Jump to content
Wanderers Ways. Neil Thompson 1961-2021

Recommended Posts

Posted
Now as an aside, this is something me and my mates were discussing earlier today. People (and usually the players themselves) often say "Ref, it was my first foul" - why do they think they shouldn't get booked? - if it's a foul, it's a foul, why should you get a "free one" ?

Agree

  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
if it were the case, surely favouring us at OT would make more sense

 

JSL

 

not at all the 3 bankers were the top 3 if your going to have big money and these guys do play with millions, you go with the big 3 and if you have a referee who is in your pocket it just gives you more confidence, I guarantee within 5 years some ref will be implicated in a betting scam from the premier league the money is just to big and the chances of gettin caught are very small.

Posted
not at all the 3 bankers were the top 3 if your going to have big money and these guys do play with millions, you go with the big 3 and if you have a referee who is in your pocket it just gives you more confidence, I guarantee within 5 years some ref will be implicated in a betting scam from the premier league the money is just to big and the chances of gettin caught are very small.

 

 

Correct, refs couldn't often swing a game the way of the underdogb, but they could much more likely give a helping hand to the big club if they needed a goal.

 

 

However I very much doubt this goes on, I just think our refs are shockingly arrogant, have no actual knowledge of the game, and love the big stage.

 

Like the Reading 'goal' there can be no justification, from that distance you simply should be able to tell what you've seen.

 

 

If Styles still believes that was a penalty, he shouldn't be a referee. Worryingly it wouldn't surprise me if he still did think he was right.

Posted
Worryingly it wouldn't surprise me if he still did think he was right.

 

Styles and Hackett will have been looking at every TV angle to try to mitigate the damage done. They'll no doubt say it was given for 'intent'.

 

 

Ref's supremo, Keith Hackett gave this statement at an hurridley called press meeting this morning:

 

Just because it wasn't a foul doesn't mean it wasn't going to be a penalty if it had been a foul, therefore it was a penalty.

Posted
Now as an aside, this is something me and my mates were discussing earlier today. People (and usually the players themselves) often say "Ref, it was my first foul" - why do they think they shouldn't get booked? - if it's a foul, it's a foul, why should you get a "free one" ?

 

 

Agree

So does that mean we should have had nine players booked testerday then? If so it must mean United should also have had nine booked. Some players commit foul after foul (Vidic?) and never get spoken to. Surely you must expect the rules to be applied equally to both teams?

Posted
So does that mean we should have had nine players booked testerday then? If so it must mean United should also have had nine booked. Some players commit foul after foul (Vidic?) and never get spoken to. Surely you must expect the rules to be applied equally to both teams?

?

 

I'd just like the rules to be applied.

Posted
Now as an aside, this is something me and my mates were discussing earlier today. People (and usually the players themselves) often say "Ref, it was my first foul" - why do they think they shouldn't get booked? - if it's a foul, it's a foul, why should you get a "free one" ?

 

some are niggly tackles, some a bit more reckless

 

foul doesn't mean card

 

you can get booked for persistent fouling and straight red for your first tackle if it's bad enough

 

so most are just saying it was nothing, so don't book me

Posted

It was never a penalty, Styles saw what he wanted to see and awarded them tvvats a penalty. Something fishy is definatley going on with some refs, nobody can be so wrong on accident imo.

Posted
Anyway, he's due to apologise this morning

 

Are we best to accept it and "live & let live"?

 

In a word, no. He had ample opportunity and was invited to face the cameras & explain on Saturday after the game. He refused. Why should we accept it when he comes out to apologise on his terms when he wants? He can f?ck right off!

Posted

From Setanta

 

Nolan reveals United's embarrassment

 

 

Bolton Wanderers captain Kevin Nolan has admitted Manchester United's players were equally baffled about Rob Styles's decision to award a penalty for Jlloyd Samuel's challenge on Cristiano Ronaldo.

 

The referee seemed to be the only man at Old Trafford who felt the Bolton defender's tackle did not get the ball first as Ronaldo was felled inside the box.

 

The Portugal international did not appeal for a spot-kick but gratefully accepted the opportunity to open the scoring from the spot after United had toiled against Gary Megson's side.

 

Wayne Rooney came off the bench to add a second but all the talk has been about Styles's blunder.

 

"Ronaldo was on the floor saying 'I didn't want a penalty'," Nolan told The Daily Mail.

