Rival watch

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
District Line said:
For me it was up there with Foy and Ovrebo. Once Rooney escaped a red card for a 2nd bookable offence it was clear the referee was partial.

It's hard to stomach because I can take being beaten by the better side but not like that. It speaks volumes that we had 53% possession despite being down to 9 men for 25 minutes.



I expressed my concerns about the referee selection before the match on the Chelsea board.

I've even had Spurs, Arsenal and even United fans telling me we robbed. A draw would have been fair but we battered them for nigh on 60 minutes of that game
Click to expand...

I have to say, though, Dave Utd is right. Torres should have gone on the first yellow!..
 
I'd never seen a doubly offside goal before, so that was a highlight. You've got to give Man U credit for outnumbering Chelsea 12-9 on the field. While I hate Chelsea more than Man U, the blatant bias of officials towards the mancs makes me sick.
 
Clattenberg made a right mess of things and United came off the better, as usual. That said it didn't all go United's way, Ivanavic should've been in the book for a studs lunge in the first half and as much as I know Chelsea fans will protest, contact or no, Torres made no attempt to stay on his feet and fell like a dive so a booking for diving is the risk you take. If that was Bale everyone would be telling us there was never enough contact to go over, Hell, they said that when he had his legs knocked together against Scotland causing him to fall.
 
My only objection to Torres getting a red was that we saw a similar one with Evans on Drogba with Drogba getting booked.

Had we lost like that to Spurs or Arsenal I'd be disappointed but I could look back and say it was just down to mistakes which you can't v United.

Even 9 v 11 most referees would try and even it out. Rooney could and should have walked after a 2nd bookable offence on Ramires, nothing given.

It's not the major decisions that annoyed me as much. It was the countless fouls on Chelsea players not given. Mata clipped on the edge of the area and nothing was given, Ramires and Mikel making several fair challenges that were deemed "foul". Constant attempts by the ref to deliberately break up our rhythm.

The officials were determined that Chelsea wouldn't win the game at any cost. When any 50/50 decision has to be made it always goes on favour of United.
 
United will get Sky and their media outlets to paper over the cracks in what was a horrifically biased performance in their favour just as they did v Liverpool. Coincidence has to be ruled out when it happens time and time again, year after year.

With a competent referee organisation in place United are no better than Spurs or Arsenal. The difference is Spurs and Arsenal have had to work and earn every point they've got this season whereas United have had 6/7 or so gifted to them.

I'd rather United **** off with Barca, Juventus, Real, Bayern, Zenit and co to a Super League and have a level playing field (in terms of refereeing).
 
Chelsea also lodged a complaint to the Premier League match delegate over the alleged use of "inappropriate language" by referee Mark Clattenburg towards two of their players.

You couldn't make it up! <laugh>
 
Yid Vicious said:
Chelsea also lodged a complaint to the Premier League match delegate over the alleged use of "inappropriate language" by referee Mark Clattenburg towards two of their players.

You couldn't make it up! <laugh>
Click to expand...

YV with all due respect I doubt (in light of what has happened with JT and racism saga) Chelsea would want to whip up a storm about another racism scandal about a top PL official if there wasn't some substance to it. Guardian, ESPN and Telegraph all reporting it.
 
Strange old game isn't it,Spurs beat Man U and Chelsea beat Spurs yet Man U beat Chelsea. You'd think that because Spurs beat Man U and Chelsea beat Spurs that Chelsea would beat Man U but no. I wonder how many Chelsea supporters thought the same way. It remains to be seen just what sort of a loser RDM is because on today's evidence then not very good.

Also would somebody please remind Chelsea players that they are champions of Europe and should set an example and not get sent off.
 
District Line said:
YV with all due respect I doubt (in light of what has happened with JT and racism saga) Chelsea would want to whip up a storm about another racism scandal about a top PL official if there wasn't some substance to it. Guardian, ESPN and Telegraph all reporting it.
Click to expand...

I know, I wouldn't comment on the actual situation as there's nothing properly known about this yet. Still funny that a club with a captain who racially abused a player is complaining about another person's behaviour on the pitch though.
 
It's quite amusing that there are a lot of reports of the Hernandez goal being 'clearly offside' when it was nothing of the sort. On the TV replay he was about a foot offside on the frame where they stopped the replay as Cole took his shot, but he was about a foot onside on the next frame. In real time it is almost impossible for the Assistant Referee to get that right and he is supposed to give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker. So I don't think he should be criticised. He wasn't offside in the previous phase of play as he didn't do any of the things necessary to be considered active.

The Torres red card is also interesting. From where the Ref was he couldn't see the contact on Torres so he couldn't give a free kick to Chelsea, but I would have thought it quite a bad precedent to give a yellow for diving in this situation. However Torres did fall on the next step with the leg that wasn't touched apparently giving way, so it might have looked clear cut to the ref. Personally I think that diving should be dealt with retrospectively based on video evidence with penalties including massive bans and the loss of points as I think it is too hard for the refs to get the calls right with so much blatant cheating going on.
 
PowerSpurs said:
It's quite amusing that there are a lot of reports of the Hernandez goal being 'clearly offside' when it was nothing of the sort. On the TV replay he was about a foot offside on the frame where they stopped the replay as Cole took his shot, but he was about a foot onside on the next frame. In real time it is almost impossible for the Assistant Referee to get that right and he is supposed to give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker. So I don't think he should be criticised. He wasn't offside in the previous phase of play as he didn't do any of the things necessary to be considered active.

The Torres red card is also interesting. From where the Ref was he couldn't see the contact on Torres so he couldn't give a free kick to Chelsea, but I would have thought it quite a bad precedent to give a yellow for diving in this situation. However Torres did fall on the next step with the leg that wasn't touched apparently giving way, so it might have looked clear cut to the ref. Personally I think that diving should be dealt with retrospectively based on video evidence with penalties including massive bans and the loss of points as I think it is too hard for the refs to get the calls right with so much blatant cheating going on.
Click to expand...

I agree. Along as the racist stuff proves unfounded, then the ref did nothing wrong in my book. The Hernandez offside was close and he was moving quickly onside, so easy to miss and Torres did dive, albeit after some contact. Torres was lucky to still be on the pitch anyway with his earlier karate kick and it is funny how quickly he forgot the desperate pain in his knee when the second yellow came out.
 
Call me cynical if you like, but....
Chelsea get 2 players sent off and some of their fans hail a variety of coins and other objects down onto an opposing player - and their own stewards. Subsequently they 'report' the ref for inappropriate language....
Sounds like deflecting attention to me.
Now I am not defending Clattenburg, although at least one of the sending offs was stonewall and in the other, Torres looked like he dived. He cannot be blamed for the offside goal - that was the lino's call.

I wouldn't mind betting that the Steward will recover quickly although suffering partial amnesia - forgetting what actually caused him to fall and receive treatment for 10 mins before going to hospital. And his condition will no doubt improve following a sudden and significant deposit into his bank account. (Not that the Chavs have a history of paying off possible litigants, eh Ashley??)
 
Calling Clattenberg biased: A slap on the wrist, probably with a small fine
Falsely accusing Clattenberg of racist abuse: A likely points deduction

Chelsea would've been wise to stick to the response that would've seen them accused of sour grapes...
 
I don't understand all the fuss, with Clattenberg's alleged racial slur. Spanish tits are very nice. Most of the blokes in that ground, yesterday - Chavs and Mancs - would tell you that they love a Spanish tit to squeeze and kneed. It's nice to be called something that we all love. It would be like being called "cup-cake" (ie. not at all insulting).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back