Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Annasfield Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > The main one SP ;-)

> >

> > http://i33.tinypic.com/2nhkxa1.gif

>

>

> This really shows the nasty side of Fergie - I

> noticed this on MOTD last night - not nice. Really

> rubbing Hughes' nose in it on the added time

> issue.


Totally agree MM.

Keef Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Why don't you all just reply to each other with

> the phrase "your mum", as that is about the level

> of this little debate.

>

> Oh, and please stop quoting massive posts, just to

> type a one line response!!!!!!!!

>

> Now if you kids can't get along and play nice,

> just ignore each other, and get on with talking

> about football.



Yes Dad...

I used to think that Howard Webb was a good ref but once again he has made a bad decision against Spurs at a crucial time in a match. I get the feeling he's a biot of a homer. Last season's poor decision against Man Utd at Old Trafford was dreadful and yesterday he repeated the trick against Chelsea in what was a stonewall penalty. Is a Gooner?
I think yesterdays decison was a lot more clear cut than the OT decison Jah. It wasn't clear at normal speed whether Gomes or Carrick got to the ball first. Whereas yesterday if it wasn't a penalty why didn't he book Keano for doing an Eduardo?..

They say if Ferguson makes enough noise about a Referee's performance he'll not get many games officiating at Old Trafford. Is it this worry of missing out on big games by upsetting the big boys that drives Refs to usually give them the benefit of the doubt. If you're not getting any big Clubs to Referee it's probably the path to demotion and subsequent salary reductions. Now that we have full time Referees are they willing to risk salaries that are maybe their only income? I think it maybe financial reasons rather than being United supporters that makes likes of Howard Webb, Martin Atkinson, Steve Bennett perform as they do when it is Ferguson's United who are playing.


What I find strange is that Managers rate the officials performances after each match as it can only be assumed this influences the careers of Referees.

I do wonder at the logic sometimes. If you look at any sport, especially those where a lot of money is at stake, you will find people who are prepared to go as far as is legal and sometimes beyond to be the top team/performer. Would Michael Schumacher have been as successful if he wasn't prone to nugde a rival off the track as he passed him? Would the Aussies have been so dominant in cricket without world class sledging to go with their world class team? Ferguson takes this to another level. If he really has that much influence over refereeing strategy in this country (and I doubt he does) then surely it's his job to take advantage of it? There's enough pressure on players and managers to perform so why not refs? If the people who employ officials in the game are stupid enough to bow to pressure from an individual manager then more power to him if he uses that to his advantage. Pretty much all the non-united fans hate the guy anyway and as I am sure he would say, it's not popularity contest. Maybe it's time for other mangers to grow a pair? Jose had the right idea and did similar things.*


*This is just a point for discussion, I am not sure even I totally think this is the right attitude but I thought it might be interesting to discuss it.

Saw this yesterday. Just chat and I obviously can't vouch for it as I don't know the fella, but it did make me raise an eyebrow. (Well I tried to but I can't actually do it - would love to be able to though).


whats the name of that ex ref?


he was a sunday league ref for a while


anyway, he told me and me mates once about a time when he was a linesman for a league cup game at OT and he gave an important decision against utd. at the end of the game Ferguson came up to him and said, i'll make sure you never referee at a high level ever again.


and he never did after that

red devil Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Keef Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Why don't you all just reply to each other with

> > the phrase "your mum", as that is about the

> level

> > of this little debate.

> >

> > Oh, and please stop quoting massive posts, just

> to

> > type a one line response!!!!!!!!

> >

> > Now if you kids can't get along and play nice,

> > just ignore each other, and get on with talking

> > about football.

>

>

> Yes Dad...



Keef is just practising his fatherly authority on here, for when he gets home.

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ,,,and Matt your logic only applies to United..and

> not say, oooh let's think...say Liverpool?

