Match Thread: Chelsea -v- Manchester United [All Pre/During/After Match Discussion]

Mitch Connor

CHD wrote: »

Obv, clever one aren't you :pac:

Now now CHD, missed a golden opportunity there.

You said Top 4, not Big 4....

And here was me thinking that is what you were setting up....

CHD

I failed

PHB

Mr Alan wrote: »

oh i watched the game Rory, and believe me, i am well aware that Riley is a shambles of a ref and should not be let anywhere a PL match. his shambolic performance on Sat was of benefit to UTd though. also, remind me how often he awards Utd penos at OT

Absurd.
If you can honestly watch that match and think that, thats just aburd. Compltely and utterly inconsistant, in every single regard. Ashley Cole got nothing for dissent, nothing. Ronaldo gets booked for literally saying, I was pushed with his hands. That is not dissent. You are allowed talk to the ref. And if thats dissent, every single, every single player would have been sent off.
But it's ok, because we know you're talking absolute crap, when you say this

i'd imagine he may have used colourful language to the ref or been a little disrespectful

Because he did it with his bloody hands!
Scholes yellow was not a yellow, it was a foul. A foul is not a yellow. No doubt some things he did favoured United, but the entire attitude of cutting the games flow every bloody chance he got favoured Chelsea.
Why didn't he blow up against Ferdinand and give him a yellow for dissent? Because he realised just how ****ing stupid his decision was to award the foul in the first place, and realised, 'Holy ****ing ****, I just totally ****ed up, what the **** will I do if a goal comes from this? ****, Ferdinand is going nuts at me, I'm going to have to send him off? Then everyone will realise how much I ****ed up this match, the respect the ref campaign won't save me. **** **** ****, what the **** will I do. Wait, let's blow for full time. It'll be ****ing perplexing, but **** it, its better than what will happen if Chelsea scores. Jesus christ I ****ed up here'

He didn't favour anyone, he was just ****. Utterly utterly crap, had no idea what he was doing, ****. In a performance which resulted in 7 yellows for United players, 1 for a Chelsea player, with United committing 22 fouls, Chelsea 18, to suggest the performance favoured United is just utterly stupid.

It's just a stupid post.

---

Also to blame Cech for the goal is pretty harsh, he did well enough to get down to save it.

Mr Alan

absurd-good work PHB

i dont think its harsh at all, he should have held it.

Boggles

Mr Alan wrote: »

99.9% of goals come from defensive errors.

There is varying degrees of defensive errors thou, Gigg's was an extreme defenisive error, which gifted Liverpool the opportunity to get a goal, not saying all the work was done at that stage, Babel still had to execute his Bobbel.

Anam

As a Chelsea supporter I'm happy enough with the draw tbh.Given the injuries we sustained early on, a draw is decent enough.Deco was a massive loss, especially given that Ballack is not fit.

Ferguson took the pragmatic and arguably cynical way of dealing with a tough away game against a top side.He packed the midfield and had everyone snapping at the heels of the Chelsea players, trying to disrupt their passing game and hoping to sneak a goal,it worked too,initially at least.It's understandable given that united rarely outplay top sides with top quality midfields, take a look at how they got on against Barcelona and Milan for instance.Their strength lies counter attacking teams with the pace that their attacking players have, their midfield isnt great imo.

The yellow cards in most cases were completely deserved and some deserved 2 yellows.The united players were playing dirty for most of the first half, the likes of Scholes and Rooney in particular.I'd imagine they were under instructions from Ferguson to play this type of game.The dive Ronaldo did when Lampard when in on him was a disgrace and Neville was lucky Ballack stayed on his feet or he'd have walked.Both Coles for Chelsea were lucky to escape yellows but it seemed to be out of frustration with being kicked during the match

Either side could have won it really,both missed golden opportunities, Anelka,Joe Cole,Rooney and Rio Ferdinand in particular.And both sides will only get better now that they have their best attacking players back.I think Berbatov will be a lot better when he gets a few more games under his belt and gets his fitness up, he's a class act.

