The Ref

[Wonderwall]

Ah but we regular Joes aren't standing on the pitch within yards of the incidents, we don't have the same vantage points as a ref has and we haven't been trained to spot these incidents in real time.

Indeed. Suarez jumping at Clichy and sticking his arse into his side knocking him to the floor, is a foul . At that time it wasn't certain that Sterling would go ahead and score. Clearly Clattenberg can be seen waving it on from less than two metres away . What was he thinking ?

The other week Yaya pulled a soton player back and was rightly booked for his stupidity.

It isn't just about dirty tackles. It's like when the players raise their arms shield the ball trying to let it run out of play. That is obstruction.

what about the one where Silva was at the edge of the box and jumps for a header and Suarez crouches down and backs into silva which forced silva to roll over the top of suarez as he was already in the air. To me it was definite City free kick outside their box, I was gobsmacked he gave a freekick to Loverpool, that to me was a telling sign that he was swayed towards them.

[zuricity]

what about the one where Silva was at the edge of the box and jumps for a header and Suarez crouches down and backs into silva which forced silva to roll over the top of suarez as he was already in the air. To me it was definite City free kick outside their box, I was gobsmacked he gave a freekick to Loverpool, that to me was a telling sign that he was swayed towards them.

There were many examples of very poor ref decision making on sunday.

Both for and against City.

How much verbal abuse did Clat accept from Suarez ?

The handball at the end was however pretty bad.

[Ironpot]

what about the one where Silva was at the edge of the box and jumps for a header and Suarez crouches down and backs into silva which forced silva to roll over the top of suarez as he was already in the air. To me it was definite City free kick outside their box, I was gobsmacked he gave a freekick to Loverpool, that to me was a telling sign that he was swayed towards them.

There were many examples of very poor ref decision making on sunday.

Both for and against City.

How much verbal abuse did Clat accept from Suarez ?

The handball at the end was however pretty bad.

Indeed ... Clattenburg was "EXECRABLE"!

[Wooders]

Don't mind the penalty shouts being missed, these things happen and it went both ways - but not sending Suarez off has probably won them the league - it was a dive which he blew for and gave a free kick, so where was the yellow???

[Rag_hater]

what about the one where Silva was at the edge of the box and jumps for a header and Suarez crouches down and backs into silva which forced silva to roll over the top of suarez as he was already in the air. To me it was definite City free kick outside their box, I was gobsmacked he gave a freekick to Loverpool, that to me was a telling sign that he was swayed towards them.

There were many examples of very poor ref decision making on sunday.

Both for and against City.

How much verbal abuse did Clat accept from Suarez ?

The handball at the end was however pretty bad.

The handball at the end. I didn't like all our players, know about until a few minutes after.You bringing up Saurez arse into Gael is the first time I have heard it being mentioned as a foul,if it was,well done for spotting it,although it seems you might be the only one however having watched the REPLAY on the OS I don't think it's a foul.

[Beefymcfc]

The handball at the end. I didn't like all our players, know about until a few minutes after.You bringing up Saurez arse into Gael is the first time I have heard it being mentioned as a foul,if it was,well done for spotting it,although it seems you might be the only one however having watched the REPLAY on the OS I don't think it's a foul.

I like you Raggers, always playing the card. The Silva one mentioned was clear as day and made the point of how the match was going to be played. It was quite extraordinary how Clattenburg came to a decision that it Silva who was the instigator of the foul. Silva did a standing jump straight into the air and ended up in a heap on the floor. Suarez, who had moved into Silva's space, took his legs and body whilst in the air so how can it be a freekick to Liverpool. Either the game goes on without a foul being called or it is a City freekick.

I don't think anybody could argue otherwise.

[zuricity]

The handball at the end. I didn't like all our players, know about until a few minutes after.You bringing up Saurez arse into Gael is the first time I have heard it being mentioned as a foul,if it was,well done for spotting it,although it seems you might be the only one however having watched the REPLAY on the OS I don't think it's a foul.

Just because it is the first time you have heard of it, doesn't mean that it wasn't a foul.

[Beefymcfc]

The handball at the end. I didn't like all our players, know about until a few minutes after.You bringing up Saurez arse into Gael is the first time I have heard it being mentioned as a foul,if it was,well done for spotting it,although it seems you might be the only one however having watched the REPLAY on the OS I don't think it's a foul.

Just because it is the first time you have heard of it, doesn't mean that it wasn't a foul.

Raggers wouldn't have noticed as he probably didn't see the game.

