The whatever footie that's going on (with actual fans) thread

Manc33

I predict Palace to dump Liverpool out. Please god let it happen.

EDIT: 1-0 already
EDIT 2: Sodding 1-2 now.

Stuffy buggers always do it. :evil:

Stevo_666

Welcome back Diego. It's time we showed Costa some support

Stevo_666

Ahhh, footy is back Haway the lads

tim_wand

Good day for "Both" your teams Stevo

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ahhh, footy is back Haway the lads

Oh dear.
Busy having commiseration pints I presume.

city_boy

Wins for Spuds and Saints would cap off a almost perfect EPL weekend 8)

Let's just get Manyoo back where they belong in mid-table

Ps. Well done the Gooners!

tim_wand

Maybe Mourinho should forget about 30, 33, 43 and 69 and concentrate more on 2, 12 , 21 , 51, 53

I m crap at maths but I make it 1-1 and 5-0 Give or take 5 points.


Happy for you City boy, but could do with a Southampton / Liverpool draw.

Stevo_666

tim wand wrote:

Maybe Mourinho should forget about 30, 33, 43 and 69 and concentrate more on 2, 12 , 21 , 51, 53

Don't take my word for it, see what the BBC and the pundits say about what happened:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/31569726

Still, we're not the only ones who've drawn with Burnley And still 5 points clear. It could be worse, we could be 5 points behind...

city_boy

TBF the ref made mistakes in all of those incidents. Matic should have gone but so should the Burnley player. All teams though could point to refereeing mistakes that have cost them points and all teams have had their fair share of 'fors' and 'againsts'. I feel for refs though because there is so much dishonesty from players on a pitch, and I include all teams in that to greater or lesser degrees.

Using yesterday's incidents as an example (and not a dig, Stevo), both Ivanovic and Matic went down and acted as though they were severely injured and then made an instant recovery when they didn't get the decision they felt they deserved.

When players continually try to con refs and when managers continue to try and apply pressure and influence on referees with cleverly worded sound bites or haranguing them at half time, then they cannot moan when refs don't get everything right all the time.

If clubs want refs to get more decisions right then they need to stop cheating, and start to act and play with more integrity.

Stevo_666

City Boy wrote:

TBF the ref made mistakes in all of those incidents. Matic should have gone but so should the Burnley player. All teams though could point to refereeing mistakes that have cost them points and all teams have had their fair share of 'fors' and 'againsts'. I feel for refs though because there is so much dishonesty from players on a pitch, and I include all teams in that to greater or lesser degrees.

Using yesterday's incidents as an example (and not a dig, Stevo), both Ivanovic and Matic went down and acted as though they were severely injured and then made an instant recovery when they didn't get the decision they felt they deserved.

When players continually try to con refs and when managers continue to try and apply pressure and influence on referees with cleverly worded sound bites or haranguing them at half time, then they cannot moan when refs don't get everything right all the time.

If clubs want refs to get more decisions right then they need to stop cheating, and start to act and play with more integrity.

No dig taken. Did seem to me that we were particularly unlucky with the decisions yesterday but like you say, it's swings and roundabouts.

Overall the bit about trying to influence refs - by whatever means - goes to far and seems to be endemic. We need to get to a situation where it's more like rugby in terms of the refs word goes.

city_boy

Stevo 666 wrote:

City Boy wrote:

TBF the ref made mistakes in all of those incidents. Matic should have gone but so should the Burnley player. All teams though could point to refereeing mistakes that have cost them points and all teams have had their fair share of 'fors' and 'againsts'. I feel for refs though because there is so much dishonesty from players on a pitch, and I include all teams in that to greater or lesser degrees.

Using yesterday's incidents as an example (and not a dig, Stevo), both Ivanovic and Matic went down and acted as though they were severely injured and then made an instant recovery when they didn't get the decision they felt they deserved.


When players continually try to con refs and when managers continue to try and apply pressure and influence on referees with cleverly worded sound bites or haranguing them at half time, then they cannot moan when refs don't get everything right all the time.

If clubs want refs to get more decisions right then they need to stop cheating, and start to act and play with more integrity.

No dig taken. Did seem to me that we were particularly unlucky with the decisions yesterday but like you say, it's swings and roundabouts.

Overall the bit about trying to influence refs - by whatever means - goes to far and seems to be endemic. We need to get to a situation where it's more like rugby in terms of the refs word goes.

Are you not watching Jose on Goals on Sunday, now?

