If you can report people for something you think they've said via a tv then why not for what you've seen then do? Bet Ivan is having blood test too, I would. Who knows what that filth might have.
1. Suarez bite 2. Sturridge red card 3. Carragher red card 4. 6 minutes added from nowhere 5. Equaliser scored on 96:38 5 decisions in one game is absolutely horrific refereeing
It was Golden Goal. All the other decisions pale in comparison to that and playing over the 6 minutes rubbed salt in wounds. Friend was not going to stop until the Liverpool goal came and when it did he blew the whistle straight away. If Liverpool had been leading 2-1 there's not a cat's chance in hell 6 minutes would have been added on. Pure corruption. There was 6 minutes added on when we played Arsenal too
The added time which goes up on the board is always the MINIMUM of added time, the extra time would have been added for one of, or both of the following reasons. a) Stoppages which occurred after 90 mins totalled in the region of 36 seconds (not unreasonable) b) Stoppages which occurred before 90 mins totalled more than 6 mins, but less than 7 minutes (not unheard of)
Except that neither of those happened in this game. Four minutes is the absolute max that would have been expected to be added on in this match.
The extra time board is advisory only, the ref actual plays time as they decide. The swings and roundabouts argument that every team suffers injustices is totally flawed when there is no need for them not to be actioned on immediately, therefore at least issuing some immediate justice and keeping the game as fair as possible. Right now the matches we watch are deliberately not made and fair as they can be and no matter who did what to who and when, that has to stop. The only reason I can see for allowing a referee so power in a match when it is fully understood that they will make errors is so that match fixing can go undetected. It can always be blamed on refereeing human error. What else could possibly be the reason for allowing an ambiguous adjudication system as we have now?
Absolutely spot on. The reluctance to allow camera decisions during matches, as in Rugby and League, is purely because it will mean the end of match fixing. This will cost certain people in Football most of their income. Fixed matches are commonplace in East Europe and Italy, and almost certainly most countries where football is played. The main fixer resides in Singapore, where it is NOT illegal to fix matches outside that country, only INSIDE !!!!!
Added time is flawed. Should not be controlled by the ref. Should be done independently and then once its us its up.
Spot on. Chelsea got royally dicked over from what I saw yesterday. I wasn't watching the match all that closely but the initial 6 minutes were over the top I thought, although the penalty must have taken up at least a minute itself and Carragher was kicking up a stink everytime a decision was made. One of the things that really winds me up more than anything else though is when the ref adds on extra time to the injury time and it's attempted to be justified afterwards. I don't dislike it because it's wrong but because refs rarely add on that time, even in close games, I mean very rarely. Twatkinson's my favourite example and continues to be. When United scored that late winner against City, Twatkinson added every second of time on top of injury time that he possibly could. When Everton scored 2 goals in injury time and were on the attack for a winner against United, Atkinson blew the whistle just before Jagielka took a shot after having barely added 25 seconds extra. Whether you believe it or not, you are one of the bigger clubs that will tend to get decisions from refs. It's when you're up against other big sides that you'll find the contraversial decisions can go against you. It's sad but that's the way it seems to be and as PNP points out, DL was less than sympathetic about decisions going against other teams barely a day before claiming the, "it evens itself out" nonsense.
6 plus minutes injury time scandalous dave is right more would have been made of it if united scored in the 97th minute
My point wasn't that decisions even themselves out (you only need to look at the team top of the table on an annual basis to realise that), my point was that generally teams finish where they deserve to. If we finish 5th, I will not be blaming yesterday's loss for a 38 game failure as I think one of the posters on your board eluded to. The difference between us and say, United fans, is that most (if not all) Chelsea fans acknowledge we have had our fair share of luck against Spurs in recent years (although to be fair, the Graham Poll game in 06/07 which ended our run was horiffically bad). Spurs fans are entitled to feel differently given the decisions that have gone against them when facing United and Chelsea in partiuclar (City as well to a degree), but I always feel that when we play Spurs or Arsenal we are treated as equals so when a decision goes against us I can take it, what I can't tolerate is consistent bias as we've seen at Anfield and many a time at Old Trafford. I can think of one time where we benefited from a decision at Old Trafford (Drogba offside) and Sky kicked up a huge fuss about it and played it on the newsreel every half hour on every day until the Tuesday we played Bolton. The officiating at Old Trafford and Anfield is disgusting (for everybody), nothing should hide that but when it's your own team on the receiving end, naturally - you feel more aggrieved.
I'm not less sympathetic at all. PNP will vouch for me when I say there was no non-Spurs fan more sympathetic than me when you got screwed over at Stoke last season. I was on holiday at the time of the Mendes goal but was similarly outraged. I'm a football fan first and foremost and hate to see bias at any level. I'd rather have lost 1-0 to Wigan last season than won 2-1 and benefitted from officiating.
There is something rotten in the State of Denmark ( and I don't mean Ovrebro ) when the refs influence the outcome of matches more than the players.
