Manchester United v Tottenham Hotspur (EPL) 5.15pm 25/4/09 Setanta Sp 1

Mitch Connor

eagle eye wrote: »

What amazes me is that we have a vidpic for that incident but you never put one up about the penalty. I think we'd all appreciate it.

If you'd appreciate - go find one yourself and post it up yourself, don't be so god damned lazy.

cardshark202

eagle eye wrote: »

I for one never said that Howard Webb is a Man Utd fan by the way.

I think there has to be questions asked here as to why that penalty was awarded. Its clear form Howard Webb's other recent games that he doesn't give penalties easily and that he is more likely to err on the side of the defender in these sort of circumstances.

So why yesterday did he get this wrong and why suddenly did he make a decision in favour of the attacking team.

My belief is that one of two things happened that made Howard Webb make this decision.

Firstly he was affected by the comments of Alex Ferguson after the Everton game.

What I really believe is that he was told by his bosses before this game(because he is very unlikely to make these decisions) that he better make sure he gets it right if United have a penalty decision.

Just think back a bit and we have a controversial decision made to send off John Terry for being last man back. Mark Halsey paid a huge price for sticking to his guns and sending off Terry. Thats the pressure referees are under when reffing games involving big four teams.

So basically you have a referee here who has a choice. He is not sure and his decision is based on protecting his own future rather than refereeing correctly and waving it away as he should have done. If you watched the game yesterday you will remember that the whistle did not go immediately, there was a gap between when the incident occurred and when Howard Webb blew up. He even took a lot of time to decide to give a yellow card.

Oh jesus. Talk about reading too much into it. Come on now. You really do believe everything you read in the tabloids lol.

Smegball

Mitch Connor wrote: »

If you'd appreciate - go find one yourself and post it up yourself, don't be so god damned lazy.

eagle eye wrote: »

What amazes me is that we have a vidpic for that incident but you never put one up about the penalty. I think we'd all appreciate it.

If your vision is like what your name suggests you should have no problems finding a vidpic

Theresalwaysone

There was a video put up of it anyway. Whatawaster put one up a while earlier today, before EagleEye waded in.

Nalz

Trilla wrote: »

Heading over for this. Hoping Its the same lineup as pompy game, only if giggs and scholes are rested i'd like to see Carrick and Tevez (Rooney on wing) as apposed to Berbatov and Nani or anyone else.

Fergie read my post at halftime, I know it

Although Berbatov was decent second half, great strength and control...just fupppin run man!

grahamo

The thing that bothers me about the penalty decision is the fact that had it have been any other team bar Man. Utd. awarded the penalty it would have been a "Stone wall Peno" and it wouldn't have been mentioned again.
An example of the ABU journalism was last week when Wellbeck was brought down in the late penalty incident v Everton. It barely got a mention. However, if it was the other way round and Everton that should have had a penalty decision it would have been plastered all over the sports pages that 'Everton were robbed'. Saturday's penalty decision was a tough one for any ref. Gomes got a slight touch on the ball which Webb would not have seen from his position but he did slide into Carrick first and bundled him over. Webb would have seen that. Therefore PENALTY and the keeper was lucky to stay on.
Some decisions are given, some are not. These things even themselves out over a season.
BTW the real talking point for me about this match was Palacios Kung Fu tackle on Ronaldo. He dived in like a loony, feet about 2 feet in the air and studs showing. If Ronaldo's legs had been planted it was a career finisher.
He got away with it It was a straight red. and of course not mentioned at all on TV or newspapers. Terrible journalism, totally biased against United

Nalz

Agreed, I was very close to that tackle (W Pal on Ronnie)

disgraceful alright - was going mental after it.

Unearthly

grahamo wrote: »

The thing that bothers me about the penalty decision is the fact that had it have been any other team bar Man. Utd. awarded the penalty it would have been a "Stone wall Peno" and it wouldn't have been mentioned again.

Wouldn't really agree with that. If it was any other team on tv it would of been highlighted, but not many people would be arsed really, unless you supported the team who got done in.

Likes of Andy Gray and Craig Burley are not ones to stay quiet if they spot a poor ref decision resulting in a goal.

