He missed some easy chances. The sort top strikers bury - even on an off day. Just make contact with the ball.
He's not been playing well since his scoring run ended. Looks a bit lost. 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.
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.
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. 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. 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. 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 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.