>

> I do laugh at the anti-Utd stuff spouted on here


No I qualified it with, "Is it this worry of missing out on big games by upsetting the big boys that drives Refs to usually give them the benefit of the doubt. If you're not getting any big Clubs to Referee it's probably the path to demotion and subsequent salary reductions."

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> red devil Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Keef Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > Why don't you all just reply to each other

> with

> > > the phrase "your mum", as that is about the

> > level

> > > of this little debate.

> > >

> > > Oh, and please stop quoting massive posts,

> just

> > to

> > > type a one line response!!!!!!!!

> > >

> > > Now if you kids can't get along and play

> nice,

> > > just ignore each other, and get on with

> talking

> > > about football.

> >

> >

> > Yes Dad...

>

>

> Keef is just practising his fatherly authority on

> here, for when he gets home.


I'm glad Keef is my 'dad' and not Quids, rumour has it he's started taxing pocket money...

...maybe we should have an insult box, 50p a pop?


back to reality, those sometimes useful but have got nothing better to do analysts at Sky have come up an interesting set of figures that explodes another scouse obsessed myth...


average time added on for the 'Big 4' teams playing at home over last 3 seasons -


Chelsea 3min 49secs

L'Arse 3mins 44secs

Scousers 3mins 30secs

Utd 3 mins 25secs

Based on the assumption that Big 4 teams are usually winning their matches at home before the 90 minutes are up, that statistic therefore suggests that when the Mancs are winning a game the Ref will blow earlier than they would at their rivals. There maybe a correlation here with Ferguson jabbing his mickey mouse watch and mouthing foul language at fourth official.


What I would like to know is how much time on average is given over the initial allotted injury time when Big 4 clubs are still chasing a goal - as the Mancs goal on Sunday against Man City exceeded original injury time by 25%.

Haha, nice try matthew, come back when you've got some facts not assumptions. Last season the scousers gained more points in injury time than any other club, fact. I don't know, one minute it's Fergie Time i.e. Utd always get given more injury time minutes, which these stats totally dismiss, and now your 'suggesting' the ref blows up early if we are winning, Quids is right you are funny...:))


As to your second point, surely it all depends what happens in the initial period of injury time as to any extra injury time given, yesterday we had Citeh's over celebration and a substitution which added nearly a minute and a half, not forgetting Shay Given's timewasting 20 odd seconds to take a goal kick. The referee played fair and square and even added on more time for Utd's over celebration, but of course by then we didn't care...:))

Whether it was "over celebration" (and who could blame them? Getting an equalizer against the best club in the country, away, is worth celebrating ;-)) or not it was nigh on a minute to add to the clock, plus 30 secs each mandatory extra time for a goal and substitution. I think people are clutching at straws. We won the game in the time allotted by the ref. Therefore we get three points. That's how it works. :))
MOTD broke down the times, and showed that actually if you added the celebration and the substitution to the initial 4 minutes, it added up to 5mins, and 27 seconds (I am doing this from memory), and Owen scored on 5 mins 28 seconds. So as far as I'm concerned, it was acceptable, as I don't think we can really have a go at a ref for allowing an extra second.

We all like to think our club is the best in the world, even I do, but objectively three domestic and a European title in three years does stand man u in good stead for SP's claim.


Oh sorry what was I thinking, lost my mind momentarily...best club in the country, what like that ghost pooh I had this morning was the best turd in the world, your mom etc ad infinitum