SlickRic

grahamo wrote: »

The thing that bothers me about the penalty decision is the fact that had it have been any other team bar Man. Utd. awarded the penalty it would have been a "Stone wall Peno" and it wouldn't have been mentioned again.
An example of the ABU journalism was last week when Wellbeck was brought down in the late penalty incident v Everton. It barely got a mention. However, if it was the other way round and Everton that should have had a penalty decision it would have been plastered all over the sports pages that 'Everton were robbed'. Saturday's penalty decision was a tough one for any ref. Gomes got a slight touch on the ball which Webb would not have seen from his position but he did slide into Carrick first and bundled him over. Webb would have seen that. Therefore PENALTY and the keeper was lucky to stay on.
Some decisions are given, some are not. These things even themselves out over a season.
BTW the real talking point for me about this match was Palacios Kung Fu tackle on Ronaldo. He dived in like a loony, feet about 2 feet in the air and studs showing. If Ronaldo's legs had been planted it was a career finisher.
He got away with it It was a straight red. and of course not mentioned at all on TV or newspapers. Terrible journalism, totally biased against United

yes, the world's against you :rolleyes:

Mr. Frost

SlickRic wrote: »

yes, the world's against you :rolleyes:

Why don't you try making a point against what he said?

SlickRic

Mr. Frost wrote: »

Why don't you try making a point against what he said?

i have previously in this thread thanks. i'm not re-hashing everything.

but if you think the world is against utd you've gone a bit loony; just as loony as the ones who say everyone is for them. they were bad decisions by the ref - the penalty and the tackle - it depends who you support how offended you are by which decision.

There are as many journalists who are all for utd as there are against, and just as many in between.

I could easily post up examples of Fergie getting an easy ride from the media, FA, etc, and getting away with certain things others don't, but it's all been discussed before, we won't get anywhere, and it's got nothing to do with this thread.

Morzadec

Mr. Frost wrote: »

Why don't you try making a point against what he said?

Probably because, at this stage, he's sick of explaining why it was definitely a penalty. As am I. If you can't see that Gomes made a great save, that his touch on the ball was very significant, that his eyes were on the ball not Carrick, and that it came before contact with Carrick then I don't know what to say anymore.

Maybe you have some points about Wellbeck etc... I thought it was pretty much a definite penalty, not much room for doubt IMO.

The Gomes one I can't see ANY room for doubt. It simply was not a penalty. But the ref got it wrong, that's life let's move on.

SuprSi

grahamo wrote: »

The thing that bothers me about the penalty decision is the fact that had it have been any other team bar Man. Utd. awarded the penalty it would have been a "Stone wall Peno" and it wouldn't have been mentioned again.
An example of the ABU journalism was last week when Wellbeck was brought down in the late penalty incident v Everton. It barely got a mention. However, if it was the other way round and Everton that should have had a penalty decision it would have been plastered all over the sports pages that 'Everton were robbed'. Saturday's penalty decision was a tough one for any ref. Gomes got a slight touch on the ball which Webb would not have seen from his position but he did slide into Carrick first and bundled him over. Webb would have seen that. Therefore PENALTY and the keeper was lucky to stay on.
Some decisions are given, some are not. These things even themselves out over a season.
BTW the real talking point for me about this match was Palacios Kung Fu tackle on Ronaldo. He dived in like a loony, feet about 2 feet in the air and studs showing. If Ronaldo's legs had been planted it was a career finisher.
He got away with it It was a straight red. and of course not mentioned at all on TV or newspapers. Terrible journalism, totally biased against United

Rrrrrrright.... So let's get this straight. You're saying that because the penalty was earned by Utd, everyone is up in arms against it? So if the roles were reversed, and let's be frank about this one - let's say things 'even themselves out' and the league goes down to the last game of the season. Spurs are playing Liverpool and the exact same decision is given to Liverpool, sparking a similar revival and victory, do you not think the same fuss would be made over it? They are similar situations in the context of the league as the weekends win for Utd means that the league is effectively theirs.

Utd are one of the two most supported EPL clubs in this country. If a dodgy decision goes for them, of course it's going to be plastered everywhere, particularly when it leads to a comeback that essentially seals the league. If the same thing had happened to Liverpool, there would be the exact same reaction in the public/media. There is a huge amount for both Liverpool and Utd to lose based on bad refereeing decisions, way more than normal, so tensions are high and subsequent reactions will be as well.