I was certainly disappointed that Deco didnt play, and that Ferguson approached the game as he did, because we didnt really get to see Chelsea play the way they have been playing lately,great to have Drogba back though,he'll put away those chances that Anelka has been wasting.Also, Bosingwa should have done better for the goal but apart from that I thought he was very impressive,great signing.

Dave!

Jesus f*cking christ..............

JP Liz

United should have won they played better its a shame it was a draw but Chelesa did fight back second half.

man of the match for me was Ferdinand

Mr Alan

My point is simply that Utds cards were deseverved and they were lucky to escape with 11 players on the pitch. people were trying to paint out Utd were hard done by with the ref as they picked up so many bookings, i was simply pointing out that they were all deserved as far as i could tell with the possible exception of Ronaldo who may have been booked for the wrong offence but was definately deserved of a yellow card.

PHB wrote: »

If you can honestly watch that match and think that, thats just aburd. Compltely and utterly inconsistant, in every single regard. Ashley Cole got nothing for dissent, nothing. Ronaldo gets booked for literally saying, I was pushed with his hands. That is not dissent. You are allowed talk to the ref

ok, lets say Ronaldo didnt say anything to the ref, he would have still deserved a yellow card for his stupid dive. call it karma, call it watever.

he did it with his bloody hands!

were his lips not moving as well though? pretty sure they were, anyway, as i said, if he shouldnt have been booked for dissent, he should definately have been booked for his dive. so he was definately deserved of a yellow card in that match.

Scholes yellow was not a yellow, it was a foul. A foul is not a yellow

i disagree totally, i think Scholes was a definate yellow. a text book example of a tackle that should result in a yellow card.

and he also should have got another for kicking the ball away a few minutes later.

and he also should have gotten one for other collective fouls during the game. again, this is a typical example of how i feel Riley favoured Utd.

No doubt some things he did favoured United

agreed. i think the major decisions went Utds way, allowing Scholes to stay on the pitch for about 45 mins that he shouldnt have been on for, blowing up before allowing Chelsea to take their free kick. not sending Rio off after the final whistle for dissent OR before the final whistle for the foul he blew up for.

but the entire attitude of cutting the games flow every bloody chance he got favoured Chelsea.

I would have thought it suited Utd more, considering Chelsea were by far stronger for most of the second half.

Why didn't he blow up against Ferdinand and give him a yellow for dissent?

I'd be more worried about why he did blow up against Ferdinand for a foul that should have been a yellow and subsequent red. Then change his mind and blow full time, before allowing Ferdinand to berate him which was also deserving of a further yellow.

Because he realised just how ****ing stupid his decision was to award the foul in the first place, and realised, 'Holy ****ing ****, I just totally ****ed up, what the **** will I do if a goal comes from this? ****, Ferdinand is going nuts at me, I'm going to have to send him off? Then everyone will realise how much I ****ed up this match, the respect the ref campaign won't save me. **** **** ****, what the **** will I do. Wait, let's blow for full time. It'll be ****ing perplexing, but **** it, its better than what will happen if Chelsea scores. Jesus christ I ****ed up here'

thats some good mind reading there PHB.

and you said my post was full of rubbish?

He didn't favour anyone, he was just *****, to suggest the performance favoured United is just utterly stupid.?

he made silly decisions all throughout the game, indiscriminantly, but he ****ed up big time with Scholes, Ferdinand and the free kick that never was.

as i said, i expected a farcical display from Riley favouring Utd. its not new for him.

It's just a stupid post.

ditto.

Mr. Presentable

Trilla wrote: »

Also, its quite clear that you have a massive hatred for Manchester United. Crystal Clear

Perhaps he does, but his points are in reference to the referee. Now, I know what the reaction would be if it was suggested he was in SAF's pocket, but you respond to criticism of the ref as though he were a Manchester player

Nalz

nipplenuts wrote: »

but you respond to criticism of the ref as though he were a Manchester player

What you on about seriously? I responded to a number of posts by Mr Alan, collectively its clear that he dislikes Manchester United with a passion...almost as much as he loves Liverpool judging by the tones and one sidedness of the posts on here.

