You mean the extra time at City where the pundits discussed it at length and calculated the time up and said that the ref got it right after the match.
Of course you haven't mentioned that during any added time ( after 90 mins ) , only United are allowed to score, with the opposition just playing out the time waiting for the inevitable to happen ! Jesus get a life !!!!!!
if you have a point make it and please don't direct me to that rag, I believe not a word. regardless of what a news article says, I take news articles by biggoted journos with a massive dose of salt and like to make up my own mind, and I tihnk that the ref anted to allow the attack to finish, this was not a time decision, he decided I will blow after this attack imo and ye scored even though time was up. I think if the game was 3 2 united with City putting on the pressure, the added time would have been less than that we also have the Everton game as a perfect example of the same situation in reverse and the ref stopping a last dangerous attack seemingly before time was due to end with addons. It is just coincidence that in both cases ye got the benefit from this interpretation of extra time, hence all the Fergie Time conspiracy rubbish, I think interference with football comes from outside football added with a few biased ref towards certain teams, I remember Clutterbug being VERY good to liverpool against Everton one match, massive question marks over a performance like that, extra time is always shorter when United are winning I reckon, but have no stats to prove anything so it is purely opinion. How much extra time do United get when they are losing compared to when they are winning? I do not know
I think I am just referring to sometihng, certainly no pop at United once just the ref, Yet you, obviously autistic as you are missed that point. If you are bitter about somethng why not come out with it eh its ok I wont laugh. You read a pot shot at United in that did you? Yiu should say that "get a life" in the mirror when you get up every morning, you might just eventually get one
6+ minutes was ridiculous, I wonder how often teams got that long when United were winning by a goal? Again, this is nowt to do with your club, tey way ye are on about it ye think it is, unless Poll, the ref sent home from the WC is on the payroll, no, I think he is just that bad
Surely the 12 minutes added on to the Liverpool vs Arsenal match this season was far more of a farce? Utd scored after 5.5 minutes when 4 minutes had been indicated and there had been a goal and a substitution in the match. Liverpool scored after about 12 minutes when 8 minutes had been indicated and there had only been one goal. How can the stoppage time in the Utd game be a bigger farce than that?
Both scousers on here have referred to United 'getting awarded extra time'. Last time I checked, the opposition don't walk off the field during 'our' extra time and allow us a kick about till we score. Added time is for both teams for ****s sake, it doesn't get awarded to the home team. Desperate idiots.
Yes perhaps you should read the post that completely disproves everything he says in his thread. Hes just embarrassing himself now. Same sort of **** happens on the Liverpool board. Its easy to tell as the sensible and decent posters on both boards stay well away from threads like it.
How many penalties have United got for fouls outside the penalty area?That one they got against Spurs in 2009 was the biggest joke ever,it was even worse than the one they got in the FA Cup third round against Liverpool when Dan Agger looked at Berbatov.Who refereed both games.....Howard Webb....Coincidence.I think so.
nowhere did I say tis only happens to United, again, I never said United influenced the decision in anyway, the refs thinking was in question. I would expect you of all people to not just on one post without reading those up to it, including my estimation of Clutterbug when reffing Liverpool Everton, as it was in fact a response to earlier discussion about the subject. I know Liverpool Arsenal ect have also benefitted from decisions but that was not what was being discussed, so you reply to mine as a single post out of context. I expect more from you Just takin the mick. Either way if you think the refs are straight and true, fair play for that happy go lucky possibly a little naieve view. P.S. Swarbs, you are the comparison king, rather than discuss the subject, you again fling comparisons of another topic, want to discuss that ref and tat situation or are you just throwing something at me? I am sure you can dig up more too, I can actually agree a ref has been a little kind to Liverpool without going off and hunting up comparisons to United y'know, and if I started this thread then I would understand your actions, but unusually you went off a bit half cocked.
very articulate indeed, you can use a thesaurus to find the words for your emotions, I don't think "what the fk is this guy on" quite does it. Tell me you have nothing to do with teaching kids please?
Lol, I knew you'd bite on that one My view on refs has never wavered - they are all human. They are influenced by crowds, make mistakes and often crack under pressure. But if players on £200k a week can crack under pressure and make the mistakes they make, how can we expect part time refs earning a few hundred quid a game to achieve higher standards? It's all part of the game - you have to take the good with the bad. My reply to your post was more to highlight the fact that everyone seems to jump on examples of Utd whenever they are referring to refereeing controversies. Everyone loves to talk about the Rooney elbow as a massive travesty of justice but conveniently ignore similar unpunished elbowing incidents from players like Shearer and Gerrard. And I found it interesting that you said "the only really contentious added time fiasco was the city one", ignoring the fact that added time went on much longer in the Liverpool - Arsenal game, and there have been many other added time issues over the years (I distinctly remember a ref blowing the final whistle in a game when the ball was en route to the top corner for what would have been the winning goal). How can you genuinely believe that the Utd - City game was the only contentious added time issue??
To be fair Swarbs, I think he was referring to added time specifically in relation to United only when he said that the United v City game was the only really contentious added time issue. Maybe not, but that's how I took it anyway.
Ah, in that case I have misunderestimated him. If that's what you're referring to BBF then I apologise. That said, I don't think 5.5 minutes of added time in the City match was particularly controversial, particularly after a half when there had been four second half goals, four substitutions and 12 corners. It was purely luck that we scored in the last few seconds of the match, there have been plenty of other games when there have been plenty of second half stoppages and injury time but we didn't score a late goal.
Honestly I am actually reading my posts before submitting, I am trying not have threads decent into pure sheite. All boards have fools and I am not referring to Swarbs, I am used ot Swarbo's usually high standard of posting and had to point out that yesterday replying to me, that standard was lowered
The article is from a professional referee. If you read it you will find the reasons why there was 5 1/2mins played.