Oh and I agree about the Palacios tackle. I hadn't seen it until yesterday and he should have gone, but fortunately for him there was a much bigger talking point later in the game.

ITT-Pat

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJTBPdVpdMc

grahamo

SlickRic wrote: »

yes, the world's against you :rolleyes:

Its nothing to do with the World being against us. I'm just pointing out that when United get any kind of decision its totally overanalysed. In the same way when they don't get a decision....Nothing said! Have any other premiership teams got a controversial penalty this season? I'm sure they have. Its just that I don't hear journalists and commentators constantly going on about it when its a different team.

Boggles

SuprSi wrote: »

If the same thing had happened to Liverpool, there would be the exact same reaction in the public/media.

Not true, evident in the fact that Liverpools first goal at the weekend came from a wrong refeering decision.

Or have I just missed the Scouse outrage on that one?

SlickRic

grahamo wrote: »

Its nothing to do with the World being against us. I'm just pointing out that when United get any kind of decision its totally overanalysed. In the same way when they don't get a decision....Nothing said! Have any other premiership teams got a controversial penalty this season? I'm sure they have. Its just that I don't hear journalists and commentators constantly going on about it when its a different team.

you're just blocking those conversations out then. because if there's ever been a season when evey little decision by referees has been scrutinised its this one.

you sure you're not wearing you red tinted glasses? just a little bit?

SlickRic

Boggles wrote: »

Not true, evident in the fact that Liverpools first goal at the weekend came from a wrong refeering decision.

Or have I just missed the Scouse outrage on that one?

the reason there was more emphasis on this was because it was a penalty and not a free. plus spurs were 2 up, in a game that everyone knew was pretty much deciding the destiny of the league, and everyone knows utd are difficult to stop when they have momentum.

hence the scrutiny.

Boggles

SlickRic wrote: »

the reason there was more emphasis on this was because it was a penalty and not a free. plus spurs were 2 up, in a game that everyone knew was pretty much deciding the destiny of the league, and everyone knows utd are difficult to stop when they have momentum.

hence the scrutiny.

Wrong refeering decision same result.

Hull were on top against Liverpool, it swung the momentum towards the Scouse.

United still had a lot to do to reverse the result.

Both teams prospered from wrong decisions, arguably Liverpool more, but only one wrong decision outrages you, do you see my point?

Mitch Connor

Boggles wrote: »

Not true, evident in the fact that Liverpools first goal at the weekend came from a wrong refeering decision.

Or have I just missed the Scouse outrage on that one?

or the second goal coming from a a handball knockdown from Lucas.

Morzadec

Boggles wrote: »

Not true, evident in the fact that Liverpools first goal at the weekend came from a wrong refeering decision.

Or have I just missed the Scouse outrage on that one?

-Penalty decisions will always come under more scrutiny than freekick decisions as they result in an almost certain goal. There is little the wronged team can do to prevent a goal, and a penalty does not rely on the same amount of skill as a freekick (i.e the playing field is far more level in a freekick situation, hence the sense of injustice is hightened in a penalty situation when the playing field between the attacking and defending team is strongly slanted in the attacking team's favour)Therefore the media will inevitably focus on a wrong penalty decision rather than a wrong freekick decision.

-Context of the game and context of the title race is also going play a huge factor in to why one is being discussed more than the other.

i.e -United's odds to win were 11/2 before the incorrect penalty decision.
-Liverpool's odds before the incorrect freekick decision I'm not aware of but they started at 2/5 so I imagine they were still massive favorites, probably 1/2 or thereabouts. Certainly odds-on anyway.

At half-time the title race looked to be well and truly on, and the penalty decison turned the game on its head. Another reason for the focus, attention and scrutiny on the incorrect penalty decision.

I honestly believe the media reaction, debate and discussion would be exactly the same if you substituted United for Chelsea for example, or Arsenal for Liverpool.

It isn't being debated 'because it was United'; similarly I believe it wasn't given 'because it was United'. It is being highlighted because it was an incredibly important decision that had massive ramifications and it was made incorrectly. This hullaballo would come out regardless of who it was playing.

keane2097

Morzadec wrote: »

This hullaballo would come out regardless of who it was playing.

