Decisions, Decisions (for and against)

[Bus-Conductor]

So, with @StartingPrice very much in mind, here's a thread where we can keep count of how all the really big decisions effect our season. SK maintains most years we don't get the rub. I think recent seasons we've not been too hard done by, had some luck and some shit luck but it's been pretty even.

So lets use this thread to try and keep score this season. I think we had a clean through offside wrongly called at OT but it was a long way from becoming a scoring chance. The penalty against Stoke was correct. Do we think Vertonghen on Mahrez should have been a penalty against ? I don't think so, they both had each other's shirt and though Vertonghen got a little bit of Mahrez's foot as he took the ball I don't think a ref could possibly spot that or nor did it warrant a penalty. So so far the score for me is:

Major costly Decisions for us: 0

Major costly Decisions Against us: 0


Feel free to discuss and I'll amend accordingly as we go along.

 

[alfie103]

So, with @StartingPrice very much in mind, here's a thread where we can keep count of how all the really big decisions effect our season. SK maintains most years we don't get the rub. I think recent seasons we've not been too hard done by, had some luck and some shit luck but it's been pretty even.

So lets use this thread to try and keep score this season. I think we had a clean through offside wrongly called at OT but it was a long way from becoming a scoring chance. The penalty against Stoke was correct. Do we think Vertonghen on Mahrez should have been a penalty against ? I don't think so, they both had each other's shirt and though Vertonghen got a little bit of Mahrez's foot as he took the ball I don't think a ref could possibly spot that or nor did it warrant a penalty. So so far the score for me is:

Major costly Decisions for us: 0

Major costly Decisions Against us: 0


Feel free to discuss and I'll amend accordingly as we go along.

I personally think Leicester should have had a penalty given for the challenge on Mahrez so we got away with that one.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

I personally think Leicester should have had a penalty given for the challenge on Mahrez so we got away with that one.

Not for me, not clear enough to be called a ref mistake. I had to see it about 5 times in slow mo and from only one angle. That doesn't say "clear fuck up" for me.

It's got to be pretty blatant to count.

 

[Gb160]

Not for me, not clear enough to be called a ref mistake. I had to see it about 5 times in slow mo and from only one angle. That doesn't say "clear fuck up" for me.

It's got to be pretty blatant to count.

Also they both had hold of each other's shirts, I can understand why it wasn't given.

 

[StartingPrice]

Not surprisingly, I don't agree with you right at the outset.

For a start, no, we don't know that the offside would have let to a goal, but we also don't know that it wouldn't. I think there is a good chance that it would have, though. And the context is that we were by far the better team in the opening twenty minutes. Shortly after that decision, after another dangerous Spurs attack, Rooney and ref were walking out of the box and Rooney had a little word with the ref who nodded his head. Now what the fahook it was he was agreeing with Rooney about is beyond me because it wasn't a dirty match with us having got a load of small decisions we shouldn't or having been let off with anything. But within minutes the ref made three blatantly incorrect decisions based seemingly on nothing more than how loud the crowd shouted. Two, including the offside, were before their goal and one immediately after. Aside from probably having a good goalscoring chance denied, the whole mindset and tempo of the game was being influenced. I'm not saying that Bentaleb gave the ball away or that Walker was unlucky in his touch because of the ref, but he certainly was influenced by Rooney and then the crowd, he may have denied us a goalscoring chance (and everything changes if we score form that chance) and IMO he altered the mentality and flow of the game. So passing it off as a minor mistake (which it may not have been at all), and ignoring the influence that a host of incorrect decisions, especially ones based on how loud the crowd shouts after Rooney's intervention, just doesn't wash.