Nalz

Besides I agree with Mr Alans comments about the yellow cards. Scholes deserved a yellow for persistent fouling, as did Berbatov. Evra also deserved his and it sickened me to see the old Ronaldo (like he did 3 seasons ago) throw himself to the ground. Karma yes I agree he deserved the booking. I dunno about Rios yellow card and I havent a clue what happened at the end (didnt see the challenge or the reason why Manchester United players were consulting the ref over).

RasTa

I was wondering why this was so long. back on Ignore for Mr Alan, I suggest you do the same PHB and every United fan. He will have no-one to argue with then.

roryc

RasTa wrote: »

I was wondering why this was so long. back on Ignore for Mr Alan, I suggest you do the same PHB and every United fan. He will have no-one to argue with then.

I reckon ill do the same, its like talking to a brick wall. He finds out which side of the fence United fans are on, jumps on the other side and then attemps to form cohesive debates as to why United are sh*t/lucky etc etc.

Seems like a somewhat intelligent bloke but needs to take off the Liverpool tinted glasses and ABU hat methinks...

Ruskie4Rent

Trilla wrote: »

Besides I agree with Mr Alans comments about the yellow cards. Scholes deserved a yellow for persistent fouling, as did Berbatov. Evra also deserved his and it sickened me to see the old Ronaldo (like he did 3 seasons ago) throw himself to the ground. Karma yes I agree he deserved the booking. I dunno about Rios yellow card and I havent a clue what happened at the end (didnt see the challenge or the reason why Manchester United players were consulting the ref over).

Ronaldo wasn't booked for a dive, scholes i think was only booked for his second tackle, and berbatov was called for alot of soft fouls. If they are getting booked then surely joe cole should've been for his foul in midfield.

Some refs are very card happy and i'm fine with that, mike riley tends to be in most matches, what annoys me though is the how inconsistant they can be.

PHB

PHB wrote: »

He didn't favour anyone, he was just ****. Utterly utterly crap, had no idea what he was doing, ****. In a performance which resulted in 7 yellows for United players, 1 for a Chelsea player, with United committing 22 fouls, Chelsea 18, to suggest the performance favoured United is just utterly stupid.

It's just a stupid post.

---

Also to blame Cech for the goal is pretty harsh, he did well enough to get down to save it.

This pretty much says it all. And its the fact that its so painfully obvious that I decided against wasting an afternoon gettin revved up about that.


Frankly Al you need a better


And I need to stop biting

Nalz

Ruskie4Rent wrote: »

Ronaldo wasn't booked for a dive

Thats why I said

Trilla wrote:

throw himself to the ground. Karma yes I agree he deserved the booking

with reference to MrAlans Karma comment

Mr Alan

in fairness Rasta and Rory, at least i made a ****ing attempt to put why i had my opinion and explain-which neither of you commented on to show why i was wrong.

PHB, as always, put across a post expressing where his and my opinions differed, but in your view loike he is such a legend cause yous agree with him and i am loike such a ****ing spaz and should be ignored, loike.

what the **** did yous do the last few pages except say "ohhh you talk ****e, you hate Utd blah blah" "i'm gonna ignore you cause you dont like utd blah blah"

if you lads arent able to articulate your opinions to counter my points then put me on ignore, no skin of my nose.

Boggles

Mr Alan wrote: »

i am loike such a ****ing spaz and should be ignored, loike.

Am I sensing new sig material.

FatherTed

Mr Alan wrote: »

as i said, i expected a farcical display from Riley favouring Utd. its not new for him.

You are completely delusional for thinking he was favouring United.

SantryRed

PHB wrote: »

Also to blame Cech for the goal is pretty harsh, he did well enough to get down to save it.

I blame Cech. I'm a keeper and I'd be very disappointed in not holding onto that ball or at least pushing it away from danger.

He second guessed the shot and got it right, but he was ahead of the ball.
He must take the blame for it.

