I Guess Fergie and the Boys Reconciled

NeoKubrick

By 'boys', I mean lackeys and by lackeys, I mean English referees. They were a bit annoyed at auld Sir Alex, because after they set the precedent of adding injury time outside of the laws of the game (before attempting to retort, read this, please), Ferguson called one of the referee's fitness into disrepute; that was a bit ungrateful. They didn't like that - not one bit. It was a shame for Fergie because his good friend, Mike Riley, had just become head of the association and the head presides over which referee officiates which fixture: nice connection to have. A few dodgy decisions against United after the ungrateful remark Fergie made and second-place finish later, and we're into the new season.

Clean slate.

I wish I was making this stuff up, but the same referee, Martin Aktinson who played excessive injury time in the City game, plays 3:30 odd minutes in which two goals were scored, and blew the whistle when Everton were on the attack. First goal was a quick restart (10 seconds 'minimum'), but the second wasn't. 30 seconds?

Now, all that's needed is the Match of the Day crew to run an idiotic argument supporting Aktinson's decision again in the hopes Ferguson will start answering the Beeb's post-match questions.


If anyone has the urge to post that Everton didn't score anyway, ask yourself how that makes what the referee did, right, and what he should have done, wrong. Hopefully, that works.

IvySlayer

Argument is flawed, as Everton did not know the whistle was blown and missed anyway.

3hn2givr7mx1sc

Oh FFS, Everton missed missed anyway.
Did you realley need to start this thread?

EDIT: What yer wan there said.

:pac:

adox

In other news, man didn't land on the moon and Elvis is still alive.

IvySlayer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M993PEbCI24

That_Guy

1 - Everton missed their chance

2- It's up to the referee to decide how much additional injury time is to be played after the allotted time is up and nobody else.

Moyes can have a go all he wants but it won't change anything.

Really doesn't warrant its own thread.

NeoKubrick

baz2009 wrote: »

Oh FFS, Everton missed missed anyway.
Did you realley need to start this thread?

EDIT: What yer wan there said.

:pac:

That_Guy wrote: »

1 - Everton missed their chance

2- It's up to the referee to decide how much additional injury time is to be played after the allotted time is up and nobody else.

Moyes can have a go all he wants but it won't change anything.

Really doesn't warrant its own thread.

IvySlayer wrote: »

Argument is flawed, as Everton did not know the whistle was blown and missed anyway.

I'm sure you're not aware of the irony of calling someone else's argument flawed while postulating that because Everton did not score, it therefore means the referee's decision to finish the game was correct. So, if United concede a penalty unfairly, and the other team miss, you would claim the decision to unfairly award the penalty was the correct decision because the other team missed and an incorrect decision if the other team scored?

IvySlayer wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M993PEbCI24

As I've said, I've quite competently destroyed that ridiculous argument, here.

3hn2givr7mx1sc

NeoKubrick wrote: »

I'm sure you're not aware of the irony of calling someone else's argument flawed while postulating that because Everton did not score, it therefore means the referee's decision to finish the game was correct. So, if United concede a penalty unfairly, and the other team miss, you would claim the decision to unfairly award the penalty was the correct decision because the other team missed and an incorrect decision if the other team scored?



As I've said, I've quite competently destroyed that ridiculous argument, here.

I just saw you talking a load of bollocks there.

roryc

how does this warrant its own thread?

That_Guy

NeoKubrick wrote: »

I'm sure you're not aware of the irony of calling someone else's argument flawed while postulating that because Everton did not score, it therefore means the referee's decision to finish the game was correct.

He blew way before the shot.

super_furry

Even Stephen Hawkin can't work out Fergietime.

allthedoyles

He did blow before the shot , but you have to say it was an unusual way for a referee to finish a game .

I agree with Moyes frustration.

That_Guy

allthedoyles wrote: »

He did blow before the shot , but you have to say it was an unusual way for a referee to finish a game .

I agree with Moyes frustration.

Frustrated yeah at the time with emotions running high.

The ref blew when Everton were on the counter attack. It has happened a load of times. There's nothing you can do about it.

3hn2givr7mx1sc

allthedoyles wrote: »

He did blow before the shot , but you have to say it was an unusual way for a referee to finish a game .

I agree with Moyes frustration.

It reminded me so much of FIFA10.:pac:

super_furry

That_Guy wrote: »

Frustrated yeah at the time with emotions running high.

The ref blew when Everton were on the counter attack. It has happened a load of times. There's nothing you can do about it.

It does, but two goals in injury time should lead to more than 36 seconds extra being played.

Peyton Manning

That_Guy wrote: »

He blew way before the shot.

Story of my life. I always blow before I have a shot. Quite tragic really.

flahavaj

Archimedes wrote: »

Story of my life. I always blow before I have a shot. Quite tragic really.

At least your jocks have a good time anyway.

That_Guy

Archimedes wrote: »

Story of my life. I always blow before I have a shot. Quite tragic really.

Didn't know you swung that way lad.

NeoKubrick

That_Guy wrote: »

He blew way before the shot.

That's irrelevant to your first argument that Everton missed their chance. Technically, they didn't have a chance, because he blew before the shot. And you completely cut out the relevant analogy I posted when you quoted me and ignored it. So, please answer it:

"So, if United concede a penalty unfairly, and the other team miss, you would claim the decision to unfairly award the penalty was the correct decision because the other team missed and an incorrect decision if the other team scored?"

He finished the game when Everton were on a counter-attack with a lot of space to play in to with a lot of players to play to. I didn't state any different. You have to remember that you're the person who posted the 'Everton missed their chance' argument, not me.

That_Guy

NeoKubrick wrote: »

That's irrelevant to your first argument that Everton missed their chance. Technically, they didn't have a chance, because he blew before the shot. And you completely cut out the relevant analogy I posted when you quoted me and ignored it. So, please answer it:

"So, if United concede a penalty unfairly, and the other team miss, you would claim the decision to unfairly award the penalty was the correct decision because the other team missed and an incorrect decision if the other team scored?"

He finished the game when Everton were on a counter-attack with a lot of space to play in to with a lot of players to play to. I didn't state any different. You have to remember that you're the person who posted the 'Everton missed their chance' argument, not me.

Jaysus lad.

I'm well aware what I posted. What I meant to say was that Everton missed their chance but it wouldn't have mattered anyway because the ref blew up before then.

As for your penalty question, if it was conclusive that it was an unfair penalty then obviously I'd deem it as a ludicrous decision.

If they miss the penalty then it evens itself out.

If they score they score. Ultimately it originates from the bad decision by the ref. It has happened and will continue to happen.

I fail to see how this supports your stupid arguement about extra time though. :rolleyes:

#15

This conspiracy theory type stuff is pathetic.

It was a poor decision by the ref today, but you'd want to be fit for hospital admission to start using it as proof of a wider conspiracy.

SDTimeout

Considering the day that's in it lads could we be respectful and allow us to talk only about the conspiracy theory that's relevant to the date itself ?

That_Guy

SDTimeout wrote: »

Considering the day that's in it lads could we be respectful and allow us to talk only about the conspiracy theory that's relevant to the date itself ?

September 11th... A day to be remembered when Newcastle lost their unbeaten home record.... and a lot of heavy sh*t went down in New York.

Iago

In the history of pointless threads, this is right up there.

I'd suggest a blog perhaps