The mancityfans.net football forum

The ref also didn't give a penalty against us that actually was one. Was also very quick to (correctly) give the penalty at the end, no hesitation. I don't think the officials were biased against us tonight, some went for us and some against.

That said not giving Demichelis's goal as in was a bit of a shocker

Gave them a non penalty
Didn't give them an actual penalty (two pens would be a bit bad/suss on anyone!)

Didn't give a goal OVER THE LINE wtf if otamend hadn't scored?

This match was the best possible argument for demanding the addition of goal line technology.
That extra 5th official had a perfect view of Demi's goal... So, that 5th spare prick is literally stealing money, since he was either completely blind, or corrupt!

It will probably take some legal indictments to finally eliminate leaky Bladder & Plotini! If and when they're finally dismissed, goal line technology must be added immediately!
Just combine all the money wasted on useless 5th officials & Bladder's salary & then, every top stadium will have enough to immediately install the technology!

Ex-ref, Graham Poll is also demanding the addition of goal line technology, rather than protecting the salaries of those extra officials:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... -City.html

I didn't think the ref was biased. Just not particularly good. No worse than the normal standard we get, but not good..
To be fair to him. The ball over the line was being watched by the twat official that stands beside the goal. The replay shows him staring at it. Is that not his job.
Somebody please explain to me what their function is. It seems to me they were put there to stop people calling for Goal line technology, but don't actually do anything.
That could have been very costly.
Shocking.

iwasthere2012 wrote:I didn't think the ref was biased. Just not particularly good. No worse than the normal standard we get, but not good..
To be fair to him. The ball over the line was being watched by the twat official that stands beside the goal. The replay shows him staring at it. Is that not his job.
Somebody please explain to me what their function is. It seems to me they were put there to stop people calling for Goal line technology, but don't actually do anything.
That could have been very costly.
Shocking.

Nowt wrong with the ref, mate. As you say, it was the 4th official with morally questionable decisions.

I go along with those who thought the ref was just poor all round and not biased. Plenty of decisions both ways that were crap and I would guess the BM fans would say he was totally biased in City's favour.

The idiot who didn't give the goal should obviously be sacked.Both their penalty shouts were imo dives but the second one more of a penalty than the first one. I liked the touch of that 5th official guy though on the 2nd penalty incident when the ball was going out he played it back in. I wondered what the hell was going on!

Peter Doherty (AGAIG) wrote:

iwasthere2012 wrote:I didn't think the ref was biased. Just not particularly good. No worse than the normal standard we get, but not good..
To be fair to him. The ball over the line was being watched by the twat official that stands beside the goal. The replay shows him staring at it. Is that not his job.
Somebody please explain to me what their function is. It seems to me they were put there to stop people calling for Goal line technology, but don't actually do anything.
That could have been very costly.
Shocking.

Nowt wrong with the ref, mate. As you say, it was the 4th official with morally questionable decisions.

It's actually the extra CL 5th official who should be interrogated & should have his bank accounts investigated.

It was the same CL 5th official, who's specifically meant to replace goal line technology, that denied Demi's very clear goal... The same 5th linesman that awarded a penalty for Raffael's obvious dive, after running straight into Otamendi's leg!

Can't blame the ref for giving them that first pen, clumsy challenge from Otamendi which only with the benefit of replay could I see that he hadn't actually touched the player.

Think in the run of play there pen looked a cert, slowed down and shown from different angles then it was clearly not. That doesn't bother me as on another day such stuff goes in our favour.

The goal by Demi however has fucked me off. Had Otamendi not got it in on the rebound it would have cost us big time. From the camera view in front of goal it was clear it went over the line so fuck knows how a man who's job it is to stare down that line missed it is beyond me. Corrupt twat!

Foreverinbluedreams wrote:Can't blame the ref for giving them that first pen, clumsy challenge from Otamendi which only with the benefit of replay could I see that he hadn't actually touched the player.

The ref did'nt give the pen though it was that twat with the dildo behind the goal line that gave it then the same twat got selective blindness for Demi's goal

gillie wrote:

Foreverinbluedreams wrote:Can't blame the ref for giving them that first pen, clumsy challenge from Otamendi which only with the benefit of replay could I see that he hadn't actually touched the player.