Secondly, the Stoke penalty was a soft, soft penalty. We see far, far worse in dozens of times in every game. Vidic made a career out of it, as has Skrtel and Ivanovich (to name but a few). And who can forget Rooney's prolonged rugby tackle on Kane at the Lane last season. Why is are so many not given but then all of a sudden the refs can't seem to wait to award them against us? Same as with Dier against the Mickeys at the Lane last year - but with the double whammy of Dier being red-carded. At the end of that game Adebayor clearly, very clearly, was pulled back - but for some reason the ref decided not to give it. How do you classify that - one serious error? One serious error and one not too bad error? No serious errors (seen as you disagree with me that the Alderwiereld decision was soft, adn the Dier one was similar)? To me, it was two very poor decisions, and the Dier penalty/sending off effectively killed the game off when we were trying to mount a fight back at a crucial stage in the game. So that's a pretty fecking big bad damned decision, to me. So, no, I don't accept that the Stoke penalty was somehow nailed-on.

Thirdly, Vertonghen on Mahrez should have been a penalty. I know it is not easy for the refs - which is why there are consistent calls form some quarters for video evidence - but it was poor. His form is becoming a worry, more and more, since his first season. No matter who we partner him with - he's even now got his desire of playing with Toby again and still looks clumsy and vulnerable. Chalk that one off as not a reffing error if you want, I don't exactly what the ref could see, but it looked a poor decision to me.

Fourthly, it's not just 'decisions' as such. Look at the way Mourinho ignored the fact that Costa clearly tried to score while offside and only failed because the ball bobbled, for their first goal, and Cahill could have been sent off (maybe twice over) at the Lane last season. Instead he focussed on the fact that a ball that had been played before Vertonghen fell and hot his arm within a micro-second of him landing. Again, something similar happened with a Chelsea player a few games later but he didn't have much to say about it. It shouldn't have been a pen either, but the ball was played early and the Chelsea player's arm had been on the ground longer. The relevance of this is that he launched a media campaign before the CC final, with not so enigmatic references to if they will be allowed to win and then, because he had figured out that if he played open we were a danger, sent his team out to stultify the final with niggling foul after niggling foul. And he was allowed to do so, form his ridiculous public vitctim-hood claims putting pressure on officials and the FA, to the actually physical act of commit niggling foul after niggling foul that went individually and cumulatively unpunished. And that isn't just my assessment - I know neutrals who were disgusted by that match and without prompting stated that it was clear that that was how Mourinho had sent Chelsea out to play. Contrast that, or Fergie's frequent unpunished outbursts to Martinez saying what everyone else knew - it was Old Trafford so probably shouldn't expect penalties even if they should have been given. It's not just the big errors, not even just the errors - it is a cumulative effect of big decisions, small decisions and the whole pressure of what some managers/head coaches aren't allowed to say/do and get away with.

Lastly, what I believe you are referring to - I stated that there were a whole host of bizarre, not just bad, decisions, against us against the Sky Four and Citeh, and asked if anyone could show that to be incorrect. No-one could, neither could anyone show where we had had a host of such bizarre decisions in our favour against smaller clubs [sic.] to balance things out (allegedly). That can't be done, either - we may get the occasional poor decision in our favour, the occasional dodgy penalty. But no massive bizarre decisions. And no extended string of decisions in our favour either. But we could point to the five (FIVE) match defining decisions Foy made to our disfavour against Stokem along with several smaller decisions and allowing them to spend over 20 seconds per throw-in (I started counting) and with towels sewn inside their shirts after they had been told not to use them. Finding the occasional decision in our favour now isn't going to disqualify that.

It seems to me that the really bizarre decisions have been excluded - maybe they were getting a bit too blatant. But trying to show that these things didn't happen by taking decisions now for and against us, and only us and looking at them in isolation just doesn't prove anything much. It prove (or disprove) historical instances. The decisions themselves are often open to interpretation - hence you finding the offside at OT to not be a clear goal-scoring chance (presumably because of distance from goal) and not thinking the Stoke penalty was very, very soft (whereas I do). It ignores the cumulative effect of smaller decisions. And it ignores the effects that putting pressure on officials and the FA, outside of 90 minutes match time, can have and just who is allowed to get away with that (and to my mind, Mourinho waged a sustained campaign before the CC final to ensure his team would get away with being niggly-dirty in small ways to stifle the game and got away with it.

Otherwise, good idea

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Not surprisingly, I don't agree with you right at the outset.