All in a day's work for a soccer mod

ntlbell

Morzadec wrote: »

-
i.e -United's odds to win were 11/2 before the incorrect penalty decision.
-Liverpool's odds before the incorrect freekick decision I'm not aware of but they started at 2/5 so I imagine they were still massive favorites, probably 1/2 or thereabouts. Certainly odds-on anyway.
.

Did you watch the game? have you looked at the stats for the first half before the goal?

Hull were awesome.

everdead.ie

ntlbell wrote: »

Did you watch the game? have you looked at the stats for the first half before the goal?

Hull were awesome.

To be honest I think that's a reason why it's not been a bigger issue although i have heard a fair bit about it(Pool free kick). Because the United spurs match was on tv people saw it and are able to comment on it.

But I think that because United are winning the league and because it's so close there probably has been more about then there would have been if say it was in the early season when united weren't even in the top four everyone would just say it was a stroke of luck.

_blank_

everdead.ie wrote: »

Because the United spurs match was on tv people saw it and are able to comment on it.

Um, the Hull/Pool match was on the exact same station.

Boggles

everdead.ie wrote: »

To be honest I think that's a reason why it's not been a bigger issue although i have heard a fair bit about it(Pool free kick). Because the United spurs match was on tv people saw it and are able to comment on it.

Was the Pool match not on telly?

everdead.ie

Des wrote: »

Um, the Hull/Pool match was on the exact same station.

Oh sorry i was at work so i didn't see either apologies withdrawn

Boggles

If you look at just the past week.

United turned down stone wall penalty in cup semi final.

Potential leg breaker on Ronaldo not punished.

Penalty awarded for them, I have seen it 200 times and I'm still not sure if it was or wasn't.

Closest league rival scored from wrongly awarded free kick.

Closest league rivals second goal should have been ruled out for handball.


Sounds like United have had luck this week, unfortunately most of it has been bad.

Sizzler

The penalty decision got much more attention than this :eek:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGjBzD-hKOs

Unearthly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auZGMGeaOBs

ok lads, hands up, which one of you nutters is this?

Morzadec

ntlbell wrote: »

Did you watch the game? have you looked at the stats for the first half before the goal?

Hull were awesome.

Hull may have been 'awesome' (I feel this is an exaggeration) but they are still a relegation-battling team facing a title-challenging team. And the score was 0-0. Therefore Liverpool would have still been big favorites to win due to the gulf in class between the 2 teams.

United were 2-0 down against a team that has European ambitions and had not lost to a top 4 team in the Premiership all season. Hence a United win looked unlikely and was hence appropriately placed at quite long odds in the bookies.

Bookies look at a situation objectively - they have no fan allegiances. They placed United at 11/2 before the incorrect penalty decision, hence giving them roughly a 20% of winning the game pre-penalty.

As I said I don't know the in-running Liverpool odds, but my guess would be around 1/2, at longest 4/6 (certainly odds on anyway). Therefore the bookies are giving Liverpool roughly a 60-70% chance of winning before the incorrect freekick decision.

Surely you can see the difference here? The reason a big deal is being made about one and not the other (apart from the previously outlined reasons about the differences between an incorrect freekick decision and an incorrect penalty decision) is because the general objective consensus is that Liverpool were in an ok position before the freekick position and were likely to win if it wasn't given. Whereas United were in a very bad position - their chances of winning were far less certain, but made far more probable by the incorrect decision.

Now of course bookies aren't always right but they make their prices objectively based on the facts in front of them, and the above quoted prices would suggest that United pre-penalty decision were in far worse shape than Liverpool pre-freekick decision. (Remember this isn't some pro-Liverpool bookie we're talking about, this is a completely unbiased view of both situations).

So we can conclude from this that the general consensus was that the United penalty decision impacted their game to a considerably larger extent than the Liverpool freekick decision impacted their game.

It is largely for this reason that one is being debated, discussed and highlighted more in the media over the other.

Morzadec

Unearthly wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auZGMGeaOBs

ok lads, hands up, which one of you nutters is this?