Jazzy

Mr Alan wrote: »

absurd-good work PHB

i dont think its harsh at all, he should have held it.

i think u complaining about boggles is hypocrisy
riley favoured utd yesterday did he? 7 yellow cards.. one given to ronaldo for saying he was pushed. he favoured utd? do u actually look at wat ur typing?
as PHB said - its a stupid post. simple as that.


and please, do go on about OPINIONS and watnot. the irony will be delicious

roryc

Mr Alan wrote: »

in fairness Rasta and Rory, at least i made a ****ing attempt to put why i had my opinion and explain-which neither of you commented on to show why i was wrong.

PHB, as always, put across a post expressing where his and my opinions differed, but in your view loike he is such a legend cause yous agree with him and i am loike such a ****ing spaz and should be ignored, loike.

Why should I waste my time showing you why you are wrong? You have your opinion, I have mine, just because you have made a comment it does not force me into a debate with you... You claim the ref favoured united, even though though he gave SEVEN times the amount of cards to United than Chelsea. Personally, I think this type of ridiculous comment doesn't warrant a retort from me, there are plenty of other posters willing to take the bait.

I could go into detail as to why i think your logic is flawed here, but I don't see the point. You seem to just want to argue with United fans, and cannot get your point across with a dramatic use of ****. Also, Im not sure where this 'loike' business is coming from....

If you don't listen to me maybe you'll listen to some of your numerous other critics

Mr Alan wrote: »

what the **** did yous do the last few pages except say "ohhh you talk ****e, you hate Utd blah blah" "i'm gonna ignore you cause you dont like utd blah blah"

What a concise summary of the last few pages.

Mr Alan wrote: »

if you lads arent able to articulate your opinions to counter my points then put me on ignore, no skin of my nose.

Thanks, I think I'll join the list

Mr Alan

Riley showing Utd 7 yellow cards is not an indication that he did not favour Utd.

As i asked earlier, which ones shouldnt have been yellow cards?

ok Ronaldo is the only one, and he deserved for his ridiculous dive that went unpunished.

Every other Utd player deserved their yellow cards. With Ferdinand,Scholes lucky to stay on the pitch. Possibly even Neville.

Ruskie4Rent

Mr Alan wrote: »

Riley showing Utd 7 yellow cards is not an indication that he did not favour Utd.

As i asked earlier, which ones shouldnt have been yellow cards?

ok Ronaldo is the only one, and he deserved for his ridiculous dive that went unpunished.

Every other Utd player deserved their yellow cards. With Ferdinand,Scholes lucky to stay on the pitch. Possibly even Neville.

What are you on? Both Scholes and Ferdinand recieved harsh yellows and i'd argue Berbatov did as well (alot of the fouls given against him were harsh). The players you mentioned were only lucky to stay on the pitch because the ever fickle Mike Riley seemed to be throwing cards out randomly.

Mr Alan

how can people possibly claim Scholes yellow card was harsh? he he commited a couple of fouls before his card and the tackle he got the card for was deserving of a card in itself

Ruskie4Rent

Mr Alan wrote: »

how can people possibly claim Scholes yellow card was harsh? he he commited a couple of fouls before his card and the tackle he got the card for was deserving of a card in itself

I've seen players get away with fouls like that. He didn't go to ground or go through the player in any way. And i don't think scholes committed that many fouls before that either. You also must be on drugs if you think he should've been booked for flicking the ball away, it was a slight bit of petulance but the ball only went a few yards FFS.

Boggles

Mr Alan wrote: »

Riley showing Utd 7 yellow cards is not an indication that he did not favour Utd.

As i asked earlier, which ones shouldnt have been yellow cards?

ok Ronaldo is the only one, and he deserved for his ridiculous dive that went unpunished.

Every other Utd player deserved their yellow cards. With Ferdinand,Scholes lucky to stay on the pitch. Possibly even Neville.

Anyone who thinks Riley was not over harsh with the cards on Sunday is either fúckíng clueless or taking the píss. He obviously came into the game with an agenda and IMO ruined what could have been a excellent free flowing contest.

