http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32373093 Bournemouth manager Eddie Howe claims there is a "conspiracy" among referees against striker Callum Wilson. He believes his side should have been given a second-half penalty for a foul on Wilson in their 2-2 Championship draw with Sheffield Wednesday. The result cost Bournemouth top spot, although two wins from their final two games will still seal promotion. "I just felt they've come together to talk about Callum and that's not right," Howe told BBC Radio Solent. "If it's a penalty, it's a penalty. It doesn't matter how many you get in the season." Howe also felt the challenge on 22-goal striker Wilson by Wednesday defender Lewis Buxton merited a red card. "It looks like the referees have come together to talk about Callum Wilson and said: 'Don't give him any penalties because Bournemouth have had too many this season and we don't want them to have any more'," he continued. "That's what it looks like because that is the most stonewall penalty you will see. It was nailed on. I had the perfect angle and I could see he was taken out. It was a red card and a penalty and that could ultimately have a big bearing on what happens at the end of the season." Howe did not apportion any blame to defender Adam Smith, who was distraught at the final whistle after conceding an injury-time penalty which allowed Wednesday to equalise. "The goal we conceded at the end is just one of those things that happens and I am not going to attach any blame to anybody," he added. "We've had so much success together and when you don't get the result you want you have to stand together with your players as well. "When you make a mistake and it costs your side points that is the natural reaction. The most important thing is to stand by him and tell him how much we love him." Oh the irony! I personally find this hilarious, given that Bournemouth have played with a 12th man on more than one occasion this season (and I'm not talking about the crowd). Eddie Howe likes to talk a good game; turns out he's just another manager who deflects blame when things don't go his way.
Was just about to post the same link, I wonder if he's losing his bottle ? It was definitely a penalty but to suggest that refs have really discussed it ? Really ?
I suspect 80% of the human race put in his position and given the nature of that result on Saturday might have said something stupid. Regardless of whether decisions have gone their way previously, it looked like a clear penalty. Daft to suggest a referees' conspiracy...as daft as fans of other clubs suggesting referees have conspired to give his team more penalties and their opposition more red cards than anyone else.
All he is trying to do is to gain any advantage for the rest of the season like a lot of managers would
Agreed. And if he genuinely believed he had a legitimate case to maon about on satirday then he has every right to do so regardless of what's gone before. He could hardly say "yeah, well loads of people think we've had some soft ones so best i let this one go"! In fact if he had not said anuything he'd probably have been castigated by some of his critics on teh grounds that "yeah well - he probably agreed to take a hit in one game so he can get the decisions in the next two"
Doubt it. I remember a game at the Vic where Zola came out afterwards and said how difficult it was playing against 12 men. He got away with it. Less scrutiny outside the Prem I guess.
I lifted this picture from an article in the Bournemouth Echo - an article which was rather scathing about the ref and his decision not to award a penalty. A good look at the picture suggests to me why the penalty may not have been awarded - the angle from which it was taken appears to show Wilson in mid-dive from well behind the defender and parallel to the ground, giving the impression that he had indeed executed a swan dive. Different angle, different perspective. Now I know that the ref would have seen this from yet another angle, but no-one bar the ref can be sure what he saw. And I'm fairly certain that the rule does say "..in the referee's opinion...". I'd hazard a guess that we have all been guilty of disagreeing with referee's decisions at times, but we never see things as they see them. In this instance, he also had an assistant who saw nothing wrong, so just maybe he was correct. The only truly ridiculous decision I can think of which was so obviously wrong is Stuart Atwell's...
Did I hear correctly this morning that Celtic have written to the SFA to ask why they weren't given a penalty at the weekend ? what are they expecting, " oh yes, you're right, sorry, we'll replay the game for you" ??
Not quite - they have written to complain about the referee, specifically over his decision re the penalty incident. I must say that they have a point, as this shows, but don't think they expect anything other than an explanation. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32388618
I can understand the ref not seeing it, maybe even the goal line official to a point (too close perhaps), but what was the Assistant Referee looking at??? Dreadful, at any level, let alone the national cup semi final. I despair, I really do.... Fans hat on: ha ha ha let's all laugh at Celtic! But seriously though, not good enough at any level.
Well it looks like they may have been a bit spiteful behind the scenes... http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/...-charged-by-scottish-fa-over-celtic-handball/ The ICT player is being charged retrospectively and has been offered a one match ban or the choice to have the matter heard by a disciplinary panel. I suspect he'll go for the latter as the ban would mean missing the cup final.
I think we would see some major wobbles/strops if Bournemouth were to lose on Monday. As it is with their goal diff they only have to match Boro & Norwich's results and are promoted, win /loose or draw.
Well that is one big hole that the SFA are digging for themselves. That's a monumental disgrace. Sure, if the guy had broken a player's leg in a tackle and didn't get punished for it then yeah I'm all for it as that comes under serious foul play, endangering an opponent or even assault. This is gamesmanship, no more, no less. I don't recall Thierry Henry getting a ban retrospectively for his handball against Ireland. And you can bet your bottom dollar if ICT had been playing Allow Athletic then no one would bat an eyelid. Quite possibly the Scottish Cup Final won't sell out (Falkirk, is it?) And Celtic are throwing the toys around like the playpen bullies they are. In a word.... W*****S.