Stevo_666

Nope, what channel is that? (We've only got Freeview).

city_boy

Stevo 666 wrote:

Nope, what channel is that? (We've only got Freeview).

Sky sports 1

city_boy

Having just watched Barnes' tackle on Matic again I have to say it was a sickening challenge and Matic was lucky he didn't get his leg broken. I think if the FA don't look at that and retrospectively ban him then something is very wrong.

From a selfish point of view, I'll take Matic's ban 'cos I think he'll be a bigger miss to Chelski than Costa, but what Barnes did was disgraceful.

pinno

A game boils down to some decisions and quite possibly on balance, both Burnley and Chelski had decisions including penalty shouts that went with them or against them. The difference between Chelsea and Burnley should have been the 17 places between them. On the pitch, nothing separated them and that was reflected in the scoreline. From that perspective, Chelski let themselves down by a poor performance and rather predictably, Morinho is deflecting away from the performance by blaming referee decisions.

Ivanovic rolling around on the floor was unprofessional and so was Matic's reaction. The finger should be pointing at Mourinho who allows his players to play act instead of concentrating on getting the 3 points.

At least if Chelsea win this season which I am sure they will, they may have to fight for it. City are looking good which should put the pressure back on. Still a long way to go.

Stevo_666

Fortunately for us there's nout so unpredictable as City's form.

Disagree with you that nothing separated them - Chelsea had the better game overall, although clearly being one man down compared to them (which even CB says was not right - that tackle was a blatant red card, even if Matic's reaction was as well) did not help - as they only scored some time after Matic was sent off.

city_boy

Here you go, Stevo. A potted summary of Jose's rather interesting appearance on Goals on Sunday this morning...

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/cracking-up-mourinho-blasts-referees-8694911

Stevo_666

City Boy wrote:

Here you go, Stevo. A potted summary of Jose's rather interesting appearance on Goals on Sunday this morning...

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/cracking-up-mourinho-blasts-referees-8694911

Mourinho cracking up? Don't think so, but then again the Manchester Evening News is hardly likely to be sympathetic to him.

But he makes some good enough points such as the media reaction to Costa's stamp vs the reaction to the potentially career ending tackle on Matic. And the need for use of technology (like video replays which is already used successfully in sports like rugby).

city_boy

I don't think there's a particular 'witch hunt' against Chelsea but I do think there is definitely a media bias towards foreign players (especially those with a bit of character(!!) such as the Costas, Balotellis and Tevez's) with regards over exposing their misdemeanours. There have been loads of examples of similar incidents of violent conduct by English players that seem to get brushed under the carpet.

In terms of using video technology in-game, I'm not a fan. I think the human element of refereeing adds flavour to the game, but as I said before, I think more should be done to eradicate diving, play-acting and dissent. There should be more retrospective action and tougher penalties for this than there are now. More correct decisions will be made if players play with honesty. There also need to be more common sense with regards what is and isn't a bookable offence. I find it odd that a player can make a genuine and fair attempt to win the ball but get out skilled by a quick player (award the foul/free kick, obviously), or a player taking his shirt off in celebration in the emotional aftermath of scoring, and get a yellow card (or two, and sent off), yet a player can viscuosly verbally assault a ref and get clean away with it!

Stevo_666

Agree - there is no deliberate witch hunt. Like you say, the foreign characters in the PL get more scrutiny - as do the top teams. So when something happens with one of those teams, there is inevitably more coverage, espcially if it's one of the foreign characters in a top team. More newsworthy.

Re: video technology - I don't see this as fundamentally different from goal line technology and I haven't heard anyone complaining about that (apart from maybe Liverpool fans when we played them at Anfield last year ). It doesn't take away the human element - it helps refs make the right decision at the time. I'm in favour of stronger retrospective punishment but that doesn't stop the result of a game potentially being changed by the ref making the wrong decision at the time (the Matic sending off incident being a good example where Barnes should have gone off as well). That's where video technology can help. And like I said, it seems to work for rugby.

tim_wand

There is a massive difference between what is in the interest of the Game and what's in the interest of the media. Tv companies have just paid a combined £5,2 billion for EPL rights from 2016 onwards.

It suits their interests to create talking points in games, and to call for more media technology to be used to highlight those talking points.

I now support a club that has to play a cup quarter final on a Monday night at 1945 hours to suit a TV audience, that at one point no one travelling to the game from London would have been able to return from by train.

