The mancityfans.net football forum

london blue 2 wrote:That foul on sterling was something else. How can that be ignored. No way the the ref and lino not see that.

I see one of the linos was Simon Beck, the same cunt that shafted us at WHL last season, not sure if he's the same one that "missed" the push.

In fairness to the BT coverage today. I think it was the fairest analysis I've seen from them from start to finish, of any of our games.

Even Hoddle or whoever it was commentating, were tolerable and didn't seem to hide the fact we were hard done by.

I thought there was a noticeable difference in the mood. It was as if the directive had changed and the usual script had been torn up or perhaps suspended for a while.

I actually thought st one stage, it was like they know they've been rumbled.

Foreverinbluedreams wrote:

london blue 2 wrote:That foul on sterling was something else. How can that be ignored. No way the the ref and lino not see that.

I see one of the linos was Simon Beck, the same cunt that shafted us at WHL last season, not sure if he's the same one that "missed" the push.

Why is pep refusing to talk about it? What value does is add keeping quiet? I don't get it.

london blue 2 wrote:

Foreverinbluedreams wrote:

london blue 2 wrote:That foul on sterling was something else. How can that be ignored. No way the the ref and lino not see that.

I see one of the linos was Simon Beck, the same cunt that shafted us at WHL last season, not sure if he's the same one that "missed" the push.

Why is pep refusing to talk about it? What value does is add keeping quiet? I don't get it.

I thought he did mention it but did make point that the substantive issue is, we should be putting these games away, so that it doesn't matter how shite the ref is.

That's what I took out of it.

london blue 2 wrote:

Foreverinbluedreams wrote:

london blue 2 wrote:That foul on sterling was something else. How can that be ignored. No way the the ref and lino not see that.

I see one of the linos was Simon Beck, the same cunt that shafted us at WHL last season, not sure if he's the same one that "missed" the push.

Why is pep refusing to talk about it? What value does is add keeping quiet? I don't get it.

Dunno mate, read something a couple of weeks back that he had requested a meeting with PGMOL, don't know whether that's true or not.

I guess he knows the media want him to fail so if he starts complaining they'll just twist it and use it as another stick to beat him with.

Foreverinbluedreams wrote:

london blue 2 wrote:That foul on sterling was something else. How can that be ignored. No way the the ref and lino not see that.

I see one of the linos was Simon Beck, the same cunt that shafted us at WHL last season, not sure if he's the same one that "missed" the push.

Pretty sure it was that Andy Garratt twat. Seem to remember his face at some point, think it was for the Jesus offside.

Foreverinbluedreams wrote:

london blue 2 wrote:

Foreverinbluedreams wrote:

london blue 2 wrote:That foul on sterling was something else. How can that be ignored. No way the the ref and lino not see that.

I see one of the linos was Simon Beck, the same cunt that shafted us at WHL last season, not sure if he's the same one that "missed" the push.

Why is pep refusing to talk about it? What value does is add keeping quiet? I don't get it.

Dunno mate, read something a couple of weeks back that he had requested a meeting with PGMOL, don't know whether that's true or not.

I guess he knows the media want him to fail so if he starts complaining they'll just twist it and use it as another stick to beat him with.

Maybe. Seems strange he wouldn't just say something about another poor decision deciding the outcome. Bit of pressure for the next clear pen.

london blue 2 wrote:

Foreverinbluedreams wrote:

london blue 2 wrote:

Foreverinbluedreams wrote:

london blue 2 wrote:That foul on sterling was something else. How can that be ignored. No way the the ref and lino not see that.

I see one of the linos was Simon Beck, the same cunt that shafted us at WHL last season, not sure if he's the same one that "missed" the push.

Why is pep refusing to talk about it? What value does is add keeping quiet? I don't get it.

Dunno mate, read something a couple of weeks back that he had requested a meeting with PGMOL, don't know whether that's true or not.