Scholes was booked for his 2nd foul, it was nothing and didn't deserve a yellow, because it was only his second foul there is no case to be booked for persistant fouling either.

Stop the bull shít master Alan, to suggest Riley was a disaster in the match because he was too lenient is retarded at the highest level, you have yet again out done yourself. Take a bow. :rolleyes:

Mr Alan

**** this is getting tiresome.

Riley was trigger happy with the cards. he always is. always has been. The Scholes foul imo (and the opinion of some Utd fans in this thread) was deserving of a yellow card. The fact that Utd got a lot of yellow cards does not mean Riley did not favour them in a couple of massive calls.

lets just call this a day, its pointless. i've given my reasons why i think Riley favoured Utd. You disagree, lets just leave it at that.

PHB

Mr Alan wrote: »

**** this is getting tiresome.

It's getting tiresome cause you're talking ****.

he he commited a couple of fouls before his card and the tackle he got the card for was deserving of a card in itself

Scholes was booked for his 2nd foul

The Scholes foul imo (and the opinion of some Utd fans in this thread) was deserving of a yellow card.

Another argument dropped based on flawed data. Just like the Ronaldo one too.

The fact that Utd got a lot of yellow cards does not mean Riley did not favour them in a couple of massive calls.

One massive call really. And they didn't favour them, because it wasn't a ****ing foul in the first place!!!

And the reason he didn't send off Scholes was simple, people would have said, what the **** did you give the first yellow for?

Him giving United lots of yellows isn't an indiciation he didn't favour us. However, the fact that he set a standard, which he used on United, but didn't use on Chelsea, on at least 2 clear occassions, is why you're talking crap.

However I don't think its because he favoured whoever or whatever, even though it was twice extremely annoying, its just because he's a **** ref.

However you'd prefer it if it was because he favoured United, because that way, United aren't quite as deserving of their draw as you think, hence they are crapper, hence Liverpool are better. That's the entire basis for your point, and pretty much everyone can see that.

leninbenjamin

Riley's a sh*t ref, the pressure always gets to him and he ends up a homer. there's no way United should have gotten 7 cards and Chelsea only one in that match, no way. if it were Old Trafford the same thing would happen, only Chelsea would be the ones picking up the fine. he's just an awful ref.

monkey9

PHB wrote: »

It's getting tiresome cause you're talking ****.







Another argument dropped based on flawed data. Just like the Ronaldo one too.



One massive call really. And they didn't favour them, because it wasn't a ****ing foul in the first place!!!

And the reason he didn't send off Scholes was simple, people would have said, what the **** did you give the first yellow for?

Him giving United lots of yellows isn't an indiciation he didn't favour us. However, the fact that he set a standard, which he used on United, but didn't use on Chelsea, on at least 2 clear occassions, is why you're talking crap.

However I don't think its because he favoured whoever or whatever, even though it was twice extremely annoying, its just because he's a **** ref.

However you'd prefer it if it was because he favoured United, because that way, United aren't quite as deserving of their draw as you think, hence they are crapper, hence Liverpool are better. That's the entire basis for your point, and pretty much everyone can see that.

However I don't think its because he favoured whoever or whatever, even though it was twice extremely annoying, its just because he's a **** ref.





This pretty much sums it up. True and straight to the point.

Mr Alan

PHB wrote: »

It's getting tiresome cause you're talking ****.

good work Mr Moderator.

PHB wrote: »

Another argument dropped based on flawed data. Just like the Ronaldo one too.

Not an argument dropped at all. I've said perhaps Ronaldos yellow was harsh if he only gestured with his hands but didnt say a single word, but i think he said something also. if i am wrong about that fine, but again, he would have/should have gotten yellow for his ridiculous dive-so whether or not he got it for dissent or for nothing, he deserved a yellow card in that match.

Scoles picked up a booking for his 3rd foul of the match btw, the ref had spoken to him after his second.

PHB wrote: »

And the reason he didn't send off Scholes was simple, people would have said, what the **** did you give the first yellow for?

