Things We Think We Think #245

Spot on Fez, but tbf I think it's the first time I've disagreed with anything 'Things we think we think' think...I think

 

It is not the first time that this type of goal has been given
Arsenal vs Burnley and he was offside!

 

That thinking feeling, Kemps?

 

Things I thought I'd thunk...

 

Rules or not Clattenburg had a chance to "even it up" with Gibbs' hatchet job and flunked it.. if he'd have sent the villain off, we'd have let it go.. but only if City had gone on to snatch a point..

 

Just seen a highlights show, in the Swansea v Leicester game Swansea had a shot blocked by a defender with both hands in the penalty area, it was a save Marshall would of been proud of but nothing given. Was it big team bias?

 

No because it was outside the box. OLM is discussing the Clucas red, for which I thought fouls were now just yellow as the pen restores the goal-scoring opportunity.

 

Oh but you see, his hands are in a perfectly natural position. Don't you walk around with both your hands up in the air?

 

Whether it was inside or outside of the box Gibbs should have clearly seen red, if he hadn't fouled Markovic he would have been in on goal with a clear goal scoring opportunity. That decision, for me, was by far the worst one that Clattenburg made on Saturday, and no blame could be put on the linesman regarding that incident. The referee had a clear view but simply bottled it. Perhaps unsurprisingly the top six-centric media have largely chosen to ignore it.

 

Inside the box wouldn't have been a red as we had our goal scoring opportunity restored with a penalty (unless OLM's point about deliberate/accidental also applies to tackles). Outside the box it was certainly a red.

 

If the Gibbs/Markovic incident takes place in the box it has to be a penalty AND a red card, it wasn't accidental. As it took place outside the box it should have been a red and obviously no penalty.

 

Yep, you're right.

 

The problem I have with the Arsenal "goal", it's not deliberate handball. That I can live with.
What I can't understand is that the ball went in off his hand. Had his hand not been there, it may still have been scored but as it was, it went in off his hand.
Supposedly in football only the goalkeeper can use their hands to touch the ball. Everyone can't!
If it's accidental & results in a goal then it shouldn't be given.
****ing rules are too grey for their own good!

 

Interestingly, ref on Football Today was just saying handball goals should never be allowed, regardless of the letter of the law.

In that case perhaps the letter of the law needs to be amended?

Sounds as if Refs are instructed not to give those sorts of goals if they see them. Would explain why Clattenburg apologised.

 

I am equally surprised that someone who has read the post where I said I had seen video footage of the Sanchez incident-it was on our match day thread as well as other domains- makes such an inane point.
As for the ref one prominent Hull City match player said this.

"With the first goal the ref has obviously missed the handball but if he does not see it he can't give it and we can't be too critical. It's disappointing but we had enough chances to get something out of the match".

I have now seen the the full match on Arsenal TV and can comment on the Markovic/Gibbs incident. Red card for Gibbs and a brickbat for Clattenburg.

 

Not sure what your point is in quoting the City player as it's the job of the ref or the AR to see the incident. The AR in particular needs to see the incident.

Refs have commented on the fact that if the letter of the law does not explicitly say that what occurred is wrong, the spirit of the law is that those goals should never be given, and that when refs see that sort of thing, they never give those goals.

My point about you not having watch the game is that you were coming in with a very hot head dismissing people's views about incidents in a game you hadn't yet watched, including misjudging what the controversial incidents were. I meant no offence, but you were clearly intent on dismissing other people's points of view.

 

For the 3rd time I did not need to see the full match to comment on the Sanchez incident. The Clucas incident was a controversial incident in our Match Day thread.

Have you some qualification in Psychology/ Psychiatry or anything else which enables you to read my post and determine state of mind and intent? Or are you just being obtuse and idiotic?

 

Hard to know how much of it you saw, which angles, whether you saw the live vision or just a replay from a different angle, etc. That's all I meant.

Well when you call people nuffies for having a certain point of view I don't think it's a great leap to think you aren't being tolerant of others' points of view.

 

Enuff said!

 

I will concede a win of sorts but digressing a little, the god of men relating to City playing Arsenal in London is not MS. Over nearly 100 years many managers have brought a City squad to the capital for cup and league competitions to play them but only one has departed north carrying the Holy Grail of victory.

PB is the true god of men!