[Rag_hater]

The handball at the end. I didn't like all our players, know about until a few minutes after.You bringing up Saurez arse into Gael is the first time I have heard it being mentioned as a foul,if it was,well done for spotting it,although it seems you might be the only one however having watched the REPLAY on the OS I don't think it's a foul.

Just because it is the first time you have heard of it, doesn't mean that it wasn't a foul.

Raggers wouldn't have noticed as he probably didn't see the game.

Actually the stream I watched had ratboy & tyler commentating on the game(the fucker on here some seem to think is the best (ha ha)),and they never mentioned it.

[bayblue]

That isn't the point at all. There are no ifs and buts. The officials didn't do their job correctly. The point actually is that you are being holier than thou and accusing everyone who disagrees with you of refusing to accept faults in City's game and "taking the easy way out" as you so sanctimoniously put it. No-one is suggesting that City played a perfect game or the only reason we lost is because of poor refereeing decisions (or at least I'm not, and I've not seen anyone else doing so). This thread is about the referee, which is why it's entitled "The Ref", and anyone who can say that was even an adequate performance by the officials needs to go to specsavers.

You'd better book your own opticians appointment if you don't think people have suggested the reason we lost was because of poor refereeing decisions. On this very thread there is a corker that says if only the ref had acted "with integrity" the result would have been different. As for the ref then I think he did ok.

[dazby]

I still can't get over the Dzeko non-penalty. It was all man and no ball.

[Goaters 103]

Its prob been said elsewhere in this thread, but can you imagine the media outcry if roles were reversed?

Lets say Sturrdige got carted like Dzeko but no pen, Silva (already on a yellow) had dived blatantly, and inside injury time Kompany punched it clear?

There'd be talk of cheating, bent refs, money buying everything, "if you want to cheat & win like that so be it" etc etc. However, as its City no such outcry occurs, principally because all the main media outlets here are right behind a Liverpool title push.

For that reason alone, I hope to god Chelsea win it if we cant. A smirking and peacocking Jose is far more preferable than the current scouse love-fest.

[patrickblue]

That isn't the point at all. There are no ifs and buts. The officials didn't do their job correctly. The point actually is that you are being holier than thou and accusing everyone who disagrees with you of refusing to accept faults in City's game and "taking the easy way out" as you so sanctimoniously put it. No-one is suggesting that City played a perfect game or the only reason we lost is because of poor refereeing decisions (or at least I'm not, and I've not seen anyone else doing so). This thread is about the referee, which is why it's entitled "The Ref", and anyone who can say that was even an adequate performance by the officials needs to go to specsavers.

You'd better book your own opticians appointment if you don't think people have suggested the reason we lost was because of poor refereeing decisions. On this very thread there is a corker that says if only the ref had acted "with integrity" the result would have been different. As for the ref then I think he did ok.

From which I would take "with integrity" as meaning doing the job they are being paid for the result would have been different, as there was one 100% penalty, (Skrtel's handball) That's not saying that City played a perfect game and only lost because of the ref, it's saying the officials performance was poor. You're quite entitled to think the ref did ok, but you can't then try and take the moral high ground on people who disagree with you. It's nothing to do with "taking the easy way out" and all to do with what happened.
Just gone back through the thread, and the only post that mentions integrity is this one by OD "how do you think the match would have gone if he had acted with integrity and sent suarez off for a blatant incident that happened right in front of him?"
Not at all sure how that is saying the result would have been different, or saying City played wonderfully and were robbed.
It was a comment on the ref in a thread entitled "The Ref".
So seeing you've said a comment said something it patently didn't, and think the ref did ok, you most definitely need specsavers.
You need to get off your high horse.

[Original Dub]

From which I would take "with integrity" as meaning doing the job they are being paid for the result would have been different, as there was one 100% penalty, (Skrtel's handball) That's not saying that City played a perfect game and only lost because of the ref, it's saying the officials performance was poor. You're quite entitled to think the ref did ok, but you can't then try and take the moral high ground on people who disagree with you. It's nothing to do with "taking the easy way out" and all to do with what happened.
Just gone back through the thread, and the only post that mentions integrity is this one by OD "how do you think the match would have gone if he had acted with integrity and sent suarez off for a blatant incident that happened right in front of him?"
Not at all sure how that is saying the result would have been different, or saying City played wonderfully and were robbed.
It was a comment on the ref in a thread entitled "The Ref".
So seeing you've said a comment said something it patently didn't, and think the ref did ok, you most definitely need specsavers.
You need to get off your high horse.

