Decisions, Decisions (for and against)

[shelfmonkey]

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

Agree, WHL is most definitely NOT hostile enough!

 

[shelfmonkey]

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

I think the point is that decisions seem to go against us at significantly important stages in matches against the cartel teams, but, yes, it easy to forget the ones that go in our favour, because it's usually against teams that we are either already winning against or games where it's pretty clear we're not going to lose anyway.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

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

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

Jesus fellas, you got no sense of humour ?

 

[Gaz_Gammon]

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

You have way too much time on your hands. Though i do agree with part of what you say but i after reading your whole post, i forgot which part..........











Verts was at fault so i say 0-1

 

[StartingPrice]

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

I see, so the it's up for discussion is of the I'm Saddam Hussain, it's the party conference but it's MY party, so you can discuss things and disagree but if you disagree or show insufficient vigour in your clapping I'll have you taken out and shot type of discussion

 

[StartingPrice]

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

But I would say the offside at OT is splitting opinion as well. So we can have it at 1 -1, 1 - 0 or 0 - 1 or, indeed, 0 - 0

 

[StartingPrice]

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

J. R. R.Talkien - you may have heard of me, I wrote The Lewd of the Rings :giggle:

I agree.
But what made it worse for me was that at OT it was immediately following Rooney having a little word with the ref. All of a sudden, in a game that wasn't in the least bit dirty, where there had been no contentious decisions but where we were quite clearly on top, the ref makes three obviously wrong calls where you can actually see him reacting to the baying of the crowd. Refs should be trained to ignore such influence. And as for Rooney, even if he was their Captain, the ref should have said that it hadn't been a dirty game, etc., and either warned him or booked him for trying to exert unfair pressure - I believe it's called ungentlemanly conduct

 

[scottishbairn]

But I would say the offside at OT is splitting opinion as well. So we can have it at 1 -1, 1 - 0 or 0 - 1 or, indeed, 0 - 0

I never mentioned the offside at OT. I'd need to see it again to comment on that. Anyone have a link to it?

 

[Bus-Conductor]

But I would say the offside at OT is splitting opinion as well. So we can have it at 1 -1, 1 - 0 or 0 - 1 or, indeed, 0 - 0

No.The offside at OT is clealry a bad decision, but it didn't develop into something we can tangibly call a solid situation and there will be a hundred of these that go both way, for all I can remember the opposition may have already had a dodgy offside call against us themselves that we haven't logged in our memory.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

I see, so the it's up for discussion is of the I'm Saddam Hussain, it's the party conference but it's MY party, so you can discuss things and disagree but if you disagree or show insufficient vigour in your clapping I'll have you taken out and shot type of discussion

Exactly. Think of this thread as North Korea.

Seriously, we can discuss but there's got to be a strong consensus. Many of us are saying both penalty decisions (Stoke against/Leicetser for us) were understandable, including neutral TV pundits. Therefore we can't count them as terrible decisions.

 

[StartingPrice]

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

I don't think that's true - certainly not in my case. I remember, for instance, the contentious penalty we were awarded at Palace on the opening day 2 seasons ago (I think - well, three now). Townsend was cutting into the area and was caught. The issue was that he was marginally out of the area (about 5 CMs) and that there was a touch but it was difficult to tell whether it was enough to bring him down. Notwithstanding that this type of incident demonstrates how hard the official's job is sometimes, and that it would have been difficult to tell that it was outside the area without video technology, or that Townsend is fast and when someone is running fast it doesn't take much contact to put someone off balance, I would agree it was contentious. But that is where (to try to be objective), IMHO, the refs should show discretion and award and indirect free-kick. Unfortunately, as a fan-base THFC fans seem to be obsessed with showing how fair-minded and objective they are - and the THFC World was awash with fans pushing forward to state it shouldn't have been a pen. Other fan-bases don't do that - they scream for every decision and then laugh that they got them while remembering every single little decisions they didn't get - even when the officials get it right.

