United (N) | FA Cup Final | Post-Match Thread

Franny 1234 said:
For all you Blues who was worried about Rags kicking off with us.
No need to worry.
We parked 30 mins away from stadium at the east side (Rags end) walking through 1000's of Rags. Received a few snide comments but nothing intimidating. The atmosphere wasn't anything like our previous encounters with them. Nothing like the Villa scum a few visits ago.
THE CITY IS BLUE CTID
Click to expand...
Someone I know was in Kilburn with his girlfriend and they copped a shit load of abuse off the Rags there - she apparently gave as good as she got back to them. I'm not sure why they ended up in Kilburn as that's proper Rag Central territory. We came via Watford on the Overground which was the natural way in for our fans so the train we got had far more blues than reds. Was a fair bit of banter between both sets of fans but nothing too nasty. A couple of mates who did that same train journey but about half an hour later said it was mainly City coming out of Watford but when it stopped at South Kenton, a load of Rags who had been drinking in The Windermere pub got on and all of a sudden they were outnumbering City. Again a lot of chanting but no punches thrown or anything. We also saw a couple of hundred United being escorted round to their end when we were walking up to the stadium. One of them started gobbing off when he was a safe distance away.

In fact, the worst incident I saw all day was from our own fans. Walking out of Wembley and down what I think was South Way, a couple of United fans were coming the other way and were getting shit loads of abuse and stuff thrown at them. It petered out before I could get over and try to stop it but it was bang out of order as they weren't inciting anything. Me and this bloke - who actually looked a bit of a hooligan type - were just shaking our heads and saying there was no need for it.
 
Plays By Sense Of Smell said:
It depends on what the core of the problem is, and it would appear to me that the subjective nature of intent/advantage is the thing- creating inconsistency and suggestions of bias/differing treatment (and indeed opening up the opportunity for it).

Simplify based on fact: Every contact with a hand is a penalty. Intentional or accidental, tough titty. It's a lot easier to 'interpret' consistently.
Click to expand...
Agreed. HOWEVER we tried this method & there were howls of complaints, no less from City fans where a ball struck Otamendi's hand which was by his side in a CL match, which cost us a penalty & the game IIRC.

The game's governing body changed the rules again & now we're at the "arm in a natural/unnatural position" rule. \0/

Whatever suggestions have been put forward, they're fraught with issues. With the natural/unnatural position, it's natural to raise your arm whilst jumping to gain leverage & for balance, so arms being up in the air whilst jumping is natural.

Again, we had a penalty appeal denied because the covering defender was running parallel to an attacker & when the cross was made it struck the arm of the defender.

It was interpreted that the defender's arm was in a natural position for someone running at full pelt, & the proximity of the shot to the arm was way too close for the defender to do anything about it.

It was also said it was "ball to hand, NOT hand to ball" & it was the opinion of VAR there was no handball intent which is all about interpretation & opinion.

I've honestly no idea how we resolve this to everyone's satisfaction. We're having this discussion because of the penalty awarded against Jack, but as soon as I saw the replay, I knew it was a penalty by the letter of the current law.

Now if we were 1-0 down in a final & it was Walker heading the ball across ManUre's area & it similarly struck Sancho's hand, we'd be fuckin livid & claiming PiGMOL had a CONspiracy against us if they never applied the letter of the law & awarded the penalty!

I've no idea how this can be resolved. The penalty award was harsh because what else was Jack supposed to do?
 
Dribble said:
Agreed. HOWEVER we tried this method & there were howls of complaints, no less from City fans where a ball struck Otamendi's hand which was by his side in a CL match, which cost us a penalty & the game IIRC.

The game's governing body changed the rules again & now we're at the "arm in a natural/unnatural position" rule. \0/

Whatever suggestions have been put forward, they're fraught with issues. With the natural/unnatural position, it's natural to raise your arm whilst jumping to gain leverage & for balance, so arms being up in the air whilst jumping is natural.

Again, we had a penalty appeal denied because the covering defender was running parallel to an attacker & when the cross was made it struck the arm of the defender.

It was interpreted that the defender's arm was in a natural position for someone running at full pelt, & the proximity of the shot to the arm was way too close for the defender to do anything about it.

It was also said it was "ball to hand, NOT hand to ball" & it was the opinion of VAR there was no handball intent which is all about interpretation & opinion.

I've honestly no idea how we resolve this to everyone's satisfaction. We're having this discussion because of the penalty awarded against Jack, but as soon as I saw the replay, I knew it was a penalty by the letter of the current law.

Now if we were 1-0 down in a final & it was Walker heading the ball across ManUre's area & it similarly struck Sancho's hand, we'd be fuckin livid & claiming PiGMOL had a CONspiracy against us if they never applied the letter of the law & awarded the penalty!

I've no idea how this can be resolved. The penalty award was harsh because what else was Jack supposed to do?
Click to expand...
Added to the absolute farce of the one against Akanji in the Bayern game too.
Yes, we seem at times to be the only team that are strictly officiated in line with the current and yet to be adapted lotg.
Still, at least the one we ‘got away with’ Rodri at Everton evens it all out.
 
