Controversial decision No 1,345,567#

[Woodsyla]

It will sound like sour grapes or that I'm bitter but I do genuinely believe the Mancs have been the best side this season and deserve to win the title. BUT

 

How come they never ever get controversial decisions against them and always get them for them.

 

If Scholes was playing for any other club he would have been off. No attempt to play the ball, stopped the man, yet he stays on the pitch. It's so downright blatent that it's unfair. If Man Utd had been down to 10 men (as they should have been) they may well still have got the win they needed (draw as it turned out) but the rest of the league wouldn't be looking on thinking I wonder if we will ever get a level playing field.

 

When Steve Bruce is calling the Ref a cheat in a game against teh Mancs you know something is up.

 

 

P.S. Fair play to Fathead and Wigan, made a good fist of it and they were cheated by a dodgy official.

 

From the BBC

 

Wigan manager Steve Bruce:

"Paul Scholes will go down as one of United's greats. Everything about him is top, top drawer.

 

"But he knows he got away with it today. Had it been any other day it was another yellow card and he should have been off. You should ask the referee about his integrity, not about my team.

 

"Thankfully there was nothing riding on it for us but I have to say three decisions in the first half were absolutely unbelievable. To say the penalty we conceded was harsh is an understatement."

[Gooner Spy]

If Scholes was playing for any other club he would have been off. No attempt to play the ball, stopped the man, yet he stays on the pitch. It's so downright blatent that it's unfair. If Man Utd had been down to 10 men (as they should have been) they may well still have got the win they needed (draw as it turned out) but the rest of the league wouldn't be looking on thinking I wonder if we will ever get a level playing field.

 

Just playing devils advocate here, but when I was watching the second Scholes foul, it looked like the player who went past him had pushed the ball way in front, and it was going straight out of play. Was that a consideration the ref made I wonder?

[Woodsyla]

Just playing devils advocate here, but when I was watching the second Scholes foul, it looked like the player who went past him had pushed the ball way in front, and it was going straight out of play. Was that a consideration the ref made I wonder?

 

I've only seen it once but it looked like a yellow and everyone on MOTD also reckoned it was a yellow.

 

Devil's advocate or not, do you agree with the sentiments as a Gooner

[psl]

Clearly a booking. Was unbelievable that he didn't get sent off.

 

And I hope that all those that said Wigan would roll over are willing to admit that they were wrong.

[Hassony]

Just playing devils advocate here, but when I was watching the second Scholes foul, it looked like the player who went past him had pushed the ball way in front, and it was going straight out of play. Was that a consideration the ref made I wonder?

That shouldn't affect the decision, I am sure the refs on this forum will confirm this, Scholes had only one intention and that was to stop the attacker illegally, The corrupt ref bottled it

[Gooner Spy]

I've only seen it once but it looked like a yellow and everyone on MOTD also reckoned it was a yellow.

 

Devil's advocate or not, do you agree with the sentiments as a Gooner

 

No, I definitely thought he should have walked. That was just the only thing I could possibly have thought of that may have legitimately crossed his mind as a justification for letting him off. I suppose there is no justification, he bottled it pure and simple. I guess the look on Scholes' face said it all - he knew he was in trouble right away.

Edited May 12, 2008 by Gooner Spy

[Bailo]

Don't forget the Ferdinand penalty. As nailed on as you'll see, moved body towards the ball and clearly hit his arm. Keys' shoulder must be near his bicep for him to be claiming that. Which doesn't suprise me, the hairy-handed cromagnon.

[Spike]

Well done to Giggs on equaling the tout's record btw. However you have to wonder what he was doing, being a married man and that, a couple of weeks ago at a FOF's flat nobbing a lass with his bodyguard in tow

[NWR]

Just to show you are well ballanced, someone mention the handball in the wigan area and even the nailed on penalty on Scholse (even though he should have been off)

 

BTW if Scholse had gone off, who can say what the end result would have been? You can say we would have lost the title, we can say we would have won the game and title and pointed to scoring against West Ham with ten men. We will never know who is right. Its all in the past now and these things even themselves out. I would still have my £20 treble bet (40/1) going now if the Ref had given that stonewall penalty against Portsmouth.