For a start, no, we don't know that the offside would have let to a goal, but we also don't know that it wouldn't. I think there is a good chance that it would have, though. And the context is that we were by far the better team in the opening twenty minutes. Shortly after that decision, after another dangerous Spurs attack, Rooney and ref were walking out of the box and Rooney had a little word with the ref who nodded his head. Now what the fahook it was he was agreeing with Rooney about is beyond me because it wasn't a dirty match with us having got a load of small decisions we shouldn't or having been let off with anything. But within minutes the ref made three blatantly incorrect decisions based seemingly on nothing more than how loud the crowd shouted. Two, including the offside, were before their goal and one immediately after. Aside from probably having a good goalscoring chance denied, the whole mindset and tempo of the game was being influenced. I'm not saying that Bentaleb gave the ball away or that Walker was unlucky in his touch because of the ref, but he certainly was influenced by Rooney and then the crowd, he may have denied us a goalscoring chance (and everything changes if we score form that chance) and IMO he altered the mentality and flow of the game. So passing it off as a minor mistake (which it may not have been at all), and ignoring the influence that a host of incorrect decisions, especially ones based on how loud the crowd shouts after Rooney's intervention, just doesn't wash.

Secondly, the Stoke penalty was a soft, soft penalty. We see far, far worse in dozens of times in every game. Vidic made a career out of it, as has Skrtel and Ivanovich (to name but a few). And who can forget Rooney's prolonged rugby tackle on Kane at the Lane last season. Why is are so many not given but then all of a sudden the refs can't seem to wait to award them against us? Same as with Dier against the Mickeys at the Lane last year - but with the double whammy of Dier being red-carded. At the end of that game Adebayor clearly, very clearly, was pulled back - but for some reason the ref decided not to give it. How do you classify that - one serious error? One serious error and one not too bad error? No serious errors (seen as you disagree with me that the Alderwiereld decision was soft, adn the Dier one was similar)? To me, it was two very poor decisions, and the Dier penalty/sending off effectively killed the game off when we were trying to mount a fight back at a crucial stage in the game. So that's a pretty fecking big bad damned decision, to me. So, no, I don't accept that the Stoke penalty was somehow nailed-on.

Thirdly, Vertonghen on Mahrez should have been a penalty. I know it is not easy for the refs - which is why there are consistent calls form some quarters for video evidence - but it was poor. His form is becoming a worry, more and more, since his first season. No matter who we partner him with - he's even now got his desire of playing with Toby again and still looks clumsy and vulnerable. Chalk that one off as not a reffing error if you want, I don't exactly what the ref could see, but it looked a poor decision to me.

Fourthly, it's not just 'decisions' as such. Look at the way Mourinho ignored the fact that Costa clearly tried to score while offside and only failed because the ball bobbled, for their first goal, and Cahill could have been sent off (maybe twice over) at the Lane last season. Instead he focussed on the fact that a ball that had been played before Vertonghen fell and hot his arm within a micro-second of him landing. Again, something similar happened with a Chelsea player a few games later but he didn't have much to say about it. It shouldn't have been a pen either, but the ball was played early and the Chelsea player's arm had been on the ground longer. The relevance of this is that he launched a media campaign before the CC final, with not so enigmatic references to if they will be allowed to win and then, because he had figured out that if he played open we were a danger, sent his team out to stultify the final with niggling foul after niggling foul. And he was allowed to do so, form his ridiculous public vitctim-hood claims putting pressure on officials and the FA, to the actually physical act of commit niggling foul after niggling foul that went individually and cumulatively unpunished. And that isn't just my assessment - I know neutrals who were disgusted by that match and without prompting stated that it was clear that that was how Mourinho had sent Chelsea out to play. Contrast that, or Fergie's frequent unpunished outbursts to Martinez saying what everyone else knew - it was Old Trafford so probably shouldn't expect penalties even if they should have been given. It's not just the big errors, not even just the errors - it is a cumulative effect of big decisions, small decisions and the whole pressure of what some managers/head coaches aren't allowed to say/do and get away with.