Lol :eek:

Could be David Ngog....?

ntlbell

Morzadec wrote: »

Hull may have been 'awesome' (I feel this is an exaggeration) but they are still a relegation-battling team facing a title-challenging team. And the score was 0-0. Therefore Liverpool would have still been big favorites to win due to the gulf in class between the 2 teams.

I didn't notice much of a gulf in class when hull went to anfield, did you?

Morzadec wrote: »

United were 2-0 down against a team that has European ambitions and had not lost to a top 4 team in the Premiership all season. Hence a United win looked unlikely and was hence appropriately placed at quite long odds in the bookies.

Who hasn't beaten united at old trafford for twenty years. United scoring was looking very likely as they pounded spurs and if it wasn't the peno it would of been something else.

since when are we using bookes odds to determine matches? what tere the odds of liverpool winning the league at the start of the season?

Morzadec wrote: »

Bookies look at a situation objectively - they have no fan allegiances. They placed United at 11/2 before the incorrect penalty decision, hence giving them roughly a 20% of winning the game pre-penalty.

Why are we even talking about bookies? what odds would you have got got before the season on united going into that spurs match in second place?:rolleyes:

Morzadec wrote: »

As I said I don't know the in-running Liverpool odds, but my guess would be around 1/2, at longest 4/6 (certainly odds on anyway). Therefore the bookies are giving Liverpool roughly a 60-70% chance of winning before the incorrect freekick decision.

odds, odds, odds two wrong decisions were made, both led to goals.

I just seen more about bookes in the rest of your post and couldn't really bring myself to answer them all again...

the bookes odds are irrelvant.

Morzadec

I'm using bookies odds to try and give an objective assessment of both situations, one that isn't hindered by fan bias. Bookies make millions out of pricing matches correctly. They look at the most likely scenario's for each situation and price them accordingly. They are not going to price United at 11/2 if they think there is a very likely chance of them winning. The reason I'm using odds is because it can help us look at the situation rationally and objectively to draw some conclusions, which is that the reason a big deal is being made out of one decision rather than the other is the perceived impact it at on each respective game.

As for your point about Liverpool drawing to Hull earlier in the season, I feel this is a really poor point as you are trying to use it to prove that there is no gulf in class between Hull and Liverpool which is ridiculous. By your logic there is no gulf in class between United and Newcastle or United and Fulham (etc..), which is similarly ridiculous.

ntlbell

Morzadec wrote: »

As for your point about Liverpool drawing to Hull earlier in the season, I feel this is a really poor point as you are trying to use it to prove that there is no gulf in class between Hull and Liverpool which is ridiculous. By your logic there is no gulf in class between United and Newcastle or United and Fulham (etc..), which is similarly ridiculous.

I'm just using your own point against you.

The gulf in class is obvious.

The end result of 90 minutes is not.

It wasn't obvious at Anfield, what had the bookies got liverpool to win against hull at home?

Your point

Liverpool were more than likley to win because of the gulf in class.

my point: doesn't always work like that.

Your point: "I agree, but your wrong"

Morzadec

ntlbell wrote: »

my point: doesn't always work like that.

Very true. If it did we'd have no football as we'd know every result beforehand and it'd be incredibly boring.

Dosn't always work like that. But usually does if priced that way. Prices reflected likelihood.

That's the point I was trying to make - I was trying to judge the respective likelihood of the respective scenarios objectively, to examine the liklihood of a United comeback and the liklihood of a Liverpool win.

*Note. I am not saying United definitely had no chance of winning pre-penalty decision, and I am also not saying that Liverpool would have definitely won without the freekick decision.

I am purely trying to explain why a big deal has been made about one and not another, using the unbiased percieved likelihood of events before each decision was made.

ntlbell

Morzadec wrote: »

Very true. If it did we'd have no football as we'd know every result beforehand and it'd be incredibly boring.

Dosn't always work like that. But usually does if priced that way. Prices reflected likelihood.

That's the point I was trying to make - I was trying to judge the respective likelihood of the respective scenarios objectively, to examine the liklihood of a United comeback and the liklihood of a Liverpool win.

*Note. I am not saying United definitely had no chance of winning pre-penalty decision, and I am also not saying that Liverpool would have definitely won without the freekick decision.