I guess he knows the media want him to fail so if he starts complaining they'll just twist it and use it as another stick to beat him with.

Maybe. Seems strange he wouldn't just say something about another poor decision deciding the outcome. Bit of pressure for the next clear pen.

Pep started out saying he'd never complain about refs etc but now knows they're aching for him to walk into their sights after the last month or so of Pigmol maulings

london blue 2 wrote:

Foreverinbluedreams wrote:

london blue 2 wrote:

Foreverinbluedreams wrote:

london blue 2 wrote:That foul on sterling was something else. How can that be ignored. No way the the ref and lino not see that.

I see one of the linos was Simon Beck, the same cunt that shafted us at WHL last season, not sure if he's the same one that "missed" the push.

Why is pep refusing to talk about it? What value does is add keeping quiet? I don't get it.

Dunno mate, read something a couple of weeks back that he had requested a meeting with PGMOL, don't know whether that's true or not.

I guess he knows the media want him to fail so if he starts complaining they'll just twist it and use it as another stick to beat him with.

Maybe. Seems strange he wouldn't just say something about another poor decision deciding the outcome. Bit of pressure for the next clear pen.

I think he needs the media onside for that to work. I think that's at the root of us getting the shit end of the stick from officials. I don't think there's any conspiracy or that refs are bent ( I'm not ruling it out but if I truly believed it I'd give up watching ) but I believe that a lot of them just don't like us and the public perception, which is driven by the media is the cause of it.

London Blue:
My reading of his response in the BT interview was that he did address it. I think it was so obvious that everyone was in agreement about the penalty, even Walker, that he didn't use it as a crutch.

It was there for all to see. He quite subtly, I thought, moved the emphasis on to the fact we should have won anyway, despite the decisions that seem to be going against us. And he then mentioned several other games.

I think he got his point across without sounding bitter.

iwasthere2012 wrote:London Blue:
My reading of his response in the BT interview was that he did address it. I think it was so obvious that everyone was in agreement about the penalty, even Walker, that he didn't use it as a crutch.

It was there for all to see. He quite subtly, I thought, moved the emphasis on to the fact we should have won anyway, despite the decisions that seem to be going against us. And he then mentioned several other games.

I think he got his point across without sounding bitter.

But what frustrates me is that we make little of these decisions to the point where when the next decision comes up the last is forgotten.

It should be an accumulation of poor decisions that are being highlighted not one off comments.

johnny crossan wrote:

patrickblue wrote:

johnny crossan wrote:it's being twittered Mr Gerrard on BT sniggered Kane was 'just offside' apparently, your attachment would be more useful if it showed the ball btw
I'm still backing my own call

In fairness to Gerrard he did say the equaliser was marginally offside.
He wasn't sniggering, in fact both him and dodgy harry (and of course Dunnie) were sympathetic toward City and basically said we were cheated out of three points.

I only repeated the tweet friend, although my mental image of Mr Gerrard does contain certain snivelling, high-pitched whining, sniggering characteristics, for some reason or other....

I know what you mean. I would have believed the tweet if I hadn't seen otherwise on BT.

phips wrote:Marinner was decidedly in City's favor in that first half

You're having a laugh, and I have been one to not jump on the anti-ref bandwagon.

Please identify such examples.

When Alan Shearer says it was a penalty and a red card for city, you know there is something rotten in the state of Denmark.

nottsblue wrote:

london blue 2 wrote:Three clear pens I am fucking fuming. This has become too much.

Only one for me. The first two were debateable and if we'd conceded them I'd be disappointed, Sterling was just outmuscled. But the third, well, there won't be a more blatant, clear cut penalty in the next decade

Having looked at them again I have to say all 3 on sterling are pens.

In the first half Wanyama is wrong side of Sterling and he can only stop him by grabbing hold of him, he's never going to get the ball, he's a dirty fucker and is leaning into sterling in order to off balance him and is also grabbing at him. He's clever I'll give him that because sterling has to try and lever him off in order to wriggle free and he uses that to try and make it look like he's off balance. The key things are however are that sterling has control of the ball wanyama doesn't and is wrong side.

