Please tell me it is spelt like that and you haven't copied it over wrong. It'd be amazing if that's how they've spelt it.
I'm confused now! I just watched MOTD and I didn't see the McShane incident and I thought I must have got it wrong and confused Boyd for McShane but I was certain McShane was hanging about in front of goal so I thought he'd got tripped and when I saw the Boyd trip McShane was nowhere to be seen. From what you said it does seem there really was a McShane incident and well as Boyd. I don't think Boyd's was a penalty but I am more certain that Tottenham's penalty should never have been given and neither the managers, Owen or Lawrenson thought it was a penalty.
No he wasn't, we should of had a penalty when the Spurs defender was all over McShane in the box and also when Boyd was brought down in the box Dawson clipped his heels and that should of been one as well.
I think it's Bruce's fault. He criticised the referee last week - you know they'll get their revenge!
Swanny in the Fail: "The penalty cost City a deserved point, but while most in the press box disagreed with me I think the referee made the correct decision. Ahmed Elmohamady was unfortunate and there’s no way Bruce will have berated his player afterwards, but when the ball hits your arm like that and you’re stopping it travelling toward the goalmouth, then a penalty is the only decision the referee could give,..."
No sign of the penalty on match of the day? I didn't see it as I was on the way back from Spurs I only caught the analysis, we all knew at the time there was no way it was a penalty. He was stood way to close to Elmo for him to get the out the way, his hand was next to his stomach, how the **** can that be deliberate? (Seen as though the rules do state only deliberate hand ball is a foul) Did anyone notice Townsend not getting carded for smashing the ball into the city fans, but Meyler gets booked for dropping the ball where he was stood? Now tell me the ref was fine before the penalty incident. That **** Townsend got his karma falling over the advertising board. Oh and also, I ****ing hate southeners.
Swann in the Fail.....That confirms what I have always thought about him.... 'He's FULL of the brown stuff..'
Terrible decision. 'Accidental handball' is the referees interpretation and common sense should prevail. However, the golden rules for awarding a penalty are 1) you must be 100% certain AND 2) you must have seen in the incident clearly. MoD showed that Oliver's line of vision meant that he could not have seen the ball strike Elmohamady's arm. You cannot give a decision if you have not seen the offence (or one of the other officials have) however sure you are that an offence has happened.
We had plenty of decisions go against us the last time we were in the Premier League, the decisions always favour the bigger team, did anyone really expect it to be any different this time around?
To me, we've been involved in 5 controversial/debatable refereeing decisions with definitive goal impacts this year, the pen at home to Norwich, the pen against West Ham, the pen West Ham did not get, the Everton opener last week and the pen yesterday. Yes it feels **** when it goes against you, but it feels (so far) that the decisions are not as badly weighted against us as they were last time
Sh*t happens. The ball got Elmo's hand so I can see why the ref gave it from his view. We've been lucky v norwich and west ham unlucky v Everton and spurs. What goes around comes around. Keep playing like we have been doing and come the end of the season we will be comfortably safe!
Typical Swan. He must have an IQ in single figures. The Handball Rule interpretation The body who change law are the International Football Association Board (IFAB), which is comprised of eight members who all have one vote. They are the federations (or FAs) of England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales plus four votes for FIFA. As well as approve or ratify law changes they also issue guidelines or interpretations - advice to referees. Regarding handball they now ask the referee to consider the proximity of the potential offender to the person last playing the ball, the speed of the ball and importantly whether the offender's arms are in a natural or unnatural position. So the question of intent is now, did the offender deliberately place his arms in an unnatural position to increase the chances of the ball hitting him? If the answer to that is yes then it is correct to penalise that player even though it used to be argued that was ball to hand. So Elmo was about 2 yards away from the crosser, it was belted at him and his hands were tight across his chest in a completely defensive position such that if his hands had not been there the ball would have hit his torso anyway. So, at no level should that situation have resulted in a penalty (and that doesn't even include the fact that Oliver couldn't possibly have seen the incident anyway because of his positioning.
No, but the decisions go this way because of the hype that surrounds the Big Clubs in the media. Fans like us need to highlight the biased decisions as much as possible in order to counteract the hype that makes referees feel safer siding with the Big Clubs.
The thing is, our players are having to go into games knowing they have to be so careful when going near these teams as the refs are so quick to give a penalty the first chance they get so that is already a disadvantage in itself knowing you need to not touch their players!
If he gets into trouble for his comments then there is something seriously wrong with the system. There must be if one gets in trouble for saying the truth, after all he never even mentioned the two penalties we should of had that strangly the ****ing ref missed.
The rules should be changed so an indirect free kick can be given for an non-deliberate handball. It'll give the referees a bit of leeway in deciding the punishment.