I am purely trying to explain why a big deal has been made about one and not another, using the unbiased percieved likelihood of events before each decision was made.

So what we have established is.

Sometimes the bookies get it wrong.
Sometimes ref's get it wrong.

using a bookies is a really bad example, sure they millions every saturday but it's mostly based on two situations not occurring.

If it was simple as that, bet on the bookie's favorites week in week out you'll make a fortune.

Morzadec

ntlbell wrote: »

Sometimes the bookies get it wrong.

If it was simple as that, bet on the bookie's favorites week in week out you'll make a fortune.

I know I've already agreed with you on this point! I don't know maybe we're arguing 2 different things or you don't get what I was saying.

Basically this started from a United fan suggesting all the debate about the Gomes decision is a sign of an anti-United media, a point backed up by the fact there has been little debate about the Mascherano incident.

On the back of these comments I wanted to explain why the 2 situations can not be looked at as the same, and that the reason for the debate about one and the absence of debate about the other is due to the respective context of each game. I feel the bookies example is not a poor point but in fact a very relevant one to explain why one debate has been privileged over another. The bookies odds gives us an insight into the perceived objective general consensus about the respective teams likelihood of winning.

My argument is that due to the perceived likelihood of each team winning without the 2 decisions, the United decision is going to take prominence. Not because everyone has an anti-United agenda, but because it was perceived to impact the game in a bigger way. Now obviously you may not agree that it impacted the game in a bigger way (an opinion that is more difficult to argue but certainly not completely unreasonable), but what I'm trying to get across is that the general objective consensus is that the United decision impacted hugely on the result, whereas the Liverpool decision probably didn't. These are facts. If you don't like the bookies example then I'll put it to you another way. Ask 100 neutral soccer fans to watch both games and decide which decision made a greater impact on the potential outcome of the game. Would you honestly expect a substantial amount to say the Liverpool decision impacted more? And if 95 turned round and said the United decision made a bigger impact, would you honestly suggest it's because they have an anti-United agenda, or would you not accept that its more likely based on the assumption that 2-0 down against a talented Spurs side is a far worse situation than 0-0 against the worst form team of the League?

This is the big reason for the Gomes incident being highlighted and discussed to a far greater extent than the Mascherano incident -the perceived effect (note, not actual effect ecause we can not measure this) it had on the game. This is what I was trying to explain to anyone who thinks the debate is based on anti-united sentiment.

herbieflowers

Jesus, this thread just goes on...

Morzadec

herbieflowers wrote: »

Jesus, this thread just goes on...

Lol I thought it might've been finally finished but you just bumped it!

SlickRic

Boggles wrote: »

Wrong refeering decision same result.

Hull were on top against Liverpool, it swung the momentum towards the Scouse.

United still had a lot to do to reverse the result.

Both teams prospered from wrong decisions, arguably Liverpool more, but only one wrong decision outrages you, do you see my point?

are we still talking about this?

right i'm going to go through this ONE MORE TIME, because you're misrepresenting me embarrassingly, and putting yourself on some sort of moral highground at the same time. it's getting a bit irritating.

i have said...that Liverpool's goal came from a mistake by the referee.
i have said...that the reason Utd's penalty got more scrutiny was because

a) it was a penalty as opposed to a free kick (it always will because its a free shot from 12 yds, so it's a bigger decision, what with the opposition less likely to be able to rectify the referees mistake

b) Liverpool were desperate for Utd to screw up. any bad decision by the referee was going to be scrutinised 10-fold because of the tension involved. it was increased further because Spurs were 2 up, and because Pool fans are well aware of Utd's ability to bounce back once they get a foothold in the game.

The Utd decision outraged me because I'm a Liverpool fan. I'm sure the Liverpool decision outraged you as a Utd fan. I'm not going to apologise for that or make excuses for it. The reason you probably don't feel the need to still be annoyed at the Pool decision is because the title is basically yours barring a massive screw up. The destination of the title is in your hands. You're not relying on anyone else, us kopites are.

do you finally see what I'm saying now?

I'm a Liverpool fan...newsflash...I hate when Utd get fortunate especially when I desperately need them to drop points.