But that isn't my problem. All clubs get contentious decisions, including ours. The game is often played at break-neck speed, and the movement of bodies and legs mean that the officials often can't see clearly even when they do a good job at keeping up with play. My problem is the sheer volume and magnitude of the decisions against us, mostly, but not exclusively, in favour of the Sky Four/Citeh clubs we are trying to compete with. The fact that I could give so many examples in itself illustrates the point. Here are a few:
Citeh away, CL decider: Balotelli stamps on Parker's head in front of the ref = no red. Kompany, I think, gives Kaboul a running forearm smash in the face inside our area = no red card. In the final minute Balotelli, who shouldn't have been on the pitch (they should have been reduced to nine!) is caught by Ledders in our area. The cameras show that it is a clumsy tackle, but the refs view wasn't the best - he should give what he can see. he can't see a head-stamp (right in front of him), he can't see a blatant fore-arm smash from a dead-ball situation, but he can see a tackle that he is looking at from behind from a good distance where the trajectory of the ball changes and it is only with video replays that you can see Ledders caught the ball through Balotelli's foot. And that is just what has stuck in my mind.
Or a couple of seasons ago, again against Citeh, this time at the Lane at the Lane. A Citeh player is booked. Then has a free-kick awarded against him - it shouldn't have been a free-kick (another decision I remember going in our favour). The ref reaches for his back pocket to yellow card him. Realises he's already booked him and decides not to. The fact that it shouldn't have been a free-kick and, therefore, a yellow card is irrelevant. The ref clearly, honestly believed it was but then made a conscious decision not to send a Citeh player off. From the resulting free-kick Daws scores, but the assistant ref decides (with emphasis on decides it is offside). After dozens of slo-mos and freeze frames from multiple angles you can just about see that Daws's left bollock is offside. But the players of both teams were like a buzz-saw jumping in and put, jockeying for position. There is absolute zero chance that the assistant could have seen any such offside - and the attacking team is supposed to get the benefit of the doubt. In the second half, Danny Rose makes an absolutely brilliant clearance without touching the challenging Citeh player. The assistant awards a pen and Rose is sent off even though no infraction has taken place. So, clearly, none of the officials could actually have seen the incident - they just decided to give Citeh a pen. It's not just getting difficult decisions wrong, it is deciding to give one side a whole host of favourable outcomes when they have zero idea of what has actually happened. On top of which, about 8 of the Citeh players were waving imaginary cards at Rose and even though the had told the officals to clamp down on this and players were being carded for it, the ref decided not to punish the Citeh players. They outplayed us in that game, which is what most of our supporters focussed on - but the officials made not just one but a series of decisions favourable to them for no apparent reason.
Then there was the Defoe goal at Anfield. The Mickeys were a goal up, but we had got hold of the game. Defoe ran onside from an offside position as we played the ball forward. The Scouse keeper got on the ball, passed it to a defender and then received the ball. When he dithered on the ball, Defoe decided to challenge him. He won the ball, there was no hint of a foul. It was in the middle of the Mickey's half. Defoe ran in on goal. When he got to the goal the ref suddenly decided to blow the whistle. He later justified it by claiming that Defoe had been offside. But he had made made no effort to play the ball when he was offside and their had been three separate touches by Liverpool players (Keeper twice, defender once) before Defoe had cleanly won the ball. It was a bizarre decision that isn't just about not seeing an incident or having vision obscured or something. The ref clearly decided we weren't going to be allowed to score from the incident and then tried to find a reason to fit in with that decision.
There was Ramirez a couple of seasons ago at the Lane. He broke on the right, the assistant gave offside (rightly) and a visibly frustrated Ramirez blasted the ball from the right wing right across the pitch to the left wing - after whistle had blown. Minutes later, one of our players was penalised (rightly - I do remember) and he threw the ball quite hard into the pitch where the incident happened. A minor detail, but technically he didn't kick it and it was n't away! The ref couldn't get his hand in his pocket fast enough to card him. Ramirez subsequently committed three offences that easily could have been yellow carded, before being finally booked. And was then let off with another two clear yellow card incidents. Or the two Chalsea goals that clearly hadn't crossed the line - in the Cup semi one the ref later admitted he only awarded the goal because the Chavs wheeled away celebrating and couldn't see that it had crossed the line. Technology later showed it hadn't. So Chelsea were allowed to have a goal for no other reason than that they wanted one, really.