Absolutely. Spurs winner against Birmingham was equally late - sometime in the 96th minute when 'only' four minutes were added on (which seems almost standard so far this season). Most of the extra added time was due to Seb Larsson being substituted and leaving the field at a funereal pace. I was gutted by losing with 2 seconds left to play but can?t complain about the ref adding the time on. No controversy. Same here, referee justified in adding the time on. It?s only debate because its Man Utd and the circumstances of the match. And they have previous for late goals at OT (Steve Bruce v Sheff Wed in 92/93).
On amore serious note, it was nice to see the great and th good of football paying homage yesterday to the late great Sir Bobby, a true gent who I had the privilege of meeting at Highbury and getting the great mans autograph. Legend, truly missed.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • why do we think we have the right for the elected local council to be transparent?
    • Granted Shoreditch is still London, but given that the council & organisers main argument for the festival is that it is a local event, for local people (to use your metaphor), there's surprisingly little to back this up. As Blah Blah informatively points out, this is now just a commercial venture with no local connection. Our park is regarded by them as an asset that they've paid to use & abuse. There's never been any details provided of where the attendees are from, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's never been any details provided of any increase in sales for local businesses, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's promises of "opportunities" for local people & traders to work at the festival, but, again, no figures to back this up. And lastly, the fee for the whole thing goes 100% to running the Events dept, and the dozens of free events that no-one seems able to identify, and, yes, you guessed it - no details provided for by the council. So again, no tangible benefit for the residents of the area.
    • I mean I hold no portfolio to defend Gala,  but I suspect that is their office.  I am a company director,  my home address is also not registered with Companies House. Also guys this is Peckham not Royston Vasey.  Shoreditch is a mere 20 mins away by train, it's not an offshore bolt hole in Luxembourg.
    • While it is good that GALA have withdrawn their application for a second weekend, local people and councillors will likely have the same fight on their hands for next year's event. In reading the consultation report, I noted the Council were putting the GALA event in the same light as all the other events that use the park, like the Circus, the Fair and even the FOPR fete. ALL of those events use the common, not the park, and cause nothing like the level of noise and/or disruption of the GALA event. Even the two day Irish Festival (for those that remember that one) was never as noisy as GALA. So there is some disingenuity and hypocrisy from the Council on this, something I wll point out in my response to the report. The other point to note was that in past years branches were cut back for the fencing. Last year the council promised no trees would be cut after pushback, but they seem to now be reverting to a position of 'only in agreement with the council's arbourist'. Is this more hypocrisy from 'green' Southwark who seem to once again be ok with defacing trees for a fence that is up for just days? The people who now own GALA don't live in this area. GALA as an event began in Brockwell Park. It then lost its place there to bigger events (that pesumably could pay Lambeth Council more). One of the then company directors lived on the Rye Hill Estate next to the park and that is likely how Peckham Rye came to be the new choice for the event. That person is no longer involved. Today's GALA company is not the same as the 'We Are the Fair' company that held that first event, not the same in scope, aim or culture. And therein lies the problem. It's not a local community led enterprise, but a commercial one, underwritten by a venture capital company. The same company co-run the Rally Event each year in Southwark Park, which btw is licensed as a one day event only. That does seem to be truer to the original 'We Are the Fair' vision, but how much of that is down to GALA as opoosed to 'Bird on the Wire' (the other group organising it) is hard to say.  For local people, it's three days of not being able to open windows, As someone said above, if a resident set up a PA in their back garden and subjected the neighbours to 10 hours of hard dance music every day for three days, the Council would take action. Do not underestimate how distressing that is for many local residents, many of whom are elderly, frail, young, vulnerable. They deserve more respect than is being shown by those who think it's no big deal. And just to be clear, GALA and the council do not consider there to be a breach of db level if the level is corrected within 15 minutes of the breach. In other words, while db levels are set as part of the noise management plan, there is an acknowledgement that a breach is ok if corrected within 15 minutes. That is just not good enough. Local councillors objected to the proposed extension. 75% of those that responded to the consultation locally did not want GALA 26 to take place at all. For me personally, any goodwill that had been built up through the various consultations over recent years was erased with that application for a second weekend, and especially given that when asked if there were plans for that in post 2025 event feedback meetings (following rumours), GALA lied and said there were no plans to expand. I have come to the conclusion that all the effort to appease on some things is merely an exercise in show, to get past the council's threshold for the events licence. They couldn't give a hoot in reality for local people, and people that genuinely care about parkland, don't litter it with noisy festivals either.   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...