I m not in any way saying that these " incidents" are caused by the media, its obviously the individual players , managers and referees concerned. But its certainly within the medias interest to highlight every decision and create a talking point from it to generate interest.

I am sure that these issues have always had an effect on games and their outcomes, it's just nowadays Media interest seems to be less in reporting sport than creating some kind of drama from it.

Football is very black and white. Two teams play , there is a result , win . loose or draw. Unfortunately that simple narrative doesn't seem to create enough entertainment any more for the TV companies.

city_boy

I think goal line tech is quite a specific thing and in fairness how often is it actually used, in 10% of games maybe, if that?

Rugby is also a more stop start game anyway as opposed to football where it's best to keep the game flowing. I'm just not sure where you would draw the line with regards to which type of decisions would be subject to video review. There's a risk you could end up with games lasting over 2 hours (I know Manyoo had a few of these while they played on 'til they scored ).

(I think we should apologise to regular viewers who tuned in to see some CB/Stevo handbags and have found themselves in the midst of civilised debate :shock: )

tim_wand

Pundits, Arm chair fans, Media , We just need to get back to the basic principle that the referees decision is final. Its the Human element of sport that makes the drama.

The amount of Money that TV companies have invested, Clubs rely on for winning games and competitions now means that they are big businesses who wont allow themselves to be subject to such fickle fates.

Fans in the ground at a game , have just about the same view and room for error ( if not more so ) than a referee. But when clubs generate and create more Income from TV rights than they could ever dream of from fans coming through the turnstyles, Then this source of income is going to command more and more influence and control.

The simple game of Football doesn't in its purest form lend itself well to such precise analysis, and is at its best when viewed and regarded in the simple medium it was intended for. Live at the Match.

Stevo_666

tim wand wrote:

We just need to get back to the basic principle that the referees decision is final. Its the Human element of sport that makes the drama.

@CB - in terms of where you draw the line? IMO it should be the refs decision when and whether to use the video tech. The linesmen can tell him if they see/think they see something of course. In the end if the ref feels he has seen it, then fine. If no match official sees it then its the current process of retrospective action. If they aren't sure then it's their choice.

Yep, it will make games a bit more stop start but it will enable refs to make better decisions at the time and the knowledge that it can be used will make quite a few players think twice before trying it on. Not perfect, but I reckon better.

Looks like it's handbags in March at this rate

Flâneur

Popping my head up again.

Lucky with some decisions today, but keeps that top bit interesting. A nice first goal mind..

Matic and Barnes both send off IMO, but christ that challenge needs a longer ban. Not sure what I think about television reply etc but I do believe that the rugby citing method should be brought in, decision or not. How this works given how slow mo can distort the actual occasion is another problem but one that I think is worth having to deal with increasing bans or issuing fines etc later on. Think I am happy not to have tv replay in game, but maybe for a penalty decision if the ball is dead, gets complicated though so lets not.Goal line is good with me.


Issue is Sky want to ensure the big names are always playing, why do you think you see no cards for swearing. IMO they would soon learn to keep their mouth shut or as a captain clean.

City interesting form, Silva was fantastic, see what next weekend brings. Arsenal winning in scrappy fashion but that is what matters isn't it!

city_boy

Stevo 666 wrote:

The linesmen can tell him if they see/think they see something of course.

Actually, that's a very good point. It baffles me that linesmen were given the title of assistant referees and, in most cases, are only there to decide throw ins and offsides. It is my understanding that it is up to the ref what level of involvement his linesmen have.

I think all linesmen (or whatever they're called) should have the mandate to flag for ANY infringement that they witness. How often do we see refs make the wrong decision because they genuinely couldn't see it, but the linesman is stood 2 yards away with a perfect view and he just stands there with his flag up his jacksie!

And what those goal line officials in the CL are there for is beyond me!

Manc33

City Boy wrote:

And what those goal line officials in the CL are there for is beyond me!

So whoever employs them (FIFA?) can continually ask for more funding.

The more people that work for them, the more important they appear to be.

That's the way of the world, not just football. I wish it was just football. :roll:

Too much Alan Titchmarsh and not enough Tommy Walsh!

pinno

It was definitely UEFA officials that converted David Icke.

verylonglegs

As a neutral the bunfight developing for the CL slots should be very interesting.

Manc33

Whooped at home by a crap French side.

No, not "mainly Arsenal"

What'll it be in Monaco, 5-0?