And that is neither exhaustive nor touching upon all of the United incidents where I could go full postal. And that is my point. I'm not talking about a few contentious decisions either way. I'm talking about the volume and magnitude of truly awful, and often bizarre, decisions we have been on the rum end of. And mostly, but not exclusively, for the Sky Four and Citeh (there was also the Chris Foy Show at Stoke). I have asked other members of the forum who claim it all evens out (in the traditional Tottenham fans' need to be fair-minded and objective to the point where they are actually accepted a pile of shit against their club) to provide me with examples of this magnitude and volume in our favour. Hey, if it showed we suffered by the higher ups but benefited against the lower downs, and it was just where we are in the food chain, I would accept that. But no-one ever has been able to. They just reference the occasional decision like the Townsend one as though that is answering the volume and magnitude against us (mostly on behalf of blah blah blah).

And I don't think this thread will address it either. For reasons given in original post (no clear consensus, doesn't address cumulative smaller decisions not behaviour of oppos managers, and here and now doesn't address historical)

 

[StartingPrice]

No.The offside at OT is clealry a bad decision, but it didn't develop into something we can tangibly call a solid situation

It didn't develop into something we can tangibly call a solid situation because the ref erroneously blew for offside largely on the scream-so of the OT crowd. I think we would have had a goal-scoring opportunity if he hadn't done so.

Of those who have specifically expressed an opinion on this thread 2 (me and Shanks) think it would have been a goalscoring chance. Only 1 (you) doesn't accept that. So, so far, the consensus is that that was a wrong decision denying a goal-scoring chance.

and there will be a hundred of these that go both way

No-one ever said it wouldn't. But I think you are confusing two separate things. I've never denied that we get some decisions in our favour and some against. What I specifically said was that for a lengthy period the Sky Four and Citeh had a disproportionate amount (both in terms of magnitude and in terms of volume) of incredibly bad (not just bad, but ridiculously bad, and sometimes bizarre) decisions. Further, no-one can show that we have had similar decisions in our favour, either in terms of volume or in terms of magnitude/bizarreness. If anyone could show that they could show I was wrong I would be willing to amend my opinion. But no-one could. Starting a thread now to consider decisions in the here and now isn't going to either - not unless we suddenly start getting a disproportionate amount of decisions, both in terms of volume and in terms of magnitude (not to mention the patently bizarre).

for all I can remember the opposition may have already had a dodgy offside call against us themselves that we haven't logged in our memory.

Wha...at OT...1st game of the season? Are you saying United had a blatantly onside player who turned the defence and would have had a run in on goal and (in all likelihood a goal-scoring chance) if the ref hadn't erroneously called offside (because the crowd bayed for it) but it is just that no-one, including yourself, can remember? Maybe you could go through the first twenty minutes of the match and relocate this incident that was erroneous that you can't remember and draw it to our attention

 

[eViL]

Maybe if we had a crowd that got behind the team more we'd get more decisions go our way..

 

[StartingPrice]

Exactly. Think of this thread as North Korea.

Strangely, your wish to be seen as Great Leader doesn't surprise meas much as it should

Seriously, we can discuss but there's got to be a strong consensus. Many of us are saying both penalty decisions (Stoke against/Leicetser for us) were understandable, including neutral TV pundits.

We can discuss in the thread but the strong consensus has to exist where?
I've just checked and of those who specifically an opinion on the Verts challenge in this thread five (me @alfie103 @mpickard2087 @Shanks @Gaz_Gammon) believe it should have been a penalty. Three (you @Gb160 @Mr Pink believe it definitely shouldn't have been a pen. That's five to three. @Grey Fox says he agrees with most of what I say - but doesn't specifically state he agrees that the Verts challenge should have resulted in a pen and @double says it shouldn have been a pen, but then qualifies it by saying that both were shirt pulling, so they should probably be classed as yes penalty but I have left them off. Likewise, @scottishbairn says that because it is being contested there is no consensus, but doesn't actually confirm that he doesn't think it was a pen and nicdic says that a former ref didn't think it should have been a pen - so you can have them as no pens even so, that would still make 7 to 5 in favour of classing it as a penalty. That's a clear majority.

