He missed some easy chances. The sort top strikers bury - even on an off day. Just make contact with the ball.
Rival watch
- Thread starter Spurlock
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
He's not been playing well since his scoring run ended. Looks a bit lost.Don't worry, he did **** all tonight so may as well have been banned
I'm just annoyed at the principle. Everyone knows he should've been banned and it was looked at, but it still didn't happen.
The rules aren't being enforced consistently, as usual. They're not even hiding it.
Like I said, did **** all. He played a self imposed ban so as not to affect the game
And everyone else. It's not even a debatable decision, honestly.
Do you think it wasn't a red card?
On what planet should an attempted, petulant kick out against an opposition player be unpunished?
If they did view it differently, I would love to know what their rationale is. It's a shame they don't publish an explanation to go along with their (ludicrous) decision.
It is literally mystifying as to how he's managed to get away with it. It's not like he's been subtle about it, either.
I think it could easily have been given.
What I am trying to say is all people have different views, how many times have you disagreed with fellow Spurs supporters about decisions concerning your team or others. This was obviously debatable in some minds because the panel could not agree, unless you are a secret Scouser on a conspiracy trip
Martial's form is a big boost for Utd.
He's a one trick pony, but what a trick!
Let him run at pace one on one against a defender and he beats them with ease and scores.
He's a one trick pony, but what a trick!
Let him run at pace one on one against a defender and he beats them with ease and scores.
Fully agree with that, refs and panels should have to explain their decisions when controversial.
I think it could easily have been given.
What I am trying to say is all people have different views, how many times have you disagreed with fellow Spurs supporters about decisions concerning your team or others. This was obviously debatable in some minds because the panel could not agree, unless you are a secret Scouser on a conspiracy trip
How can you have 'different views' over a player lashing out to deliberately harm a fellow professional on camera? There's no debate to be had, he should have been red carded or, if the referee didn't see it, he should have been suspended for a few matches for violent misconduct.
As I said, if it was 'debateable', I am eager to see how they reached that conclusion because for the life of me, I can't see how he's escaped punishment.
So you agree that it was a red, but you don't want to say that because it shows how ridiculous the decision was.I think it could easily have been given.
What I am trying to say is all people have different views, how many times have you disagreed with fellow Spurs supporters about decisions concerning your team or others. This was obviously debatable in some minds because the panel could not agree, unless you are a secret Scouser on a conspiracy trip
He kicked out at the player twice and caught him the second time. It's an obvious dismissal.
There's no rational explanation as to why professional officials wouldn't agree with that.
As for conspiracies, we all know that the officials are influenced by certain people. Why? Because they've told us that they are.
Here's one example from my namesake: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...Poll-reveals-secrets-footballs-dark-arts.html
That's the stuff that went on then that he's willing to publicly admit to. It's the same era of officials making these calls now.
Gallagher predicted it:
http://www.skysports.com/football/n...or-gaetan-bong-incident-says-dermot-gallagher
Was he on the panel? We don't know. He shouldn't be on them at all, if that's his ridiculous view of things.
"However, Gallagher told Sky Sports News: "The act has to be one of violence or brutality. It's not really either for me.""
You've got to be ****ing kidding me!
Kicking out at someone is not violent or brutal? Can someone buy him a dictionary for Christmas, please?
I doubt it. Swarbrick might've had a word with one of his old mates to get them to play down his miss, though.Fair enough, Fergie had a word
We don't know who's on the panel or why they came to their decision, so we don't know why they're wrong.
It's a horribly opaque situation and it's clearly not being done correctly.
Kicking a man in his balls is not violent. Go wild."However, Gallagher told Sky Sports News: "The act has to be one of violence or brutality. It's not really either for me.""
You've got to be ****ing kidding me!
Kicking out at someone is not violent or brutal? Can someone buy him a dictionary for Christmas, please?
Even more stupidly, petulantly kicking out at someone off the ball is still a red!
Brutal, he kicked his heals out like a little girl skipping"However, Gallagher told Sky Sports News: "The act has to be one of violence or brutality. It's not really either for me.""
You've got to be ****ing kidding me!
Kicking out at someone is not violent or brutal? Can someone buy him a dictionary for Christmas, please?
I would have called red card for intent but you are just being daft, have you ever seen a hard tackle, they can be brutal.
Or maybe right? or is that just not an option.
I agree with you, there should be explanations for decisions like this and also after games by refs. Managers have to face the press, why not refs.