- Sep 1, 2009
- 1,102
- 879
I watched this game on a stuttering stream on the internet, so even I may have missed some more unfair decisions from the referee.
From what I saw, the bias was toward Portsmouth, even from the open passages of play - he allowed them to retake a free kick they messed up when they took it quickly, almost providing their first goal. He blew his whistle instead of allowing a great position of spurs advantage with Bentley on the right was ready to cross toward an unprepared defense, in order to talk to Brown, which he could of so easily done so after the advantage resulted in a goal or when the ball goes out of play.
Referees, like the government, are meant to protect the rights of the people, through the created laws for the situation. In this case it is football. Now what is a referee by definition? 'An official who oversees the play in a sport or game, judges whether the rules are being followed, and penalizes fouls or infringements'
Governments are becoming more subversive and corrupt, through abusing the rights of the people they were consented to protect in the first place. One way is through the withholding information that should be free to see, so as they have an advantage over the public. Refs are also now, not acting in the interests of the people, and so a change must be made. Villa yesterday, Spurs today... both penalty decisions that count for more in changing the result of a game than spending 80 million on a Ronaldo would, not to mention the over watering of Wembley pitch. How can national field, of which the highest calibre of ground staff are employed, to prepare it for matches just a few days in a year mis calculate its preparation to such an extent, that it effects the outcome of matches. Not even Sunday league football suffers this incompetence.
The disallowed goal, was by all the commentators I heard across several streams - said that was no way a foul, having the advantage of slow mo. The only person to say it was a foul was by Greame Souness on ESPN, and he said it should only be a foul because refs are always giving those kind of decisions to the keepers, but he also admitted that within the letter of a the law it should not be a foul. So what does the letter of the law account for, if it is not being used? What are laws and rules created for, if not applied? (more abuse?) I lost interest in competing in football long ago, since the institution acts against an essentially great sport. It takes the fairness and fun away from the game, and when players pitch their hopes in careers controlled by UEFA, FIFA or the FA, then they must expect misguided outcomes, and injustices amongst the relatively few matches that aren't affected by human bias or incompetence.
The semi final was heavily one sided in luck, I think it is fair to say. I do not go along with the sentiment that Spurs should have buried the game early so that the last 20 minutes were inconsequential. Sometimes teams cannot score, even if they try. My first instincts were to admonish Spurs for not scoring at least 2 goals before 70 minutes, since we played poorly against them at the lane, yet yielded early goals as to not put us in a vulnerable position. I think we all expected a fairly easy passage. And we started the way we intended.
Their first goal would not have been scored if it wasn't for the soggy pitch. We would maybe not have scored our goal if they had not scored theirs, but even if we did score, it was not allowed to count. Then, after we had at least 3 penalty shouts, one which was a definite handball, in or outside the box, NONE of which were given, and then they had one which looked good like in a car chase, because it was so fast.... how could Riley have seen that given his pudgy body. I lend to the case that he has also got a chubby brain, so as his thoughts are not synaptically responsive enough for fast action calls.
Referees are bottling penalty calls, which they would nonchalantly give outside the box (from a fear of consequences). That is WRONG. Plain and simple, but free to see in most matches. This is why it was such a shock, at least to me to see 3 penalties given in one match to ONE side, and that side was not the more reputable of the sides (Sunderland vs Spurs). Very rarely is there so much consequential box action, but if the letter of the law was applied, then there would be more penalties deciding outcomes in nearly every match.
Why are the referees protected? Shouldn't they be the ones protecting the teams from unfair play. Now they are a tool that creates unfair play. Rules reversed. Perverse predicament. Once again, power corrupts. They need to explain themselves.... of course. Every government needs to be open about their decisions, other wise we have secrets, which lead to unfair discrimination. So, now by nature, the game is no longer a game where people can shake hands at the start from a tradition that maybe once made sense. Nearly every facet of sportsmanship is dissolved into fraud. Players diving. Waving of hands to invoke yellow cards. The crowd baying for their sides advantage. Nothing is fair now, it is imbued by emotion, which is the ying to the yang of reason.
