Scholes good auld Paul

Could it fook, two feet off the ground scissor style tackle is now a red card irrespective of if you get the ball.

 

I think it is easy for people with benefit of replays to see and make a judgement. It is likely that the ref didn't see it the same way. I still don't see it as a straight red

 

The only reason the ref didnt give a straIght red to Scholes is this

STATISTICS PROVE, Referees who give decisions against United , get less games, less often ( AND EARN A LOT LESS MONEY ).If you give United an easy time when reffing them , you will earn a fortune.


FACT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Thought it was a red real time, replays just backed those opinions. Just yet another possible game changing decision that has gone utds way in a game when they needed it. Coincidence?

 

Actually, if you read the rules, one or two feet doesn't matter, scissor style doesn't matter, getting the ball doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is was there control, is there a lunge towards the opponent, and was there a danger of injuring the opponent.

You could argue he wasn't fully in control, but there was no lunge towards the opponent (his legs go a way either side of the QPR player during the lunge) and there was almost no chance of an injury unless the player got his studs caught in the turf. Could well have been a yellow, but that depends on whether or not the ref believes he was in control of himself. Given his eyes never left the ball, and his tackling leg slid along the floor, that's an easy interpretation for a ref to make.

 

I do not think that is fact. This is pure speculation from some supporters. There was a recent article in the press which looked at referees decisions in United matches and other matches. There was no bias towards any specific team

 

I really hope you genuinely believe this to be true.

 

Didn't see the match, just the score. You all need to get over it. They're just jammy twats. That is all.

 

What did I say about idiocy and statistics?

 

Fixed (a bit like the game).

 

Yes, it was possibly game changing, but you have no evidence for that. We play better when we go behind, and have won games after going down to ten men over the last few years.

As for being a game when we needed it, bollox was it. That was ten minutes into a game we were widely expected to win by four or five goals. Had it happened ten minutes into the second half then you might have had a point, but as it is you are just twisting the facts to suit your own view and invent a coincidence where there is none.

 

Maybe you should say it to DayDoDoeDontDayDoe. He can't even prove something he claims the statistics prove

 

So you dont think the Scholes foul is a straight red. If that aint a stright red, f**k knows what is.

 

Exactly my point. This is very subjective. Your other colleague DO says that is fact because he has the stats to prove it. Yet another article says that that they have looked into it and there is No bias. May be it all evens out in the end. You get some decisions and not others..

 

I only asked a question, hit a raw nerve did I?

 

It wasn't on TV you ****ing bone heads.

Ever heard of the radio you stupid pricks?

 

Like I said, a straight red is when there is a serious chance of injuring the opponents. Please tell me how the QPR player could have been seriously injured during that challenge, without catching his studs in the turf? You can try and prove it with stats if it makes you feel better

 

Any time.

 

Diving in with two feet OFF the ground is now deemed as lacking control and for most other players is a red.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-BNS6nGXCsbA/ULEIzkpYqGI/AAAAAAAABi4/KefN7heMYA0/s500/SCHOLES.gif

 

Diving with 2 feet losing control and risking injury to the opponent = a red. There was no or very little risk of injury to the other player