3/24 other weekend games

[bigblue]

still trying to decide whether chelsea - benfica or spuds - bolton will be the better game today... probably going to side with the chumps league one

[phips]

very surprising lineup for Chelsea...

[bigblue]

raul meireles looks like a homeless hipster. been a pretty mundane game so far

every team from portugal seems to be a load of cunts. diving, whinging, moaning, cheating cunts

and mata hits the post, still 0-0

[zuricity]

What gets me about the united game and Carricks clear penalty is not the endless and disgraceful stance from Fergie, camel g, talksh*te, alan parry( arse !), bbc web site creaming themselves. is the simple fact that Carrick shoved Murphy, he shoved him as he tackled him from behind, threw his hands up as if to claim innocence. the shove in the back is the reason i would have given the penalty, this put Murphy off balance without a doubt, enough to destabalise him and the late poor tackle compounded it. The ref is not good enough, i don't know if he has ever played footy, but anyone that has, knows that tackle was a foul and therefore a penalty. It wasn't malicious, just clumsy. That is why, immediately afterwards, Fergie was pissed off with Carrick, clumsy not clever. I know i would have gone ballistic if my midfield player was as stupid as Carrick. Chances are, Murphy would have missed his shot.

[Original Dub]

What gets me about the united game and Carricks clear penalty is not the endless and disgraceful stance from Fergie, camel g, talksh*te, alan parry( arse !), bbc web site creaming themselves. is the simple fact that Carrick shoved Murphy, he shoved him as he tackled him from behind, threw his hands up as if to claim innocence. the shove in the back is the reason i would have given the penalty, this put Murphy off balance without a doubt, enough to destabalise him and the late poor tackle compounded it. The ref is not good enough, i don't know if he has ever played footy, but anyone that has, knows that tackle was a foul and therefore a penalty. It wasn't malicious, just clumsy. That is why, immediately afterwards, Fergie was pissed off with Carrick, clumsy not clever. I know i would have gone ballistic if my midfield player was as stupid as Carrick. Chances are, Murphy would have missed his shot.

Dead right.

Also, carrick admitted to Jol there was contact. He admitted to Jol that he was guilty of a straight red card.

3 game ban please.

[ashton287]

Dead right.

Also, carrick admitted to Jol there was contact. He admitted to Jol that he was guilty of a straight red card.

3 game ban please.

There are strict rules governing retrospective bans.

A) the referee didn't see the incident
B) the offending player must play for city.

The ref had a very clear view of this and he could tell carrack isn't a city player (on account of him being FUCKING GASH). So no chance.

[Im_Spartacus]

There are strict rules governing retrospective bans.

A) the referee didn't see the incident
B) the offending player must play for city.

The ref had a very clear view of this and he could tell carrack isn't a city player (on account of him being FUCKING GASH). So no chance.

Maybe someone can help me here, if the referee had seen it "properly" i think was the term used in marios case vs spuds, and adebayors vs arsenal, then the player would have been sent off, hence a retrospective ban followed.

So are we being told that if michael oliver saw the replay of this, he genuinely doesnt think he got it wrong? Of course the result is in the bag now, but the fact is that it was serious foul play, and a sending off, so why is he not being asked if he would have done anything differently.

Being stood 10 yards away, the only possible argument he can have for not awarding a penalty and a red card is that he didnt see it, in which case retrospective action is allowed. If he did see it, he should never be allowed to referee again, because he has clearly shit himself because he doesnt want banning from old trafford by slur - even though slur himself would have admitted it was a clear penalty

[Beefymcfc]

There are strict rules governing retrospective bans.

A) the referee didn't see the incident
B) the offending player must play for city.

The ref had a very clear view of this and he could tell carrack isn't a city player (on account of him being FUCKING GASH). So no chance.

Maybe someone can help me here, if the referee had seen it "properly" i think was the term used in marios case vs spuds, and adebayors vs arsenal, then the player would have been sent off, hence a retrospective ban followed.

So are we being told that if michael oliver saw the replay of this, he genuinely doesnt think he got it wrong? Of course the result is in the bag now, but the fact is that it was serious foul play, and a sending off, so why is he not being asked if he would have done anything differently.

Being stood 10 yards away, the only possible argument he can have for not awarding a penalty and a red card is that he didnt see it, in which case retrospective action is allowed. If he did see it, he should never be allowed to referee again, because he has clearly shit himself because he doesnt want banning from old trafford by slur - even though slur himself would have admitted it was a clear penalty

Because it's not in the public interest, or should I say 'United's Interest'. The biggest one for me this season was the elbow in Micah's face. I saw it at the time and after the commentator was wondering why Micah was down off the ball I thought we'd then see numerous angles of the elbow to his face. But no, nothing, nada, fuck all. Was it replayed numerous times afterwards in order to get him a retrospective ban? Once again, no, nothing, nada, fuck all.

It's not in the public interest, according to Sky United. Trial by 'Slow-mo' is only saved for teams like us, teams that are not in the public interest.

[ashton287]

Maybe someone can help me here, if the referee had seen it "properly" i think was the term used in marios case vs spuds, and adebayors vs arsenal, then the player would have been sent off, hence a retrospective ban followed.

So are we being told that if michael oliver saw the replay of this, he genuinely doesnt think he got it wrong? Of course the result is in the bag now, but the fact is that it was serious foul play, and a sending off, so why is he not being asked if he would have done anything differently.

Being stood 10 yards away, the only possible argument he can have for not awarding a penalty and a red card is that he didnt see it, in which case retrospective action is allowed. If he did see it, he should never be allowed to referee again, because he has clearly shit himself because he doesnt want banning from old trafford by slur - even though slur himself would have admitted it was a clear penalty

He knows he got it wrong. Taggart has said he got it wrong. We know he got it wrong. He will never actually admit he got it wrong though. Will probably never even be asked the question.

We all know it is bullshit but no one with any power to question it will ever be man enough to stand up and question it because he will be silenced and excommunicated within days. The corrupt leading the corrupt. They have such thorough control that they don't even hide it anymore.

[DoomMerchant]

are we not better served in the title run out with a rags team featuring Michael Carrick? Yes we are. Calls for a ban are outrageous.

Wobble yr heads folks.

cheers

[Ted Hughes]

are we not better served in the title run out with a rags team featuring Michael Carrick? Yes we are. Calls for a ban are outrageous.

Wobble yr heads folks.

cheers

Agreed.

We want a fully fit Scholes in the team at our place next to him too, so no witchunts when Scholes gets away with murder either (as Scholes is due his next unpunished red card offence round about now).

[Beefymcfc]

are we not better served in the title run out with a rags team featuring Michael Carrick? Yes we are. Calls for a ban are outrageous.

Wobble yr heads folks.

cheers

Agreed.

We want a fully fit Scholes in the team at our place next to him too, so no witchunts when Scholes gets away with murder either (as Scholes is due his next unpunished red card offence round about now).

I didn't see it but someone said he stamped/stood on a Fulham player, was that true?

[zuricity]

I didn't see it but someone said he stamped/stood on a Fulham player, was that true?

he certainly put in a bad tackle against clint dempsey on the left wing on the side if the penalty area, ripping his sock and a foul was given. if that is what you are asking