 

"I don't think one of them put their hands up asking for a penalty. [Darren] Fletcher's going: 'It's not a penalty', [Carlos] Tevez is going: 'It's not a penalty'. 20 players who were in the box at he time knew it wasn't a penalty.

 

"But the man who was in black had the final say. They couldn't believe their luck but you're at United and, unfortunately, that happens.

 

"It does strike fear into you when you look at this magnificent stadium. Maybe that's what's happened to the referee.

 

"He said he thought Jlloyd took Ronaldo before the ball. It didn't make sense to me

Posted

Who's been on Wikipedia, then?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Styles#Career

 

On 27th September 2008 Rob Styles made what many would see as a mistake when he awarded a penalty to Manchester United, giving Manchester United the lead at Old Trafford in a Premier League match against Bolton. Jlloyd Samuel made a clean challenge of the ball where Ronaldo went down under impact of the ball and challenge. None of the Manchester United players appeared to even appeal for a penalty, yet Rob Styles pointed to the spot. TV replays clearly show a legal challenge by the Bolton defender. Ronaldo went onto dispatch the penalty and United won the game 2-0. However, the decision to award the penalty changed the game and could have been different if the penalty was not awarded. No breath is being held in anticipation of an apology from the arrogant cock however.

Posted
Who's been on Wikipedia, then?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Styles#Career

 

On 27th September 2008 Rob Styles made what many would see as a mistake when he awarded a penalty to Manchester United, giving Manchester United the lead at Old Trafford in a Premier League match against Bolton. Jlloyd Samuel made a clean challenge of the ball where Ronaldo went down under impact of the ball and challenge. None of the Manchester United players appeared to even appeal for a penalty, yet Rob Styles pointed to the spot. TV replays clearly show a legal challenge by the Bolton defender. Ronaldo went onto dispatch the penalty and United won the game 2-0. However, the decision to award the penalty changed the game and could have been different if the penalty was not awarded. No breath is being held in anticipation of an apology from the arrogant cock however.

 

I wonder if the IP address matches any on here :roll:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...ns/217.34.52.72

Posted
Styles saw what he wanted to see and awarded them tvvats a penalty. Something fishy is definatley going on with some refs, nobody can be so wrong on accident imo.

 

That's the crux of the matter for me, it's as if Styles was looking for something to help Man U - and that bent penalty decision was the best he could come up with. I doubt whether Styles even thought it was a penalty himself at the time, but he saw it as a great opportunity to help one of the big 4 and get himself noticed.He'll be back laughing and joking with the "big name players" in a fortnight.

Posted
In a word, no. He had ample opportunity and was invited to face the cameras & explain on Saturday after the game. He refused. Why should we accept it when he comes out to apologise on his terms when he wants? He can f?ck right off!

 

Apparently the FA/Ref's association rules prevent them giving an interview straight after the game.

Posted
Apparently the FA/Ref's association rules prevent them giving an interview straight after the game.

I presume that's to let him get his story straight. Having said that, they watch videos after and I doubt after he watched it he nipped into Fergie's office, whilst the managers were having a post match drink, to apologise to GM.

He's had 2 days to do it now. I wonder if he's waiting to see what Hackett says to him. Anyway, shameful behaviour.

Posted (edited)
I presume that's to let him get his story straight. Having said that, they watch videos after and I doubt after he watched it he nipped into Fergie's office, whilst the managers were having a post match drink, to apologise to GM.

He's had 2 days to do it now. I wonder if he's waiting to see what Hackett says to him. Anyway, shameful behaviour.

 

Hackett should just give him his P45, if I did my lob that badly then I would be looking for another job

Edited by tyldesley_white
Posted
And another thing

 

He booked SKD, Elmander after their 1st foul, neither looked worthy of a caution from my view

 

The yellow for McCann, after 2 fouls, seemed a tad harsh

 

Bolton conceded 9 fouls, 3 yellows

 

Munich, 9 fouls, no yellows

 

Cheat.

 

That's happened consistently again most Prem clubs over the last few seasons.

Last season (Prem games only) ended up :-

BW ..... 544 fouls, 76 yellows

Opponents ..... 534 fouls, 46 yellows.

Mind you, the opponents picked up 2 reds against BW's zero.

 

Interestingly, in the UEFA games :-

BW ..... 170 fouls, 22 yellows.

Opps ..... 144 fouls, 18 yellows (plus 1 red)

Much more equal. Funny that.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.