Lastly, what I believe you are referring to - I stated that there were a whole host of bizarre, not just bad, decisions, against us against the Sky Four and Citeh, and asked if anyone could show that to be incorrect. No-one could, neither could anyone show where we had had a host of such bizarre decisions in our favour against smaller clubs [sic.] to balance things out (allegedly). That can't be done, either - we may get the occasional poor decision in our favour, the occasional dodgy penalty. But no massive bizarre decisions. And no extended string of decisions in our favour either. But we could point to the five (FIVE) match defining decisions Foy made to our disfavour against Stokem along with several smaller decisions and allowing them to spend over 20 seconds per throw-in (I started counting) and with towels sewn inside their shirts after they had been told not to use them. Finding the occasional decision in our favour now isn't going to disqualify that.

It seems to me that the really bizarre decisions have been excluded - maybe they were getting a bit too blatant. But trying to show that these things didn't happen by taking decisions now for and against us, and only us and looking at them in isolation just doesn't prove anything much. It prove (or disprove) historical instances. The decisions themselves are often open to interpretation - hence you finding the offside at OT to not be a clear goal-scoring chance (presumably because of distance from goal) and not thinking the Stoke penalty was very, very soft (whereas I do). It ignores the cumulative effect of smaller decisions. And it ignores the effects that putting pressure on officials and the FA, outside of 90 minutes match time, can have and just who is allowed to get away with that (and to my mind, Mourinho waged a sustained campaign before the CC final to ensure his team would get away with being niggly-dirty in small ways to stifle the game and got away with it.

Otherwise, good idea

It's my thread so it's it's staying 0-0.

 

[TheChosenOne]

SP.

I have said for years, the Sky 4/5 Cartel Team managers, Maureen, Wenger, Fergie and Co psychologically hoodwink and bully the FA, the referees and officials plus the media into making them aware of flaws and dirty tricks employed by opponents creating possible scenarios before they happen.

THFC have been noticeably soft in this. Good or bad ?

 

[mpickard2087]

Leicester should have had the penalty in my opinion, said I thought it was straightaway. Even watching on a imperfect stream as it happened it seemed fairly obvious Vertonghen kicked through him and it was a really dopey thing to do.

So 1-0 up I'd say.

 

[HotspurFC1950]

It's my thread so it's it's staying 0-0.

Then no point BC. Just do it all yourself my friend.

 

[BK007]

If you're not going to allow for discussion or voting, this thread is just a self-glorifying wank and should be locked.

 

[Shanks]

Leicester was a definite penalty in my opinion.

It wasn't the shirt pulling that was the issue, it was the fact that Verts went through the back of fella's foot causing him to trip before he got the ball. Clear as day.

The refereer didn't see, so we got away from it. But then they'd have had to score from the penalty, odds on him scoring, but he could still miss.

So, I'd say 1-1 though, as the offside at OT should/could have been a goal...

 

[Everlasting Seconds]

If you're not going to allow for discussion or voting, this thread is just a self-glorifying wank and should be locked.

Oh come on, don't take it so seriously. It's more fun that way.
I think the refs have been decent so far. But most naturally a big blunder is around the corner, so we all can say "if it wasn't for the ref, our season would have started much differently".

 

[scottishbairn]

The way it is splitting opinion you can't say it was a clear penalty.

 

[Mr Pink]

Not a clear penalty for me. Its one of those ones that could go either way, so unless its a stonewall one you can't say we were really lucky to get away with it.

 

[nightgoat]

We were on the receiving end of one of the single worst refereeing displays in recent years last season. Not against one of the Sky teams, but Palace, of all teams.

1-0 up and relatively comfortable, Palace get a penalty for a blatant dive (not even one exaggerating contact, there was zero contact), Gayle got away with stamping on Lloris' head without even a free kick given whilst on TV Niall Quinn (I think) was trying to convince everyone that Palace should have had another penalty for a supposed handball by Walker when the ball hit him from behind and he couldn't even see it, and was outside the box anyway. Then Kane was hauled to the floor in the area at 2-1 and nothing was given. All, no doubt, to play up to the Pardew's Return narrative spun by the media in the build up to the game.