Why even bother?
From what I saw, the bias was toward Portsmouth, even from the open passages of play - he allowed them to retake a free kick they messed up when they took it quickly, almost providing their first goal. He blew his whistle instead of allowing a great position of spurs advantage with Bentley on the right was ready to cross toward an unprepared defense, in order to talk to Brown, which he could of so easily done so after the advantage resulted in a goal or when the ball goes out of play.
Referees, like the government, are meant to protect the rights of the people, through the created laws for the situation. In this case it is football. Now what is a referee by definition? 'An official who oversees the play in a sport or game, judges whether the rules are being followed, and penalizes fouls or infringements'
Governments are becoming more subversive and corrupt, through abusing the rights of the people they were consented to protect in the first place. One way is through the withholding information that should be free to see, so as they have an advantage over the public. Refs are also now, not acting in the interests of the people, and so a change must be made. Villa yesterday, Spurs today... both penalty decisions that count for more in changing the result of a game than spending 80 million on a Ronaldo would, not to mention the over watering of Wembley pitch. How can national field, of which the highest calibre of ground staff are employed, to prepare it for matches just a few days in a year mis calculate its preparation to such an extent, that it effects the outcome of matches. Not even Sunday league football suffers this incompetence.
The disallowed goal, was by all the commentators I heard across several streams - said that was no way a foul, having the advantage of slow mo. The only person to say it was a foul was by Greame Souness on ESPN, and he said it should only be a foul because refs are always giving those kind of decisions to the keepers, but he also admitted that within the letter of a the law it should not be a foul. So what does the letter of the law account for, if it is not being used? What are laws and rules created for, if not applied? (more abuse?) I lost interest in competing in football long ago, since the institution acts against an essentially great sport. It takes the fairness and fun away from the game, and when players pitch their hopes in careers controlled by UEFA, FIFA or the FA, then they must expect misguided outcomes, and injustices amongst the relatively few matches that aren't affected by human bias or incompetence.
The semi final was heavily one sided in luck, I think it is fair to say. I do not go along with the sentiment that Spurs should have buried the game early so that the last 20 minutes were inconsequential. Sometimes teams cannot score, even if they try. My first instincts were to admonish Spurs for not scoring at least 2 goals before 70 minutes, since we played poorly against them at the lane, yet yielded early goals as to not put us in a vulnerable position. I think we all expected a fairly easy passage. And we started the way we intended.
Their first goal would not have been scored if it wasn't for the soggy pitch. We would maybe not have scored our goal if they had not scored theirs, but even if we did score, it was not allowed to count. Then, after we had at least 3 penalty shouts, one which was a definite handball, in or outside the box, NONE of which were given, and then they had one which looked good like in a car chase, because it was so fast.... how could Riley have seen that given his pudgy body. I lend to the case that he has also got a chubby brain, so as his thoughts are not synaptically responsive enough for fast action calls.
Referees are bottling penalty calls, which they would nonchalantly give outside the box (from a fear of consequences). That is WRONG. Plain and simple, but free to see in most matches. This is why it was such a shock, at least to me to see 3 penalties given in one match to ONE side, and that side was not the more reputable of the sides (Sunderland vs Spurs). Very rarely is there so much consequential box action, but if the letter of the law was applied, then there would be more penalties deciding outcomes in nearly every match.
Why are the referees protected? Shouldn't they be the ones protecting the teams from unfair play. Now they are a tool that creates unfair play. Rules reversed. Perverse predicament. Once again, power corrupts. They need to explain themselves.... of course. Every government needs to be open about their decisions, other wise we have secrets, which lead to unfair discrimination. So, now by nature, the game is no longer a game where people can shake hands at the start from a tradition that maybe once made sense. Nearly every facet of sportsmanship is dissolved into fraud. Players diving. Waving of hands to invoke yellow cards. The crowd baying for their sides advantage. Nothing is fair now, it is imbued by emotion, which is the ying to the yang of reason.
Why even bother?