Dribble said:
Agreed. HOWEVER we tried this method & there were howls of complaints, no less from City fans where a ball struck Otamendi's hand which was by his side in a CL match, which cost us a penalty & the game IIRC.

The game's governing body changed the rules again & now we're at the "arm in a natural/unnatural position" rule. \0/

Whatever suggestions have been put forward, they're fraught with issues. With the natural/unnatural position, it's natural to raise your arm whilst jumping to gain leverage & for balance, so arms being up in the air whilst jumping is natural.

Again, we had a penalty appeal denied because the covering defender was running parallel to an attacker & when the cross was made it struck the arm of the defender.

It was interpreted that the defender's arm was in a natural position for someone running at full pelt, & the proximity of the shot to the arm was way too close for the defender to do anything about it.

It was also said it was "ball to hand, NOT hand to ball" & it was the opinion of VAR there was no handball intent which is all about interpretation & opinion.

I've honestly no idea how we resolve this to everyone's satisfaction. We're having this discussion because of the penalty awarded against Jack, but as soon as I saw the replay, I knew it was a penalty by the letter of the current law.

Now if we were 1-0 down in a final & it was Walker heading the ball across ManUre's area & it similarly struck Sancho's hand, we'd be fuckin livid & claiming PiGMOL had a CONspiracy against us if they never applied the letter of the law & awarded the penalty!

I've no idea how this can be resolved. The penalty award was harsh because what else was Jack supposed to do?
Click to expand...
The rule will be changed for next year
 
Dribble said:
Agreed. HOWEVER we tried this method & there were howls of complaints, no less from City fans where a ball struck Otamendi's hand which was by his side in a CL match, which cost us a penalty & the game IIRC.

The game's governing body changed the rules again & now we're at the "arm in a natural/unnatural position" rule. \0/

Whatever suggestions have been put forward, they're fraught with issues. With the natural/unnatural position, it's natural to raise your arm whilst jumping to gain leverage & for balance, so arms being up in the air whilst jumping is natural.

Again, we had a penalty appeal denied because the covering defender was running parallel to an attacker & when the cross was made it struck the arm of the defender.

It was interpreted that the defender's arm was in a natural position for someone running at full pelt, & the proximity of the shot to the arm was way too close for the defender to do anything about it.

It was also said it was "ball to hand, NOT hand to ball" & it was the opinion of VAR there was no handball intent which is all about interpretation & opinion.

I've honestly no idea how we resolve this to everyone's satisfaction. We're having this discussion because of the penalty awarded against Jack, but as soon as I saw the replay, I knew it was a penalty by the letter of the current law.

Now if we were 1-0 down in a final & it was Walker heading the ball across ManUre's area & it similarly struck Sancho's hand, we'd be fuckin livid & claiming PiGMOL had a CONspiracy against us if they never applied the letter of the law & awarded the penalty!

I've no idea how this can be resolved. The penalty award was harsh because what else was Jack supposed to do?
Click to expand...
True. But if you are clear and straight, then you remove as much vagueness as you can and shit down.
Sometimes that's gonna work against you, and nothing's perfect - but our outrage on the Ota one seems to rest on whether we felt he was seeking to gain advantage/ whether it was accidental etc.

Removing emotion and expectation, we could just accept that any contact with hands or arms is a breach.

Then it's much easier to accept - when there is consistency in application.
 
horlock_was_super said:
Added to the absolute farce of the one against Akanji in the Bayern game too.
Yes, we seem at times to be the only team that are strictly officiated in line with the current and yet to be adapted lotg.
Still, at least the one we ‘got away with’ Rodri at Everton evens it all out.
Click to expand...
Mate, most fans say the same about their clubs too. How many apologies have PiGMOL had to make for costly errors this season?

We need a solution, but so far the few I've heard put forward in this thread add even MORE opinion/interpretation into the mix, which will lead to even MORE accusations of bias & corruption against City.

I've no idea how we resolve this, because there'll always be someone who believes they're being unfairly targeted because of biased referees & VAR officials... \0/
 
Plays By Sense Of Smell said:
True. But if you are clear and straight, then you remove as much vagueness as you can and shit down.
Sometimes that's gonna work against you, and nothing's perfect - but our outrage on the Ota one seems to rest on whether we felt he was seeking to gain advantage/ whether it was accidental etc.

Removing emotion and expectation, we could just accept that any contact with hands or arms is a breach.

Then it's much easier to accept - when there is consistency in application.
Click to expand...
That's what that particular law was supposed to do, but after a season it was ditched after several Otamendi like incidences which enraged clubs across Europe.

If I knew that was the law, I'd be practicing flicking the ball up onto a players' hand to gain a penalty.

This is set to rumble on & I can't see everyone being universally happy with whatever's suggested as a replacement...
 
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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.