The challenge by Rose, initially I thought was a good challenge and he's won the ball. But closer scrutiny shows that the only reason Rose is able to make that challenge is because he has already made contact with Sterling who is then off balance as a consequence, without this initial contact on Sterling, Rose cant get to the ball.

The third one with Walker requires no further comment.

Spurge wrote:

nottsblue wrote:

london blue 2 wrote:Three clear pens I am fucking fuming. This has become too much.

Only one for me. The first two were debateable and if we'd conceded them I'd be disappointed, Sterling was just outmuscled. But the third, well, there won't be a more blatant, clear cut penalty in the next decade

Having looked at them again I have to say all 3 on sterling are pens.

In the first half Wanyama is wrong side of Sterling and he can only stop him by grabbing hold of him, he's never going to get the ball, he's a dirty fucker and is leaning into sterling in order to off balance him and is also grabbing at him. He's clever I'll give him that because sterling has to try and lever him off in order to wriggle free and he uses that to try and make it look like he's off balance. The key things are however are that sterling has control of the ball wanyama doesn't and is wrong side.

The challenge by Rose, initially I thought was a good challenge and he's won the ball. But closer scrutiny shows that the only reason Rose is able to make that challenge is because he has already made contact with Sterling who is then off balance as a consequence, without this initial contact on Sterling, Rose cant get to the ball.

The third one with Walker requires no further comment.

First one, still not sure, definitely debatable.

The second one, I've seen criticism of Sterling for not shooting before Rose challenges him but it's similar to the Walker incident in that Rose pulls at his shoulder first putting him off balance, if Sterling tries to shoot there it's likely another tame effort, Rose then goes through the back of Sterling's leg before hooking the ball away. Definite penalty.

That said, you can forgive the officials not spotting it, the same can't be said of the Walker push though, yet another blatant, awful decision that's gone against us this season.

Foreverinbluedreams wrote:

Spurge wrote:

nottsblue wrote:

london blue 2 wrote:Three clear pens I am fucking fuming. This has become too much.

Only one for me. The first two were debateable and if we'd conceded them I'd be disappointed, Sterling was just outmuscled. But the third, well, there won't be a more blatant, clear cut penalty in the next decade

Having looked at them again I have to say all 3 on sterling are pens.

In the first half Wanyama is wrong side of Sterling and he can only stop him by grabbing hold of him, he's never going to get the ball, he's a dirty fucker and is leaning into sterling in order to off balance him and is also grabbing at him. He's clever I'll give him that because sterling has to try and lever him off in order to wriggle free and he uses that to try and make it look like he's off balance. The key things are however are that sterling has control of the ball wanyama doesn't and is wrong side.

The challenge by Rose, initially I thought was a good challenge and he's won the ball. But closer scrutiny shows that the only reason Rose is able to make that challenge is because he has already made contact with Sterling who is then off balance as a consequence, without this initial contact on Sterling, Rose cant get to the ball.

The third one with Walker requires no further comment.

The second one, I've seen criticism of Sterling for not shooting before Rose challenges him but it's similar to the Walker incident in that Rose pulls at his shoulder first putting him off balance, if Sterling tries to shoot there it's likely another tame effort

Solid defending for me for the first two. Yes, you can argue there is contact but football is a physical sport. How often do we complain about our defenders, Otter in particular, not getting stuck in and putting his body on the line? As mentioned I'd be disappointed if they were given against us.

nottsblue wrote:

Foreverinbluedreams wrote:

Spurge wrote:

nottsblue wrote:

london blue 2 wrote:Three clear pens I am fucking fuming. This has become too much.

Only one for me. The first two were debateable and if we'd conceded them I'd be disappointed, Sterling was just outmuscled. But the third, well, there won't be a more blatant, clear cut penalty in the next decade

Having looked at them again I have to say all 3 on sterling are pens.