How do you know wat was going through Rileys head?seriously. how do you know wat was going through the watching populations head?

PHB wrote: »

Him giving United lots of yellows isn't an indiciation he didn't favour us. However, the fact that he set a standard, which he used on United, but didn't use on Chelsea, on at least 2 clear occassions, is why you're talking crap.

Cole should have possibly gotten a yellow. cant think of anyone else? But i can also think of at least one tackle and Ronaldos dive that should have recieved yellows during the match (Neville)

PHB wrote: »

However I don't think its because he favoured whoever or whatever, even though it was twice extremely annoying, its just because he's a **** ref.

he is a ****e ref, but he has favoured Utd before, remind me of his record with penalties in Old Trafford?

PHB wrote: »

However you'd prefer it if it was because he favoured United, because that way, United aren't quite as deserving of their draw as you think, hence they are crapper, hence Liverpool are better. That's the entire basis for your point, and pretty much everyone can see that.

This is nothing to do with Liverpool.

When i heard Riley had been appointed to the game on Sat i said he'd favour Utd, I think i was right.

At the very least, he blew up early denying Chelsea a free kick at the edge of the box. At the most he did that and should have sent off 1 player early enough in the match and another just before the final whistle.

I'm done with this thread.

Nalz

Mr Alan wrote: »

I'm done with this thread.

finally!!!

Ah in fairness to MrAlan lads, an awful lot of the yellow cards United players got were deserved. Even the Ronaldo one because of his dive earlier. Hate seeing that shi't.

I dont think Riley favoured United however, and I disagree with this:

Mr Alan wrote: »

should have sent off 1 player early enough in the match and another just before the final whistle.

Yes he had a poor game but there was very little if any favouritism.

icecream

Mr Alan

Mr Alan wrote: »

At the very least, he blew up early denying Chelsea a free kick at the edge of the box. At the most he did that and should have sent off 1 player early enough in the match and another just before the final whistle.

He didnt blow up early though. He blew up because time was up. Where the free kick is on the pitch doesnt determine whether or not to stop the game. Play is blown up when time is up at basically the next break of play or when the ball is in neutral territory. In this case play was stopped, time was up, match was over.


Did u think it was a dirty match worthy of red cards? I didnt. Stupid bookings and sendings off ruined the 2006 World Cup, surely you cant support the view that the game needs more cards?

spockety

Deleted User wrote: »

He didnt blow up early though. He blew up because time was up. Where the free kick is on the pitch doesnt determine whether or not to stop the game. Play is blown up when time is up at basically the next break of play or when the ball is in neutral territory. In this case play was stopped, time was up, match was over.

A minimum of 3 minutes added time had been indicated by the 4th official.

Riley blew for the foul/end I think on about 2:50 into the added time.

Come off it, in 99% of matches the refs will allow time for a corner or free kick that could give a team one last advantageous piece of play even if by doing so it causes the clock to run over what the 4th official had advertised.

Mitch Connor

Maybe he felt Drogba had taken a dive, so felt he may as well blow up for full time then wait for Tommy to kick it over the halfway line and blow up then.

Mr Alan

last post i promise! just found this out! We may disagree about who Riley favoured last weekend, or if he favoured anyone, but we all agree that his refereeing was poor.

His reward?

the Merseyside Derby this weekend! ffs.

few soft decisions and all is forgiven Mike!;)

roryc

PHB wrote: »

However you'd prefer it if it was because he favoured United, because that way, United aren't quite as deserving of their draw as you think, hence they are crapper, hence Liverpool are better. That's the entire basis for your point, and pretty much everyone can see that.

Nail >>>>> Head

Mr Alan wrote: »

........i am wrong.......

Selective quotation ftw, but this is the most sense you have made in this entire thread

Hobart

I don't think Riley favored either side tbh. He got a lot of decisions correct, and some wrong. It's probably going to be a similar pattern to any game he refs. I don't think Utd deserved a point, as they were totally dominated by Chelsea in the second half, and Chelsea deserved more out of the game than Utd.

