Nigels Tackle wrote:are you implying that young is gay and has aids?
Nigels Tackle wrote:are you implying that young is gay and has aids?
Nigels Tackle wrote:are you implying that young is gay and has aids?
trout man wrote:Was wondering about both the fuck faces dives in the last two games...if a player is adjudged to have comitted an act that has clearly brought the game into disrepute why can't retrospective action be taken against him. I understand the ref saw the incident but can't a counter appeal be made by the affected club? I think I need to find that 'clutching at straws' picture again :-)
Blue Since 76 wrote:trout man wrote:Was wondering about both the fuck faces dives in the last two games...if a player is adjudged to have comitted an act that has clearly brought the game into disrepute why can't retrospective action be taken against him. I understand the ref saw the incident but can't a counter appeal be made by the affected club? I think I need to find that 'clutching at straws' picture again :-)
The one against QPR clearly wasn't a dive, otherwise Derry's red card would have been rescinded. There's no one to even appeal the one from yesterday.
Hopefully, at 0-0 in the 92nd minute at Sunderland, Young will burst into the box and be scythed down by a Sunderland defender. Absolute, nailed on penalty. And hopefully, the ref will look at it and think I'm not being fooled by him and not give it. That will be the only justice to the last two decisions.
Blue Since 76 wrote:trout man wrote:Was wondering about both the fuck faces dives in the last two games...if a player is adjudged to have comitted an act that has clearly brought the game into disrepute why can't retrospective action be taken against him. I understand the ref saw the incident but can't a counter appeal be made by the affected club? I think I need to find that 'clutching at straws' picture again :-)
The one against QPR clearly wasn't a dive, otherwise Derry's red card would have been rescinded. There's no one to even appeal the one from yesterday.
Hopefully, at 0-0 in the 92nd minute at Sunderland, Young will burst into the box and be scythed down by a Sunderland defender. Absolute, nailed on penalty. And hopefully, the ref will look at it and think I'm not being fooled by him and not give it. That will be the only justice to the last two decisions.
ashton287 wrote:Taggart was asked about it. It was a penalty, young made a meal of it but it was a penalty. END OF DISCUSSION SO SAYS LORD CUNTHOLE and so it will be stricken from the annuls of premier league history.
mcfc1632 wrote:ashton287 wrote:Taggart was asked about it. It was a penalty, young made a meal of it but it was a penalty. END OF DISCUSSION SO SAYS LORD CUNTHOLE and so it will be stricken from the annuls of premier league history.
Shocking thing was Sky's commentators/guests (yorke and Wilkins FFS - right up baconface's arse) and MOTD pundits (Dixon and some self-confessed scum fan) stated that there was contact so therefore it was a penalty - so the the crime was exaggeration rather than cheating!!!
What utter bollocks and this will become the media party line over the coming weeks
McLeish said before the game that he was going to tell his players to avoid going in to reduce the risk of another 'penalty incident like QPR' - too little mate - you needed to also tell them to leave 5 yards of space - because the only reason there was contact was because young went for the player with his foot to make sure there was
Utter fucking cheat
I guess that baconface will tell his squad to reduce this sort of stuff because it is getting to obvious - probably means only 1 hour spent practising rather than 2
Bianchi on Ice wrote:has he been asked the question then?
has sir cunt?
halsey?
anyone?
or are we all wrong?
we'll need 100 points next season
Im_Spartacus wrote:I keep reading and hearing that there was "contact". This word contact, what does it actually mean, because last time i checked, the rules were pretty clear that if you are fouled in the area, you will receive a penalty. I am not aware of a rule whereby a penalty is given for contact, or we would get one every single time a corner is taken.
If a player is impeded by a shirt tug running to head a ball coming in from a corner, that is contact, why is it not a penalty? Is the shirt tug, which is clear, blatent contact, any less of an offence than the merest of touches followed by a swan dive feigning that the contact was akin to a machine gun volley?
I would like to add my own conspiracy theory after this last few weeks. Penalties can quite clearly be given or not given on a whim, and the officials seem to have no hesitation in giving penalties for the merest touch to the top sides. Its a sort of helping hand if you will, a leg up to the champions league. Yet smaller clubs are fucked, because they by their very nature spend very little time in the area of a top side, so the referee will hardly ever need to worry about giving them a penalty - and if they have the temerity to be in the big clubs box, the referee can ignore the penalty claim, nobody will ever notice.
Its a very very easy way over the course of a season, with the odd decision here or there from a contentious dive/contact for just one or two referees to be able to cause a decisive swing every single season. From a rule that doesnt actually exist, that they have made up all by themselves.
And on that note, with manchester united being the best supported club in the world, how many referees are banned from refereeing them in the elite group? You would have though that of 20 or 30 officials, at least a handful would support the worlds best supported club, but alas none appear to. Why do you think that would be?
Return to The Maine Football forum
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot], nottsblue and 209 guests