn’t touch the ball. His actions there after have affected the play and the only way fernandes was able to score was because of it.
 
I still can't understand the refs take on it
After the linesman has flagged for offside the only conversation he's had with the linesman was did he touch the ball. Now we all know that you don't have to touch it to be offside. So the only way for the ref to know if he was interfering with any player was to go to the screen and look at the different angles
So for me this ref doesn't know the offside rules or he just ignored them
 
Yes it was offside but we need to play well enough so that we don't have to rely on bad referee decisions that can go either way.
Was better than Southampton yesterday but still nowhere near up to our standard and that's all on City.
 
Sir peace frog said:
well what do you expect ,you have been taking the piss for the last 8 hours with your "reasoned debate", every single poster has called you a wum for your opinion,even ric asked you politely to fuck off, if you agree with something that everyone else can see is wrong and not just city fans and then go on about it for 8 hours you're going to get abuse, you aren't having a reasoned debate you actually look like you're wumming , now carry on like you have been doing in a pub and i fancy you would of got a slap, not by me i hastened to add , i'm a lover not a fighter , but nobody likes a know it all who has actually got it totally wrong and doesnt shut up about it.
Click to expand...
Every single poster who called me a WUM oz wrong. My opinion might wind people up but I ain't doing it for that reason. ...
Ric asked me to stop but I disagree...what's the point of ANY forum I'd another opinion cannot be heard and just cause it upsets people that opinion gets shut down....
I also said I'm only answering people's posts so others have a responsibility to stop as well.( I'd people took the time to notice I went onto other topics but lots just jump on a bandwagon and have a go at people as they see others doing)
Been going in pubs for over 35 years....never one fight ( surprising when a lot of those pubs are in Stockport and were absolute shit holes!).
Nothing about being a know-it-all...just an opinion but nothing I've seen or heard has changed my mind...watched the goal over and over again. Listened to the likes of SWP and other pros who think it wasn't a goal...but I disagree when I then go back and read the rules..listened to others read the rules as well.
And that's where the problem lies. The rules are vague.. they allow the goal to stand within those rules due to their vaguity when everyone knows it shouldn't stand which I've repeatedly said but people are choosing to miss....which is why my argument is that the goal is legal by the rules but it shouldn't be. I'd expect to see a change in the rules come about from this
 
Can someone check on a BT recording how long it took for the ref to indicate goal after the event? My thoughts are it was pretty quick and was it time for VAR(if they were actually used) to look at all of the camera angles, as they usually do, to ensure that Rashford didn't actually touch the ball at any stage.
 
mikeyboy said:
Yes it was offside but we need to play well enough so that we don't have to rely on bad referee decisions that can go either way.
Was better than Southampton yesterday but still nowhere near up to our standard and that's all on City.
Click to expand...

Dont agree with that view. You are allowed to win 1-nil. If the game is ref'd fairly we win.
Are you saying City have to win every game by 2 goals because the ref will give the opponents a goal ?
 
OB1 said:
VAR would have looked at it but, as far as we know, chose not to intervene on one of the biggest examples of a clear and obvious error you could wish to see.
Click to expand...
VAR..how manyy games have beniffeted from it v made the gamevworsecand paying fans angrier. If you were a cinema chain put in seats that were meantbto be better but wee clearly shit you'd change back. Why are are we persisting with this shit?
 
mikeyboy said:
Yes it was offside but we need to play well enough so that we don't have to rely on bad referee decisions that can go either way.
Was better than Southampton yesterday but still nowhere near up to our standard and that's all on City.
Click to expand...
That said I still feel we were the better team and didn't deserve to lose that game
 
give it to gordon said:
Dont agree with that view. You are allowed to win 1-nil. If the game is ref'd fairly we win.
Are you saying City have to win every game by 2 goals because the ref will give the opponents a goal ?
Click to expand...
Ageee 100% we were poor 1st half. Much improved second. Went 1 up and controlled the game. Winningb1 nil away to top 4 side. Id take that. We were robbed yesterday
 
hampshireblue said:
Can someone check on a BT recording how long it took for the ref to indicate goal after the event? My thoughts are it was pretty quick and was it time for VAR(if they were actually used) to look at all of the camera angles, as they usually do, to ensure that Rashford didn't actually touch the ball at any stage.
Click to expand...
Don’t think it actually went to VAR, and the referee and linesman just decided it between themselves. You can clearly see the linesman’s arse go when Fernandes started screaming at him, and from that point it was always going to be given.

The goal shouldn’t have been given, but the way we folded after it was awarded was frankly embarrassing.
 
swinton blue said:
I still can't understand the refs take on it
After the linesman has flagged for offside the only conversation he's had with the linesman was did he touch the ball. Now we all know that you don't have to touch it to be offside. So the only way for the ref to know if he was interfering with any player was to go to the screen and look at the different angles
So for me this ref doesn't know the offside rules or he just ignored them
Click to expand...
I can tell you what the refs take on it is . New car , Mortgage paid off, or little holiday cottage/apartment of your choice or all above .
 
Pathetic referring yesterday before watching match of the day was really worried about our chances on goal worried no more wright show six runs haaland made and each time was not played the ball and some easy balls to when he was on the last man and through on goal players need to re watch the match and sometimes play those direct ball's
 
Was discussing game with my lad before started. My prediction was city 1 nil up going into last 20 min, having been kicked all game. Ref sends off city player for 2 soft yellows and gifts United 2 controversial goals.
Can’t believe how wrong I was, he’s never going to let me live it down.

Seriously though, I didn’t watch the game after attwell gave the goal, and I really don’t know when I’ll return to the game I’ve loved and played for more than 50 years. Sad day for me. CTID
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top