 

Life goes on.

[Woodsyla]

Just to show you are well ballanced, someone mention the handball in the wigan area and even the nailed on penalty on Scholse (even though he should have been off)

 

BTW if Scholse had gone off, who can say what the end result would have been? You can say we would have lost the title, we can say we would have won the game and title and pointed to scoring against West Ham with ten men. We will never know who is right. Its all in the past now and these things even themselves out. I would still have my £20 treble bet (40/1) going now if the Ref had given that stonewall penalty against Portsmouth.

 

Life goes on.

 

I never said you woudn't have won it (I believe you still would have got at least the draw you needed) but time and again you get the rub with decisions which would go against any other side. FWIW I thought the Ferdinand handball was 50/50, seen them given, seen them not, Scholes was hacked down in the area, but you kind of wonder if the Ref was trying to level the field after his appalling decision earlier.

 

Styles after giving the Malouda penalty gave us everything until we scored, then he gave everything for Chelsea again. That's just poor refereeing, my complaint is that United,rarely, if ever get poor decisions against them and often get appalling decisions that benefit them. If the Refs aren't cheating/scared what is the reason for that ?

Edited May 12, 2008 by Woodsyla

[Andy @ Allerton]

Just to show you are well ballanced, someone mention the handball in the wigan area and even the nailed on penalty on Scholse (even though he should have been off)

 

BTW if Scholse had gone off, who can say what the end result would have been? You can say we would have lost the title, we can say we would have won the game and title and pointed to scoring against West Ham with ten men. We will never know who is right. Its all in the past now and these things even themselves out. I would still have my £20 treble bet (40/1) going now if the Ref had given that stonewall penalty against Portsmouth.

 

Life goes on.

 

Corruption in the game certainly does. Without the benefit of referees it would be very interesting to see where you would have finished in the league. But outside the top four appears a certainty.

 

It's got so bad now that referees don't even begin to disguise their actions any more. It's so clear and open now and so unbelievable that people cannot believe it.

 

You automatically assume that if someone is dodgy - they hide their actions. The referees this season have openly flouted their actions - so much that the media don't even notice.

 

How many games for instance should Ronaldo, Scholes and Rooney have been off the pitch for dissent/diving and reckless tackles?

 

With those players suspended - how would that have additionally affected the league?

 

There are too many decisions which are way beyond to defend now mate. It's just not possible any more. People say these things 'balance themselves out'

 

If that were even remotely true - you're going to suffer 20 solid years of s**** decisions.

[Bailo]

Styles after giving the Malouda penalty gave us everything until we scored, then he gave everything for Chelsea again.

I thought we scored first, they equalised with that pen though?

[Andy @ Allerton]

I thought we scored first, they equalised with that pen though?

 

Yes we did

[Gooner Spy]

Corruption in the game certainly does. Without the benefit of referees it would be very interesting to see where you would have finished in the league. But outside the top four appears a certainty.

 

Genuinely dont believe that to be the case. Incompetence - check. Agenda's/Favouritism - check. Influence of alcoholic Scottish manager - check.

 

Really dont believe there's any out and out corruption.

[Andy @ Allerton]

Genuinely dont believe that to be the case. Incompetence - check. Agenda's/Favouritism - check. Influence of alcoholic Scottish manager - check.

 

Really dont believe there's any out and out corruption.

 

Any level of favourtism IS Corruption.

 

If teams are not playing on a level playing field. That IS Corruption.

 

Any level of influence exerted by any manager to affect both his and other teams results IS Corruption.

 

And. Of course. The final nail in the coffin - is that when a manager selects by NAME an official for HIS NEXT GAME and the Corrupt FA Provide the exact referee asked for for the fixture asked for.

 

How that last case especially isn't clear evidence of corruption is beyond me.