In regard to the Stoke pen, the only ones in the thread to express an opinion are me and @double0 who both think it was harsh and you who thinks it was fair. Again, a clear majority within the thread so far. My impression of it was that Toby was naive, but he wasn't even trying to hold the oppo back, just trying to turn quickly to match the forward's quick turn and put his hands on his shoulders for balance. How do you compare that, for instance, with Rooney wrestling Kane down across the width of the penalty area at the Lane last season?

Therefore we can't count them as terrible decisions.

Terrible is your terminology. And you seem to be basing your decisions on a straw poll you have conducted in your head and what some of the pundits said, rather than what folk who express a definite opinion within the thread believe.

 

[Bulletspur]

I was game to the idea of this thread but I now believe its out of my depth

 

[StartingPrice]

I was game to the idea of this thread but I now believe its out of my depth

Someone throw the lad a rubber...er...ring...er...er...

 

[nailsy]

I was game to the idea of this thread but I now believe its out of my depth

No, you're fine

 

[Bus-Conductor]

at everyone, but mainly at @StartingPrice , this isn't a thread for keeping track of every fucking decision that is "wrong". It's a thread for totting up those major clusterfucks, those massive miscarriages of justice that clearly and unequivocally cost us or benefit us in major way.

So whilst wrong call offsides on the halfway line are bad, they are not the same as the one that let Liverpool score against Bournemouth for example. If we try to keep track of marginal offsides, for and against us, we'll be getting into to cricket scores. And this thread will be 600 pages long.

Lets try and keep this thread to the spirit in which it is intended. Major fuck-ups that have immediately obvious big costs or gains.

To make it fair I think we should appoint a 6 man committee. And for something to get voted it has to have a 5-1 majority.

Obviously I'm going to be benevolent dictator of the committee, that leaves 5 other seats on the judicial panel to fill. Obviously @StartingPrice is invited to fill one. Just going through this thread how about @mpickard2087 @Mr Pink @Spurger King @Bulletspur

What we'll do is execute trouble makers who don't vote with me…I mean revolve the panel every month and give others a turn (except me of course).

I'll decide the major incidents but I suggest we limit them to goals, major offsides that involve a clear goal scoring opportunity or goals themselves and sending offs (or sending offs that should be). Everyone can put their arguments for or against to try and influence the panel then we'll have a vote.

 

[Mr Pink]

at everyone, but mainly at @StartingPrice , this isn't a thread for keeping track of every fucking decision that is "wrong". It's a thread for totting up those major clusterfucks, those massive miscarriages of justice that clearly and unequivocally cost us or benefit us in major way.

So whilst wrong call offsides on the halfway line are bad, they are not the same as the one that let Liverpool score against Bournemouth for example. If we try to keep track of marginal offsides, for and against us, we'll be getting into to cricket scores. And this thread will be 600 pages long.

Lets try and keep this thread to the spirit in which it is intended. Major fuck-ups that have immediately obvious big costs or gains.

To make it fair I think we should appoint a 6 man committee. And for something to get voted it has to have a 5-1 majority.

Obviously I'm going to be benevolent dictator of the committee, that leaves 5 other seats on the judicial panel to fill. Obviously @StartingPrice is invited to fill one. Just going through this thread how about @mpickard2087 @Mr Pink @Spurger King @Bulletspur

What we'll do is execute trouble makers who don't vote with me…I mean revolve the panel every month and give others a turn (except me of course).

I'll decide the major incidents but I suggest we limit them to goals, major offsides that involve a clear goal scoring opportunity or goals themselves and sending offs (or sending offs that should be). Everyone can put their arguments for or against to try and influence the panel then we'll have a vote.

Count me in lol.

 

[nailsy]

Not that my opinion counts but I thought Verts went through the back of the Leicester player and they should have had a penalty. That was my initial opinion and I haven't seen anything to make me think otherwise.