 

[nicdic]

Think they had one of the ex refs on SSN yesterday to go through the talking points from the weekend and he said no penalty.

 

[Grey Fox]

Not surprisingly, I don't agree with you right at the outset.

For a start, no, we don't know that the offside would have let to a goal, but we also don't know that it wouldn't. I think there is a good chance that it would have, though. And the context is that we were by far the better team in the opening twenty minutes. Shortly after that decision, after another dangerous Spurs attack, Rooney and ref were walking out of the box and Rooney had a little word with the ref who nodded his head. Now what the fahook it was he was agreeing with Rooney about is beyond me because it wasn't a dirty match with us having got a load of small decisions we shouldn't or having been let off with anything. But within minutes the ref made three blatantly incorrect decisions based seemingly on nothing more than how loud the crowd shouted. Two, including the offside, were before their goal and one immediately after. Aside from probably having a good goalscoring chance denied, the whole mindset and tempo of the game was being influenced. I'm not saying that Bentaleb gave the ball away or that Walker was unlucky in his touch because of the ref, but he certainly was influenced by Rooney and then the crowd, he may have denied us a goalscoring chance (and everything changes if we score form that chance) and IMO he altered the mentality and flow of the game. So passing it off as a minor mistake (which it may not have been at all), and ignoring the influence that a host of incorrect decisions, especially ones based on how loud the crowd shouts after Rooney's intervention, just doesn't wash.

Secondly, the Stoke penalty was a soft, soft penalty. We see far, far worse in dozens of times in every game. Vidic made a career out of it, as has Skrtel and Ivanovich (to name but a few). And who can forget Rooney's prolonged rugby tackle on Kane at the Lane last season. Why is are so many not given but then all of a sudden the refs can't seem to wait to award them against us? Same as with Dier against the Mickeys at the Lane last year - but with the double whammy of Dier being red-carded. At the end of that game Adebayor clearly, very clearly, was pulled back - but for some reason the ref decided not to give it. How do you classify that - one serious error? One serious error and one not too bad error? No serious errors (seen as you disagree with me that the Alderwiereld decision was soft, adn the Dier one was similar)? To me, it was two very poor decisions, and the Dier penalty/sending off effectively killed the game off when we were trying to mount a fight back at a crucial stage in the game. So that's a pretty fecking big bad damned decision, to me. So, no, I don't accept that the Stoke penalty was somehow nailed-on.

Thirdly, Vertonghen on Mahrez should have been a penalty. I know it is not easy for the refs - which is why there are consistent calls form some quarters for video evidence - but it was poor. His form is becoming a worry, more and more, since his first season. No matter who we partner him with - he's even now got his desire of playing with Toby again and still looks clumsy and vulnerable. Chalk that one off as not a reffing error if you want, I don't exactly what the ref could see, but it looked a poor decision to me.

Fourthly, it's not just 'decisions' as such. Look at the way Mourinho ignored the fact that Costa clearly tried to score while offside and only failed because the ball bobbled, for their first goal, and Cahill could have been sent off (maybe twice over) at the Lane last season. Instead he focussed on the fact that a ball that had been played before Vertonghen fell and hot his arm within a micro-second of him landing. Again, something similar happened with a Chelsea player a few games later but he didn't have much to say about it. It shouldn't have been a pen either, but the ball was played early and the Chelsea player's arm had been on the ground longer. The relevance of this is that he launched a media campaign before the CC final, with not so enigmatic references to if they will be allowed to win and then, because he had figured out that if he played open we were a danger, sent his team out to stultify the final with niggling foul after niggling foul. And he was allowed to do so, form his ridiculous public vitctim-hood claims putting pressure on officials and the FA, to the actually physical act of commit niggling foul after niggling foul that went individually and cumulatively unpunished. And that isn't just my assessment - I know neutrals who were disgusted by that match and without prompting stated that it was clear that that was how Mourinho had sent Chelsea out to play. Contrast that, or Fergie's frequent unpunished outbursts to Martinez saying what everyone else knew - it was Old Trafford so probably shouldn't expect penalties even if they should have been given. It's not just the big errors, not even just the errors - it is a cumulative effect of big decisions, small decisions and the whole pressure of what some managers/head coaches aren't allowed to say/do and get away with.

