Manchester United V Tottenham ESPN 5:30

roosh

deisedevil wrote: »

Read my post again, that's exactly what I said.

Same thing I said to Spurs fans on saturday who were raging about the fact they could have equalised if Nani's goal hadn't been given, that would only be assuming they actually scored.

I know, I was saying only if we assume it. I wasn't advocating assuming it, because you can't assume he will score. There might be a high probability that it would be scored, but it cannot be assumed.

just as it cannot be assumed that spurs would have scored, but what is clear, is that had they weren't given the opportunity to equalise, when the second goal was allowed to stand.

deisedevil

mangaroosh wrote: »

there's no disputing that, but that isn't a valid reason as to why the goal should have stood

EDIT: no disputing that United were the better team second half, but were still only one goal to the good

Don't tell me your one of those that think Spurs got robbed. In all fairness you said it yourself earlier that United should have had a penalty before there was any controversial goal.

Spurs could have scored after Nani's goal, they also might not have.

deisedevil

mangaroosh wrote: »

I know, I was saying only if we assume it. I wasn't advocating assuming it, because you can't assume he will score. There might be a high probability that it would be scored, but it cannot be assumed.

just as it cannot be assumed that spurs would have scored, but what is clear, is that had they weren't given the opportunity to equalise, when the second goal was allowed to stand.

But this is all crazy stuff. Your saying that Spurs were robbed of a chance of having it at 1-0 going into the last few minutes and then they MIGHT still have had a chance at equalising and that this is important.
But you also say we should have had a penalty which we MIGHT have scored but that's not important at all.

You can't pick and choose and say Nani might not have scored the penalty but Spurs might have scored a late goal against the run of things.

roosh

deisedevil wrote: »

Don't tell me your one of those that think Spurs got robbed. In all fairness you said it yourself earlier that United should have had a penalty before there was any controversial goal.

Spurs could have scored after Nani's goal, they also might not have.

I think they were robbed of an opportunity to play the last 5 minutes at 1-0, and robbed of the possibility to equalise.

They weren't robbed of three points or even one point, but robbed of the possibility to to earn one point.

Fuhrer

mangaroosh wrote: »

I think they were robbed of an opportunity to play the last 5 minutes at 1-0, and robbed of the possibility to equalise.

They weren't robbed of three points or even one point, but robbed of the possibility to to earn one point.

They also robbed United of a goal chance, much clearer then Spurs had by pulling down Nani in box and getting away with no penalty.

There is no injustice for Spurs.

roosh

deisedevil wrote: »

But this is all crazy stuff. Your saying that Spurs were robbed of a chance of having it at 1-0 going into the last few minutes and then they MIGHT still have had a chance at equalising and that this is important.
But you also say we should have had a penalty which we MIGHT have scored but that's not important at all.

You can't pick and choose and say Nani might not have scored the penalty but Spurs might have scored a late goal against the run of things.

The referee waved away the penalty, and penalites appeals like that get waved away all the time. I thought it should have been a penalty. United may have scored it or they may not have scored it. It was bad descision by the ref, but would not constitute "robbery" in the sense it is used.

Spurs were robbed of the opportunity to play the last five mins at one nil. They may have scored, or they may not have scored. They were "robbed" because the ref mad a highly controversial decision.

roosh

Fuhrer wrote: »

They also robbed United of a goal chance, much clearer then Spurs had by pulling down Nani in box and getting away with no penalty.

There is no injustice for Spurs.

It was a poor refereeing decision not to award the penalty, it was far worse to award the goal, given the possible scenarios after waving away the penalty appeals.

ROCKMAN

Mangaroosh , wow don't know whether to admire you or pity you 16 of the last 28 posts...... again wow ,
Fair play for been so dedicated ,go down with the ship ETC ETC ,

IT DOESN'T MAKE YOU RIGHT BUT FAIR PLAY

no free kick = good goal IMO

roosh

ROCKMAN wrote: »

Mangaroosh , wow don't know whether to admire you or pity you 16 of the last 28 posts...... again wow ,
Fair play for been so dedicated ,go down with the ship ETC ETC ,

IT DOESN'T MAKE YOU RIGHT BUT FAIR PLAY

no free kick = good goal IMO

no need for pity, as I enjoy a good debate (the latter part may warrant some pity alright ), particularly when it comes to anamolous scenarios like that one, where it isn't clear cut.

While I accept your opinion on the matter, I would question how you came to that conclusion. Particularly as, according to the rules of the game, it should have been a free.

The argument that Gomes had gained the advantage can, I feel, be argued to be technically correct, I just believe disallowing the goal would equally have been technically correct and more in keeping with the "spirit" of the game, and the advantage rule. Thus, making it the correct decision - for me.

roosh

Fuhrer wrote: »

They also robbed United of a goal chance, much clearer then Spurs had by pulling down Nani in box and getting away with no penalty.

Ironically they paid it back on the double, by not just giving a goal chance, but by giving a goal.

But I know, he's a **** ref.

Fuhrer wrote: »

There is no injustice for Spurs.

There was, and there initially was for united, but that potential injustice was repayed over the odds, by an injustice to spurs.