In the first half Wanyama is wrong side of Sterling and he can only stop him by grabbing hold of him, he's never going to get the ball, he's a dirty fucker and is leaning into sterling in order to off balance him and is also grabbing at him. He's clever I'll give him that because sterling has to try and lever him off in order to wriggle free and he uses that to try and make it look like he's off balance. The key things are however are that sterling has control of the ball wanyama doesn't and is wrong side.

The challenge by Rose, initially I thought was a good challenge and he's won the ball. But closer scrutiny shows that the only reason Rose is able to make that challenge is because he has already made contact with Sterling who is then off balance as a consequence, without this initial contact on Sterling, Rose cant get to the ball.

The third one with Walker requires no further comment.

The second one, I've seen criticism of Sterling for not shooting before Rose challenges him but it's similar to the Walker incident in that Rose pulls at his shoulder first putting him off balance, if Sterling tries to shoot there it's likely another tame effort

Solid defending for me for the first two. Yes, you can argue there is contact but football is a physical sport. How often do we complain about our defenders, Otter in particular, not getting stuck in and putting his body on the line? As mentioned I'd be disappointed if they were given against us.

I pressed submit before I finished my post.

Sorry mate but I've no idea how you see the second the way you do. Pulling someone by the shoulder is a foul as per the rules of the game, going through someone's leg before you make contact with the ball is also a foul.

nottsblue wrote:

Foreverinbluedreams wrote:

Spurge wrote:

nottsblue wrote:

london blue 2 wrote:Three clear pens I am fucking fuming. This has become too much.

Only one for me. The first two were debateable and if we'd conceded them I'd be disappointed, Sterling was just outmuscled. But the third, well, there won't be a more blatant, clear cut penalty in the next decade

Having looked at them again I have to say all 3 on sterling are pens.

In the first half Wanyama is wrong side of Sterling and he can only stop him by grabbing hold of him, he's never going to get the ball, he's a dirty fucker and is leaning into sterling in order to off balance him and is also grabbing at him. He's clever I'll give him that because sterling has to try and lever him off in order to wriggle free and he uses that to try and make it look like he's off balance. The key things are however are that sterling has control of the ball wanyama doesn't and is wrong side.

The challenge by Rose, initially I thought was a good challenge and he's won the ball. But closer scrutiny shows that the only reason Rose is able to make that challenge is because he has already made contact with Sterling who is then off balance as a consequence, without this initial contact on Sterling, Rose cant get to the ball.

The third one with Walker requires no further comment.

The second one, I've seen criticism of Sterling for not shooting before Rose challenges him but it's similar to the Walker incident in that Rose pulls at his shoulder first putting him off balance, if Sterling tries to shoot there it's likely another tame effort

Solid defending for me for the first two. Yes, you can argue there is contact but football is a physical sport. How often do we complain about our defenders, Otter in particular, not getting stuck in and putting his body on the line? As mentioned I'd be disappointed if they were given against us.

Notts regarding the Wanyama one tell me why Sterling would want to go to ground, he's effectively lost Wanyama who is as I've said is wrong side when he makes an attempt to grab Sterling - he cant get to the ball - not a chance, therefore any contact has to be a foul. I'm certain Sterling would have been given a free kick if this happens anywhere else on the pitch. If it had been say Ottamendi on Kane, Son, Eriksen or whoever I'd have shut my eyes and crossed my fingers hoping the ref wouldn't given it, but wouldn't have complained if he did.

Regarding the Rose challenge, reminds me of when I was at the FA Cup quarter at maine road (I think you're from a similar generation to me o you may recall) and I think it was paul lake who conceded a penalty when he caught Craig Johnston (I think it was but could be wrong). Initially I thought that was an incredible tackle by Lakey, but when I watched it on TV it showed that in order to make the challenge he had to grab hold of him to slow the player down otherwise he doesn't get the ball - a pen was awarded.