Lastly, what I believe you are referring to - I stated that there were a whole host of bizarre, not just bad, decisions, against us against the Sky Four and Citeh, and asked if anyone could show that to be incorrect. No-one could, neither could anyone show where we had had a host of such bizarre decisions in our favour against smaller clubs [sic.] to balance things out (allegedly). That can't be done, either - we may get the occasional poor decision in our favour, the occasional dodgy penalty. But no massive bizarre decisions. And no extended string of decisions in our favour either. But we could point to the five (FIVE) match defining decisions Foy made to our disfavour against Stokem along with several smaller decisions and allowing them to spend over 20 seconds per throw-in (I started counting) and with towels sewn inside their shirts after they had been told not to use them. Finding the occasional decision in our favour now isn't going to disqualify that.

It seems to me that the really bizarre decisions have been excluded - maybe they were getting a bit too blatant. But trying to show that these things didn't happen by taking decisions now for and against us, and only us and looking at them in isolation just doesn't prove anything much. It prove (or disprove) historical instances. The decisions themselves are often open to interpretation - hence you finding the offside at OT to not be a clear goal-scoring chance (presumably because of distance from goal) and not thinking the Stoke penalty was very, very soft (whereas I do). It ignores the cumulative effect of smaller decisions. And it ignores the effects that putting pressure on officials and the FA, outside of 90 minutes match time, can have and just who is allowed to get away with that (and to my mind, Mourinho waged a sustained campaign before the CC final to ensure his team would get away with being niggly-dirty in small ways to stifle the game and got away with it.

Otherwise, good idea

Is your real name Tolstoy? But do agree with most of what you say. Our managers are too soft with officials and our fans don't give them enough stick like other fans so they will continue to give dodgy decisions because there is little consequence

 

[Spurger King]

So, with @StartingPrice very much in mind, here's a thread where we can keep count of how all the really big decisions effect our season. SK maintains most years we don't get the rub.

No I don't! I think it's quite mixed and we easily forget the stuff that goes in our favour.

 

[double0]

1.Unlucky with own goal at OT
2. Thought we were harshly given a penalty against Stoke that would not of been given at any of the top 4 clubs plus Anfield.
3. One could argue Leicester deserved pen but both were tugging at shirts.

 

[SNAFU_Clarke]

Not surprisingly, I don't agree with you right at the outset.

For a start, no, we don't know that the offside would have let to a goal, but we also don't know that it wouldn't. I think there is a good chance that it would have, though. And the context is that we were by far the better team in the opening twenty minutes. Shortly after that decision, after another dangerous Spurs attack, Rooney and ref were walking out of the box and Rooney had a little word with the ref who nodded his head. Now what the fahook it was he was agreeing with Rooney about is beyond me because it wasn't a dirty match with us having got a load of small decisions we shouldn't or having been let off with anything. But within minutes the ref made three blatantly incorrect decisions based seemingly on nothing more than how loud the crowd shouted. Two, including the offside, were before their goal and one immediately after. Aside from probably having a good goalscoring chance denied, the whole mindset and tempo of the game was being influenced. I'm not saying that Bentaleb gave the ball away or that Walker was unlucky in his touch because of the ref, but he certainly was influenced by Rooney and then the crowd, he may have denied us a goalscoring chance (and everything changes if we score form that chance) and IMO he altered the mentality and flow of the game. So passing it off as a minor mistake (which it may not have been at all), and ignoring the influence that a host of incorrect decisions, especially ones based on how loud the crowd shouts after Rooney's intervention, just doesn't wash.