 

Because it's so blatent now days - it's actually difficult to spot because you assume corrupt people would try and hide their actions. because it's all in the open you have a harder time believing it.

Edited May 12, 2008 by Andy @ Allerton

[NWR]

Corruption in the game certainly does. Without the benefit of referees it would be very interesting to see where you would have finished in the league. But outside the top four appears a certainty.

 

 

Can I do a Poll thingy?

 

Hands up all thoes that think Andy should be put in a looney bin?

[D.Boon]

Don't believe its corrupt. Just think most referees are bottlers and all referees are terrified of Ferguson.

 

If in doubt give the decision in the Jock's favour

[Guest Anders Honoré]

Any level of favourtism IS Corruption.

 

If teams are not playing on a level playing field. That IS Corruption.

 

It's only corruption if it's deliberate favouritism.

[Andy @ Allerton]

Don't believe its corrupt. Just think most referees are bottlers and all referees are terrified of Ferguson.

 

If in doubt give the decision in the Jock's favour

 

If any of the above is true - how is that NOT corruption?

 

If you are not giving honest, proper decisions in any game - that IS Corruption.

[budgie]

It's only corruption if it's deliberate favouritism.

Is there any other kind in this context??

[Andy @ Allerton]

It's only corruption if it's deliberate favouritism.

 

If the referee decides not to give a decisions/gives a dodgy decision because of outside influences - that is deliberate. And it's corruption. And these decisions are prolonged - than again that is deliberate.

 

Or do you think they 'accidentally' give decisions?

[budgie]

Any level of favourtism IS Corruption.

 

If teams are not playing on a level playing field. That IS Corruption.

 

Any level of influence exerted by any manager to affect both his and other teams results IS Corruption.

 

And. Of course. The final nail in the coffin - is that when a manager selects by NAME an official for HIS NEXT GAME and the Corrupt FA Provide the exact referee asked for for the fixture asked for.

 

How that last case especially isn't clear evidence of corruption is beyond me.

 

Because it's so blatent now days - it's actually difficult to spot because you assume corrupt people would try and hide their actions. because it's all in the open you have a harder time believing it.

 

If the same amount of dceisions were happening in Italy you can be sure everyone would be calling it corrupt.

 

The old adage of it balances itself out is just crap

[Woodsyla]

Don't believe its corrupt. Just think most referees are bottlers and all referees are terrified of Ferguson.

 

If in doubt give the decision in the Jock's favour

 

Exactly, it's weakness of the officials and the ruling body which although not necessarily corrupt by favouring one team creates a situation where all teams are not on an equal footing. Saying that, Barca and Madrid have had the same thing for eons.

[Guest The_Drunken_Clam]

Corruption in the game certainly does. Without the benefit of referees it would be very interesting to see where you would have finished in the league. But outside the top four appears a certainty.

 

It's got so bad now that referees don't even begin to disguise their actions any more. It's so clear and open now and so unbelievable that people cannot believe it.

 

You automatically assume that if someone is dodgy - they hide their actions. The referees this season have openly flouted their actions - so much that the media don't even notice.

 

How many games for instance should Ronaldo, Scholes and Rooney have been off the pitch for dissent/diving and reckless tackles?

 

With those players suspended - how would that have additionally affected the league?

 

There are too many decisions which are way beyond to defend now mate. It's just not possible any more. People say these things 'balance themselves out'

 

If that were even remotely true - you're going to suffer 20 solid years of s**** decisions.

:lol: :lol:

[Guest Anders Honoré]

Is there any other kind in this context??

 

Referees un- to semi-conciously finding themselves swayed by the crowd, or media pressure, etc. They are acts of favouritism but not premeditated ones and not ones they would want to commit or likely even admit to themselves they have in fact committed. Such acts of favouritism are incompetence, not corruption.

 

If the referee decides not to give a decisions/gives a dodgy decision because of outside influences - that is deliberate. And it's corruption. And these decisions are prolonged - than again that is deliberate.

 

Or do you think they 'accidentally' give decisions?

 

see above.