I'm a Liverpool fan...newsflash...I'm delighted when Liverpool get a rub of the green. It was a stupid decision by the referee, and I would have been outraged as a neutral, or if that same decision had gone Hull's way and they'd scored. of course I would have.

It's called fans being fans. you seem to be implying that you might be outraged at the Utd penalty give, since you think I should be outraged at the Liverpool free kick. am i right? :rolleyes:

Boggles

SlickRic wrote: »

are we still talking about this?

Newsflash: You appear to be, I gave up hours ago.

SlickRic

Boggles wrote: »

Newsflash: You appear to be, I gave up hours ago.

witty. well done.

if you hadn't posted rubbish I wouldn't have had to. It's irritating being misrepresented, when I've in fact looked at it quite rationally.

Boggles

SlickRic wrote: »

if you hadn't posted rubbish I wouldn't have had to. It's irritating being misrepresented, when I've in fact looked at it quite rationally.

You already admitted on the thread that you were biased, does that mean you are quite rationally biased or rationally quite biased?

I realise your mentality and reasons for posting in the thread, I felt the need to redress the bias, also I did it in an uninsulting way, you should try it.

SlickRic

Boggles wrote: »

You already admitted on the thread that you were biased, does that mean you are quite rationally biased or rationally quite biased?

I realise your menatlity and reasons for posting in the thread, I felt the need to redress the bias, also I did it in an uninsulting way, you should try it.

just because you didn't use words like 'rubbish' or 'witty' sarcastically, doesn't mean what you're saying isn't equally insulting. you're obviously an intelligent guy, you know what I'm trying to say, yet you feel the need to misrepresent it.

of course i can be rationally biased, if that's how you want to put it. i've made many points congratulating Utd, saying they still had a lot of work to do and deserved to win. i'm biased, as are you. but i don't think any of my posts have really reflected that. and if they have, i've admitted it at the time.

you are one to talk about bias by the way

Boggles

SlickRic wrote: »

you are one to talk about bias by the way

True. I'm irrationally biased though. :pac:

Well Leave it so.

everdead.ie

Webb Admits peno mistake

Referee Howard Webb has admitted he was wrong to award Manchester United a penalty in their 5-2 come-from-behind victory over Tottenham on Saturday.
Spurs had been leading 2-0 at Old Trafford when Webb's decision allowed United to pull a goal back from the penalty spot.
Webb ruled that Spurs goalkeeper Heurelho Gomes had fouled Michael Carrick after 57 minutes; only for television replays to show he had palmed the ball away to safety before colliding with the midfielder.
The decision proved to be the catalyst for United's comeback as Sir Alex Ferguson's side scored a further four goals after Cristiano Ronaldo had reduced the deficit from the spot.
Webb has now admitted upon viewing video evidence that he was wrong to award United a penalty, although at the time he felt he had decided on the right course of action.
Mistake

"I've looked at it again and I think it was a mistake but we make these decisions honestly," Webb conceded. "It's not always easy to see the way the play pans out from pitch level.
"I could see the Manchester United player touch the ball and saw him get clattered by the goalkeeper but didn't see the extra deviation from the goalkeeper's fingers touching the ball.
"I'm disappointed as I always strive for perfection. I'll look at the tape in detail later in the week and try to avoid it happening again in the future.
"I never want to have a negative impact on a game and I get no pleasure from not reaching the high standards we set ourselves. But show me a man who's never made a mistake and I'll show you a man who's done nothing."

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11675_5254190,00.html

Webb just gone up in my books it's nice to see a ref coming out saying that.

ShooterSF

everdead.ie wrote: »

Webb Admits peno mistake

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11675_5254190,00.html

Webb just gone up in my books it's nice to see a ref coming out saying that.

Hmm, seems odd that he hasn't admitted to making a mistake in letting Palacious off with a two footed lunge.

everdead.ie

He said he only reviewed the peno but that he was going to review the whole match later this week so ya never know still could

ShooterSF

everdead.ie wrote: »

He said he only reviewed the peno but that he was going to review the whole match later this week so ya never know still could

I'll hold my breath In fairness to him he could say it and all the media will do is tack on a sentence footnote somewhere unlike the peno decision which will be plastered everywhere.