Secondly, the Stoke penalty was a soft, soft penalty. We see far, far worse in dozens of times in every game. Vidic made a career out of it, as has Skrtel and Ivanovich (to name but a few). And who can forget Rooney's prolonged rugby tackle on Kane at the Lane last season. Why is are so many not given but then all of a sudden the refs can't seem to wait to award them against us? Same as with Dier against the Mickeys at the Lane last year - but with the double whammy of Dier being red-carded. At the end of that game Adebayor clearly, very clearly, was pulled back - but for some reason the ref decided not to give it. How do you classify that - one serious error? One serious error and one not too bad error? No serious errors (seen as you disagree with me that the Alderwiereld decision was soft, adn the Dier one was similar)? To me, it was two very poor decisions, and the Dier penalty/sending off effectively killed the game off when we were trying to mount a fight back at a crucial stage in the game. So that's a pretty fecking big bad damned decision, to me. So, no, I don't accept that the Stoke penalty was somehow nailed-on.

Thirdly, Vertonghen on Mahrez should have been a penalty. I know it is not easy for the refs - which is why there are consistent calls form some quarters for video evidence - but it was poor. His form is becoming a worry, more and more, since his first season. No matter who we partner him with - he's even now got his desire of playing with Toby again and still looks clumsy and vulnerable. Chalk that one off as not a reffing error if you want, I don't exactly what the ref could see, but it looked a poor decision to me.

Fourthly, it's not just 'decisions' as such. Look at the way Mourinho ignored the fact that Costa clearly tried to score while offside and only failed because the ball bobbled, for their first goal, and Cahill could have been sent off (maybe twice over) at the Lane last season. Instead he focussed on the fact that a ball that had been played before Vertonghen fell and hot his arm within a micro-second of him landing. Again, something similar happened with a Chelsea player a few games later but he didn't have much to say about it. It shouldn't have been a pen either, but the ball was played early and the Chelsea player's arm had been on the ground longer. The relevance of this is that he launched a media campaign before the CC final, with not so enigmatic references to if they will be allowed to win and then, because he had figured out that if he played open we were a danger, sent his team out to stultify the final with niggling foul after niggling foul. And he was allowed to do so, form his ridiculous public vitctim-hood claims putting pressure on officials and the FA, to the actually physical act of commit niggling foul after niggling foul that went individually and cumulatively unpunished. And that isn't just my assessment - I know neutrals who were disgusted by that match and without prompting stated that it was clear that that was how Mourinho had sent Chelsea out to play. Contrast that, or Fergie's frequent unpunished outbursts to Martinez saying what everyone else knew - it was Old Trafford so probably shouldn't expect penalties even if they should have been given. It's not just the big errors, not even just the errors - it is a cumulative effect of big decisions, small decisions and the whole pressure of what some managers/head coaches aren't allowed to say/do and get away with.

Lastly, what I believe you are referring to - I stated that there were a whole host of bizarre, not just bad, decisions, against us against the Sky Four and Citeh, and asked if anyone could show that to be incorrect. No-one could, neither could anyone show where we had had a host of such bizarre decisions in our favour against smaller clubs [sic.] to balance things out (allegedly). That can't be done, either - we may get the occasional poor decision in our favour, the occasional dodgy penalty. But no massive bizarre decisions. And no extended string of decisions in our favour either. But we could point to the five (FIVE) match defining decisions Foy made to our disfavour against Stokem along with several smaller decisions and allowing them to spend over 20 seconds per throw-in (I started counting) and with towels sewn inside their shirts after they had been told not to use them. Finding the occasional decision in our favour now isn't going to disqualify that.

It seems to me that the really bizarre decisions have been excluded - maybe they were getting a bit too blatant. But trying to show that these things didn't happen by taking decisions now for and against us, and only us and looking at them in isolation just doesn't prove anything much. It prove (or disprove) historical instances. The decisions themselves are often open to interpretation - hence you finding the offside at OT to not be a clear goal-scoring chance (presumably because of distance from goal) and not thinking the Stoke penalty was very, very soft (whereas I do). It ignores the cumulative effect of smaller decisions. And it ignores the effects that putting pressure on officials and the FA, outside of 90 minutes match time, can have and just who is allowed to get away with that (and to my mind, Mourinho waged a sustained campaign before the CC final to ensure his team would get away with being niggly-dirty in small ways to stifle the game and got away with it.

Otherwise, good idea

Lay off the drugs, son.