The ref did'nt give the pen though it was that twat with the dildo behind the goal line that gave it then the same twat got selective blindness for Demi's goal

It's shit like this that makes a farce of the whole thing

gillie wrote:

Foreverinbluedreams wrote:Can't blame the ref for giving them that first pen, clumsy challenge from Otamendi which only with the benefit of replay could I see that he hadn't actually touched the player.

The ref did'nt give the pen though it was that twat with the dildo behind the goal line that gave it then the same twat got selective blindness for Demi's goal

My point still stands, in real time that looked like a penalty no matter who gave the decision, poor challenge from Otamendi gave the Munchie attacker the opportunity to buy it.

ruralblue wrote:Think in the run of play there pen looked a cert, slowed down and shown from different angles then it was clearly not. That doesn't bother me as on another day such stuff goes in our favour.

The goal by Demi however has fucked me off. Had Otamendi not got it in on the rebound it would have cost us big time. From the camera view in front of goal it was clear it went over the line so fuck knows how a man who's job it is to stare down that line missed it is beyond me. Corrupt twat!

I actually thought no pen in first play.

That six-yard box linesman or whatever they are called needs to go to Specsavers.

More importantly Twatini is going to need all the friends he can get, so best introduce technology asap.

What is the reason Platini is giving for not allowing the highly successful goal line technology to be introduced?

I know the real reason of course, but very curious as to know what he is trying to sell it as. It's a fucking tough sell, so I'm intrigued.
Maybe he's trying to come up with a slogan that has the word "fair" in it, like he did with Financial "Fair" Play.
That would make everything ok. It did last time.

Foreverinbluedreams wrote:

gillie wrote:

Foreverinbluedreams wrote:Can't blame the ref for giving them that first pen, clumsy challenge from Otamendi which only with the benefit of replay could I see that he hadn't actually touched the player.

The ref did'nt give the pen though it was that twat with the dildo behind the goal line that gave it then the same twat got selective blindness for Demi's goal

My point still stands, in real time that looked like a penalty no matter who gave the decision, poor challenge from Otamendi gave the Munchie attacker the opportunity to buy it.

That looked like an outrageous dive from any angle, any time you see it.

Piccsnumberoneblue wrote:

Foreverinbluedreams wrote:

gillie wrote:

Foreverinbluedreams wrote:Can't blame the ref for giving them that first pen, clumsy challenge from Otamendi which only with the benefit of replay could I see that he hadn't actually touched the player.

The ref did'nt give the pen though it was that twat with the dildo behind the goal line that gave it then the same twat got selective blindness for Demi's goal

My point still stands, in real time that looked like a penalty no matter who gave the decision, poor challenge from Otamendi gave the Munchie attacker the opportunity to buy it.

That looked like an outrageous dive from any angle, any time you see it.

On replay yes, when I first saw it I thought wtf are you doing going in like that Otter?

Tesl wrote:The ref also didn't give a penalty against us that actually was one. Was also very quick to (correctly) give the penalty at the end, no hesitation. I don't think the officials were biased against us tonight, some went for us and some against.

That said not giving Demichelis's goal as in was a bit of a shocker

The guy who was specifically there to ensure that balls that crossed the line were given didn't give us a ball that crossed the line. It was his main purpose for being there. He was staring directly at the net from the side and had no other players obscuring his view. He SAW it cross the line and CHOSE not to give it. Whatever you want to say about the penalty decision(s) there's no getting away from this.
I was convinced it was over the line in realtime from a much worse (camera) angle and it wasn't my sky blue tinted glasses talking either.

There is also a linesman who "failed" to see the clear goal. One of them should see that.

Apparently it is a Demichelis goal after all as shouted by the line fella

Foreverinbluedreams wrote:

gillie wrote:

Foreverinbluedreams wrote:Can't blame the ref for giving them that first pen, clumsy challenge from Otamendi which only with the benefit of replay could I see that he hadn't actually touched the player.

The ref did'nt give the pen though it was that twat with the dildo behind the goal line that gave it then the same twat got selective blindness for Demi's goal

My point still stands, in real time that looked like a penalty no matter who gave the decision, poor challenge from Otamendi gave the Munchie attacker the opportunity to buy it.

Looked like a pretty clear dive to me, but okay.