This lad does like to believe all is right with the world, God bless him...
In case he missed it last time: the team and the manager made mistakes, but the ref made more influential mistakes.

Are we being unreasonable?!

[Beefymcfc]

I see there is a lot of the ref 'Making mistakes/Bottled it' etc when I see it completely different. These ref's are validated every match and if this was the case then surely they'd be ref'ing some 4th division match for a while afterwards. This, by and large, is never the case and unless they've called something against certain teams/managers where they then get dropped from ref'ing them for 12 months, they're back on the TV 'officiating' again.

I am now strictly of the belief that referee's are no longer their to officiate the game but are their to manage them. They are the soul person who can affect the game outside of any actual football being played. We regularly see decisions that are perplexing to the average football fan but it is soon washed away with a couple of comments from the pundits we listen to. Then, unless there is an outcry from the vast media sections who align to certain clubs (ie. something goes against them) then it's brushed under the carpet and left for it 'evening itself out'.

This is a multi-billion pound industry with certain clubs having a lions share of the support who pays for it. This cannot be underestimated and whatever people feel about how the industry is run, that kind of money will always have an impact, on or off the pitch.

[Hazy2]

Liverpool have the likes of Scudamore praying Brand Premier League is still number 1 in certain parts of the world, he wants a replacement for the scum, that btw is not the reason the ref shit himself, that is a question that will never be asked, this week all pundits have tickled it, if we had won circumstances we saw Sunday, Rodgers not Gerrard would have been crying live to the world.

[Piccsnumberoneblue]

I haven't been able to bring myself to watch tv replays, but it felt like we were playing against the odds at the time. Not only did he win them that game, but he went a long way to helping them win the title.
An injured Sturridge and suspended Henderson and Suarez? Even Norwich away would become tricky.
Still twists and turns to go though.

[Ted Hughes]

Liverpool have the likes of Scudamore praying Brand Premier League is still number 1 in certain parts of the world, he wants a replacement for the scum, that btw is not the reason the ref shit himself, that is a question that will never be asked, this week all pundits have tickled it, if we had won circumstances we saw Sunday, Rodgers not Gerrard would have been crying live to the world.

That is true, but Rodgers would have been crying to the world if they lost & had 3 pens in their favour. He would be complaining that they should have had 4, plus a red card. He has already complained that Henderson's sending off was 'harsh'.

[Rag_hater]

I see there is a lot of the ref 'Making mistakes/Bottled it' etc when I see it completely different. These ref's are validated every match and if this was the case then surely they'd be ref'ing some 4th division match for a while afterwards. This, by and large, is never the case and unless they've called something against certain teams/managers where they then get dropped from ref'ing them for 12 months, they're back on the TV 'officiating' again.

I am now strictly of the belief that referee's are no longer their to officiate the game but are their to manage them. They are the soul person who can affect the game outside of any actual football being played. We regularly see decisions that are perplexing to the average football fan but it is soon washed away with a couple of comments from the pundits we listen to. Then, unless there is an outcry from the vast media sections who align to certain clubs (ie. something goes against them) then it's brushed under the carpet and left for it 'evening itself out'.

This is a multi-billion pound industry with certain clubs having a lions share of the support who pays for it. This cannot be underestimated and whatever people feel about how the industry is run, that kind of money will always have an impact, on or off the pitch.

If it is so predictable why are not all you clued up people fleecing the bookies and bothering to watch.

[Wonderwall]

I see there is a lot of the ref 'Making mistakes/Bottled it' etc when I see it completely different. These ref's are validated every match and if this was the case then surely they'd be ref'ing some 4th division match for a while afterwards. This, by and large, is never the case and unless they've called something against certain teams/managers where they then get dropped from ref'ing them for 12 months, they're back on the TV 'officiating' again.

I am now strictly of the belief that referee's are no longer their to officiate the game but are their to manage them. They are the soul person who can affect the game outside of any actual football being played. We regularly see decisions that are perplexing to the average football fan but it is soon washed away with a couple of comments from the pundits we listen to. Then, unless there is an outcry from the vast media sections who align to certain clubs (ie. something goes against them) then it's brushed under the carpet and left for it 'evening itself out'.

This is a multi-billion pound industry with certain clubs having a lions share of the support who pays for it. This cannot be underestimated and whatever people feel about how the industry is run, that kind of money will always have an impact, on or off the pitch.

If it is so predictable why are not all you clued up people fleecing the bookies and bothering to watch.

how do you know we are not?