Accusing the referees and Mike Riley of an anti-Chelsea agenda. He'll get the book thrown at him - well he should do.....
I'd much rather they sorted out the refereeing, than punished people for criticising it. With some referees, Dean especially, you know a stupid call is going to be made before the game's kicked off.
This. If officials weren't of such a catastrophicaly dire standard and made such awful decisions, there wouldn't be anything to moan about most the time. If Mourinho gets punished for rightly pointing out how bad an official has been, it will be a travesty.
Dean missed some big incidents despite them being right infront of them. Like the Ramires elbow on Larsson.
But how's he supposed to see it when he (and his assistants) are rightly looking in a totally different direction? We only saw it because a tv camera caught it.
Sour grapes from the not that special one. That was the first penalty awarded against Chelsea home or away this season. How Ramires escaped that fore arm smash from right under the referees nose is beyond me. When George Boyd gets a three match ban for a minute bit of spittle coming out of his mouth then Ramires should get three months. The Chelsea player was dead lucky to get away with it. Chelsea's unbeaten home record was built on soft penalties and free kicks awarded around the box for either nothing, diving or cheating. Just remember Lampards free kick against us. No-one touched him.
I thought it was never a pen. Was amazed when the Alans reckoned it was stonewall. Slight shirt tug on Altidonkey but that was it.
agree, the Alan's seemed to dislike Mourinho's attitude so advocated the pelanty decision. Altidore was already stumbling as he put his big clumsy size 11 on the defenders foot. Far from stonewall.
It seems it's the policy to allow bad decisions and punish the complaints more harshly than punishing the bad decisions.
It will be interesting how the FA handle this, as even though we all know he was being sarcastic, he just congratulated the ref and fourth official.
It will be like one of those private eye euphemisms. A long time ago my boss said to the staff that some guy, Leonard, had done something wrong. Everybody thought "typical of Leonard" except somebody who said "That's not like Leonard" and everybody was shocked by this. My boss was useless too and whenever he had to admit to getting something wrong somebody would say "That's not like you" and watch everybody try to keep a straight face.
It's a ridiculous state of play that Managers are forced into the situation were they have to comment about key decisions in the game, but they aren't allowed to criticise a referree's performance without fearing of a heavy fine. It should be the referree who is forced out in front of the cameras to be interviewed about their controversial decisions. Given the frequency that key games seem to be decided on key referee decisions, may be all red card or penalty decisions should be subject to review on a tv monitor before they are confirmed. Similarly this would also give the referee the power to send off a diver which would stop many of these key decisions in the first place.
I watched Rovers v Hull on TV and although I didn't always agree with the video decisions it seems a much better method. I'd rather have a few stops and starts in a match and correct decisions than the other way round.
The defender slid off his feet and missed the ball and the man. In sliding off his feet he blocked the attacker and in doing so Dozy trod on him and fell. Penalty. He got no where near the ball and then became an effective road sleeper in the path of he attacker. Hence why the pundits on MOTD said penalty.
He got the ball first (slightly) then Dozy put his foot where Azilbymagicueta already had his leg. How is that a 'stonewall' penalty???????
