Understatement
Honestly fed up now though. When I see blatant corruption it just spoils the game for me. Much prefer cup games, don't get any this bollocks. I just hope I live to see the day where it all comes out
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
-
Understatement
Honestly fed up now though. When I see blatant corruption it just spoils the game for me. Much prefer cup games, don't get any this bollocks. I just hope I live to see the day where it all comes out
I have Dave, I'm beyond the anger stage now and it's just general acceptance. The corrupt officiating and Chelsea board have left me somewhat apathetic about where we finish. We have improved since last season and performances at Old Trafford, WHL, Anfield, Goodison and the Emirates offer me encouragement that we've improved. I have wanted the season to end since November so when it does it'll be somewhat of a relief.
I'm proud of how we've performed given we've played 15 games or so than most teams and the obvious refereeing corruption we've faced + mismanagement at board level.
The key this summer is to re-group, hire a manager that can progress us and address the formation issue.
Whatever the reasons are for the massive discrepancies that we have seen in refereeing decisions this weekend, especially in the over the ball tackles, there should at least be some simple form of redressing these imbalances retroactively. It simply is not good enough for the F.A. to say that the referee dealt with it at the time. In the cases of Nasri and Sturridge, the referees clearly DIDN'T deal with the those challenges in the way they should have been dealt with.
Time for the F.A.to sort themselves out, and to start openly correcting incompetent officiating.
Time for the F.A.to sort themselves out, and to start openly correcting incompetent officiating.
We have one of those situations coming which I don't like,a little tripod. Man City beat Wigan last week,Spurs beat man City this week and Spurs play Wigan this week. It's happened before. Everton beat Stoke,then Spurs beat Everton and then Stoke beat Spurs,last season or the season before sometime. It happens to us and often we lose. You'd think that we should beat Wigan because we beat the team which beat them but,yuch. I've already committed myself to a Spurs win by two goals but ffs I'm staying very cautious.
Good weekend for me,Both Spurs and Sutton winning 3-1,both with late goals,although Sutton should have finished the game off before H/T,missing two open goals and a host of chances.
Must win game for Wigan. If they lose to you they are down. Defoe coming back and scoring is massive for you because he'll stretch their defence and I'm sure Bale will find plenty of space. I can see something like Wigan 2-3 Spurs but I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if Wigan won.
Wigan,like city will have the cup final on their minds,so i would be suprised
Staying up is the priority for them though. If they lose to you they are as good as down. No way they'll get more points than Villa given the fixtures that remain.
True,but i think it's human nature,that they don't want an injury to make them miss the final
The subject of retrospective punishment should be as much the discussion as goofy's eating habits.
I've thought for a while that the FA saying they can't take action if the ref "sees" the incident is an *excuse* not to take action, not the *reason* (big difference there).
Because we now have a situation where no action was taken at the time against Sturridge or Nasri (we presume because the ref didn't "see" the incidents, because if he did, how could he fail to take action?), thus meaning that the FA can, by their own rules, take action. Except they won't of course.
And then we have the eating incident, which in many ways wasn't anywhere near as serious as potential leg breakers getting all the publicity so that the FA *will* take retrospective action... even though the ref (by the FA's own definition) did "see" the incident, because he spoke to both of them afterwards. Sure he probably didn't see exactly what happened, but surely in all the recent incidents where the FA say they can't do anything the ref also didn't see exactly what happened. In other words, they are hypocritically going to break their rules and deal with these incidents exactly the opposite way to what they have been recently saying!
I've thought for a while that the FA saying they can't take action if the ref "sees" the incident is an *excuse* not to take action, not the *reason* (big difference there).
Because we now have a situation where no action was taken at the time against Sturridge or Nasri (we presume because the ref didn't "see" the incidents, because if he did, how could he fail to take action?), thus meaning that the FA can, by their own rules, take action. Except they won't of course.
And then we have the eating incident, which in many ways wasn't anywhere near as serious as potential leg breakers getting all the publicity so that the FA *will* take retrospective action... even though the ref (by the FA's own definition) did "see" the incident, because he spoke to both of them afterwards. Sure he probably didn't see exactly what happened, but surely in all the recent incidents where the FA say they can't do anything the ref also didn't see exactly what happened. In other words, they are hypocritically going to break their rules and deal with these incidents exactly the opposite way to what they have been recently saying!
Nasri and Sturridge should certainly be banned, although at the sametime surely the linesman and 4th official would've seen Nasri running into Walker, if not the contact, so he might get off under the FA's stupid rules. Suarez's incident all depends on what the ref says, it may well be that he says that he only saw them on the floor afterwards and gave them both a talking to as they'd been tangling all game so the FA could take action.
As usual Hansen weighed in with his nonsense, apparently it was "appalling" but no one was hurt so it's fine, suggesting a normal ban will do. I'm sorry but I find it hard to see how biting someone so viciously shouldn't be punishable by more. The 3 game ban for violent conduct is a minimum because, for example, leaning your head in to another player is judged as violent conduct but so is a full on headbutt yet clearly both wouldn't get the same length ban. I don't know whether he escpaes a ban for bookings because of an amnesty(I can't keep up with that daft rule) but as a basic I think it's got to be a 3 match, basic ban for violent conduct, plus and extra match for it being particularly vicious and arguably an extra match for it being disgusting(that WBA player got done for spitting at Walker) plus he'll get an extra game if he's been banned before this season(5 bookings?) or 2 games extra if he was due a 2 game ban for his 10th booking. I think 4-5 games is about right, given that he may already have some automatic bans coming into play.
Mouser's are saying they will be singing his name at the rest of their games,a waste of time if he won't be playing 
1-0 to United, offside in the build up. Looks like United will win it before Arsenal
The goons will have to do the guard of honour. That'll piss Wenger off. They will still be going for the points record.