I honestly find them (players and fans alike) more dislikeable now than back when they were dominant and winning everything.I really fucking hate Fernandes, Garnacho not too far behind, Antony close as well, Martinez right up there. That team is full of horrible dislikeable cunts!
There was that red for Torsten Frings at the 2006 world cup after Germany and Argentina players got into a "melee".How many players were actually sent off retrospectively.
I only remember Aguero.
That reeked of corruption.
Has anyone mentioned SWPs retrospective 3 match ban after t Stoke away against Delap which was sponsored by a obsessed MSM campaignThere was that red for Torsten Frings at the 2006 world cup after Germany and Argentina players got into a "melee".
Still, that's only because the Italians were being arseholes insisting on it when they were not even involved, as a RAI TV camera picked it up and sent it to FIFA.
Yes but they were players who were not carded during a game but retrospectively given a red. I was referring to players who were given a yellow that was later upgraded to a red after the game. It only happened once and commentators have frequently pointed out, before and since, that this can never happen under PL/FA rules. How many times has a player received a yellow only for commentators to say "He's a lucky boy"?Loads of plays have got retrospective bans though. It doesn’t tend to happen now VAR is in place though.
They were common before it though.
Remember this one (the first on the video) - the David Gill briefed officials retrospectively decided that it was just a coming together;-
The media will put their spin on things when it comes to the Rags to make them happy.
Ragcliffe owns 25% of the football club, Apparently he's in charge of the "football side of things"...Yet he wants taxpayers to buy him a new stadium.
The Glazers are still top dogs at the shithole as they are the majority stakeholders.
Only time will tell if the scruffy fucker will put his own money where his mouth is.
Fucking hell you do like to labour a point don't you? What does a takeover mean to you? Here's one of the many definitions out there. They all basically say the same thing.
" A takeover occurs when one company makes a successful bid to assume control of or acquire another."
The media are constantly saying he's taken over Manchester United. He hasn't. Whatever role he has in the club is irrelevant, he hasn't acquired it or taken it over. If they said he's taken over the footballing side of the club that's probably correct but it's a different thing altogether than what they're implying.
And "football" wonders why there are discipline problems between referees and players, and a lack of respect.
They should caution players like this whenever they cheat and whenever they show dissent. Fernandes would be cautioned at least once every game. He would miss loads through suspension, and only then would he be made to think about his behaviour.
Instead, football authorities seek to address their clear on-field disciplinary problems with ideas like blue cards, which would disrupt games and spoil the enjoyment of fans. Just make the referees enforce the laws they already have in place. You rarely see referees command authority anymore.
Couple of rags in work are shitting it about Sunday. They think we will overrun their midfield if Casemiro plays.
You can actually see him decline further on the pitch and every time he plays.
I know we've not been playing great but I think we'll give them a right twatting
I wonder what actual legal basis there is to him "taking over the football side". There must be something contracted or the Glazers could just remove that "right" as they still have their 75%.
That one seems to be forgotten by most these days. The MSM are the poison in our society.Has anyone mentioned SWPs retrospective 3 match ban after t Stoke away against Delap which was sponsored by a obsessed MSM campaign
Retrospective red cards were commonplace before VAR. Are you Clarkieing me here?Yes but they were players who were not carded during a game but retrospectively given a red. I was referring to players who were given a yellow that was later upgraded to a red after the game. It only happened once and commentators have frequently pointed out, before and since, that this can never happen under PL/FA rules. How many times has a player received a yellow only for commentators to say "He's a lucky boy"?
Only if the referee hadn't seen the incident though, as far as I'm aware. I don't remember any other incident where the authorities upgraded a yellow to a red after the fact, because that was seen as re-refereeing the game. They could only do it for situations the referee missed. Most City fans at the time couldn't really argue that the challenge deserved a ban, the main point of contention was that they seemingly changed the rules for it.Retrospective red cards were commonplace before VAR. Are you Clarkieing me here?
It always depended what was in the match report though, didn’t it?Only if the referee hadn't seen the incident though, as far as I'm aware. I don't remember any other incident where the authorities upgraded a yellow to a red after the fact, because that was seen as re-refereeing the game. They could only do it for situations the referee missed. Most City fans at the time couldn't really argue that the challenge deserved a ban, the main point of contention was that they seemingly changed the rules for it.
In a sense. If it was clear from the match report that the referee didn't see the incident, then they could issue a retrospective ban. But it's hard to argue that a referee who issued a yellow card for a foul didn't see it. As far as I know, that is still the rule.It always depended what was in the match report though, didn’t it?
I’d have to watch it again too. I think we’re pretty much on the same page.In a sense. If it was clear from the match report that the referee didn't see the incident, then they could issue a retrospective ban. But it's hard to argue that a referee who issued a yellow card for a foul didn't see it. As far as I know, that is still the rule.
All of this is just my understanding of things though. Could be bollocks.
In Thatcher's case, the referee could probably have argued that he gave a yellow for the lateness and strength of the tackle, but missed the elbow, and so that would be reasonable grounds to upgrade it.