I fail to see what this has got to do with childish claims of "my team is better than yours" taunts, and in fact the accuser is looking a lot more silly than he that is being accused.

The only good thing for Liverpool, is that Utd and Chelsea got no more than a point out of it, and Utd with 1 point out of the last 6, and a whopping 5 out of 12, are going to have to play very very well, to bridge the gap.

Boggles

spockety wrote: »

A minimum of 3 minutes added time had been indicated by the 4th official.

Riley blew for the foul/end I think on about 2:50 into the added time.

Come off it, in 99% of matches the refs will allow time for a corner or free kick that could give a team one last advantageous piece of play even if by doing so it causes the clock to run over what the 4th official had advertised.

Amount of lost time played is at the sole discretion of the referee.

Ferdinand won the ball against Drogba and it was a clash of heads that resulted in him being on the ground, it wasn't a free full stop.

Hobart wrote: »

The only good thing for Liverpool, is that Utd and Chelsea got no more than a point out of it, and Utd with 1 point out of the last 6, and a whopping 5 out of 12, are going to have to play very very well, to bridge the gap.

Again can someone explain to me why Liverpool are being discussed in this thread?

Mr Alan

Boggles wrote: »

Again can someone explain to me why Liverpool are being discussed in this thread?

because PHB brought them up.

Hobart

Boggles wrote: »

Again can someone explain to me why Liverpool are being discussed in this thread?

You'll have to ask PHB that, he seems to have some theory on it.

Nalz

Hobart wrote: »

You'll have to ask PHB that, he seems to have some theory on it.

yeah MrAlan already imformed him who and how it came up. pc++

Ruskie4Rent

Mr Alan wrote: »

last post i promise! just found this out! We may disagree about who Riley favoured last weekend, or if he favoured anyone, but we all agree that his refereeing was poor.

His reward?

the Merseyside Derby this weekend! ffs.

few soft decisions and all is forgiven Mike!;)

Off topic:
That brings up another issue, what/who determines which ref does the bigger matches, ie. the ones that have more of an edge to them?

Most people agree that Riley had a bad game on sunday and is usually unreliable when big decisions are needed, so why is he allowed anywhere near the mersyside derby (where a cool head is definitely needed), and Mark Halsey is stuck doin league 2 matches?

monkey9

Ruskie4Rent wrote: »

Off topic:
That brings up another issue, what/who determines which ref does the bigger matches, ie. the ones that have more of an edge to them?

Most people agree that Riley had a bad game on sunday and is usually unreliable when big decisions are needed, so why is he allowed anywhere near the mersyside derby (where a cool head is definitely needed), and Mark Halsey is stuck doin league 2 matches?

Riley did the same fixture last season i think. I think he had a great game!! :pac:

ntlbell

spockety wrote: »

A minimum of 3 minutes added time had been indicated by the 4th official.

Riley blew for the foul/end I think on about 2:50 into the added time.

Come off it, in 99% of matches the refs will allow time for a corner or free kick that could give a team one last advantageous piece of play even if by doing so it causes the clock to run over what the 4th official had advertised.

I don't think anyone's mentioned the fact he blew up on 2.52 for the first half also. so it had nothing to do with the fact he didn't have the nerve to send someone off

Charlie

Popped in to have a look to see why this tread was still active, only to find a debate about whether Riley was a closet United fan. I thought it was

common knowledge he 's Fergie.

Jazzy

PHB wrote: »

However you'd prefer it if it was because he favoured United, because that way, United aren't quite as deserving of their draw as you think, hence they are crapper, hence Liverpool are better. That's the entire basis for your point, and pretty much everyone can see that.

pretty much exactly that Alan. its wat Boggles does for Liverpool.
just because you really really want Riley to have favoured Utd doesn't mean he did. you can hide behind the guise of OPINIONS all you want but as we all know, thats the clear indication that the argument has gone beyond your grasp

The_Hustler

I'm still wondering why people were discussing Essien for this match earlier in this thread, he won't be back for months.