Just a big coincidence

[Milan_Milan]

Thing i couldnt understand was if Webb thouroughly believed it was a pen, why didnt he send the keeper off? Bad **** house decision. Not going to dwell on this any longer though. Whats done is done.

He should have.

Showed how unsure he was really. It was a tight decision from his angle, but if he's not positive, you don't give it.

[squaddie]

Indeed. Think all the best ref in English football stuff went to his head.

[Exiled_red]

He should have.

Showed how unsure he was really. It was a tight decision from his angle, but if he's not positive, you don't give it.

This is one of the things that always gets me about referees, when they are critisised often we hear that they are sticking to the rules too strictly. But the referee has to see the foul and be positive about it to give a penalty, (and he can't give a penalty if he doesn't see it) then why do we see so many penalties wrongly given?

If this were always applied then we should see some penalties that should be given aren't (because the referee didn't see it), but we should never see a penalty wrongly awarded

[squaddie]

This is one of the things that always gets me about referees, when they are critisised often we hear that they are sticking to the rules too strictly. But the referee has to see the foul and be positive about it to give a penalty, (and he can't give a penalty if he doesn't see it) then why do we see so many penalties wrongly given?

If this were always applied then we should see some penalties that should be given aren't (because the referee didn't see it), but we should never see a penalty wrongly awarded

Indeed. To be fair though in a perfect world you would expect that if the referee isnt in the best position to call the 'foul', the linesman would be able to fill him in on what took place.

But i seriously think footie is one of few games that is full of grey areas as far as decisions are concerned. Even if the cameras etc were introduced there would always be discrepencies.

[Craig_H]

Also posted on another forum, to a manc, who asked:

"Could it be that if the top 4 get favours then we are the biggest of the lot and so we get more favours.
I dont know is the answer."

The reply, from a Liverpool fan:

Yes - it could well be (if by Biggest you mean has the most influence on the FA and Refs). I think that over the average season, teams below the top 4 get an approximately even number of good and bad decisions. Refs aren't scared of upsetting their managers and as long as they don't make too many absolute howlers, they know their career will be ok. Most of the time, at least in games against lower teams, the good and bad decisions will even out.

Teams in the top 4 tend to get more borderline (or even incorrect) decisions go their way when playing against teams below them. But the gap between how many dodgy decisions United get and how many dodgy decisions others in the top 4 get, is huge.

I think Liverpool benefited slightly against hull, both home and away, but were also on the wrong end of a bad decision at home to Stoke, where a 2nd minute goal was wrongly disallowed. So, I can think of 2 games where Liverpool 'got lucky' decisions (and Hull at home only turned a potential loss into a draw - a difference of 1 point).

If you can add any other Liverpool games where we've had outrageous decisions go our way, please do. If you haven't seen enough of our games then you're not really in any position to say that we get as many dodgy decisions as you.

You've been given 2 outrageous pens (1 yesterday and 1 at home to Bolton), both were match turning events. for your second goal yesterday, the ref was about to blow for a foul and then waved play on - as if to give you the advantage after your foul won you possession.

For your winning goal against Villa, Evra took out Ashley young before the ball reached him. It was the most blatant of fouls, which is why even O'neil - who loves united and Ferguson - ended up with an FA charge (that's what non- Ferguson managers get when they complain about the refs).

Against Stoke, Rooney and Ronaldo both could have been sent off in a game you were struggling to win. A stoke player was sent off for breaking the rules, but United players got away with it. playing against 10 men, you got a late winner.

Against Blackburn (at Ewood) Vidic fouled the keeper for your first goal (scored by Brown). It was the most obvious of fouls. Normally doing less to a keeper results in a freekick, but on this occasion, a blantant foul did not.

Against Blackburn and Everton at OT, both teams had shouts for penalties, shouts for penalties that were more reasonable than the one you were given yesterday, but obviously neither was given.

Against West Brom away, you were winning 1-0 when West Brom's captain was wrongly sent off. You went on to win 5-0 (not saying you would have failed to win the game without the incorrect sending off, but sending off ensured end of contest.

That's 8 games (over 1 in every 5 league matches) where decisions have gone massively in your favour.

The West Brom and Everton games were the only ones where you were already winning when the ref mad a bad decision in your favour. So even if we dismiss this game and half of the other games with terrible decisions that have gone in your favour, (and say you would have won those games anyway), even if we say that dodgy decisions in your favour have only gifted you an extra 6 points, those 6 points mean you're 3 points ahead of Liverpool with a game in hand instead of being 3 points behind with a game in hand.

Says it all. The number of times they get shocking decisions in their favour FAR outweighs the number of times they get them going against them, and also far outweighs the number of times Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea get such shocking decisions for them.

[Joe King]

I seriously don't know why referees are scared of Ferguson. What can the deluded geriatric do?

[Craig_H]

The irony of it all, is that the notion of anything dodgy going on would be the biggest, most sensational sports story ever - yet Sky, who love big sensational stories so much, that they sensationalise nothing stories to achieve the effect, wont even consider the possibility of foul play going on.

[Joe King]

The irony of it all, is that the notion of anything dodgy going on would be the biggest, most sensational sports story ever - yet Sky, who love big sensational stories so much, that they sensationalise nothing stories to achieve the effect, wont even consider the possibility of foul play going on.

Sky is run by Mancs. Surely. The amount of bull crap you see about United on there with their boring rubbish tabloid Fergie arse licking on there, its unbearable.

[Exiled_red]

Knew I'd forget one.

Okay then, 10 out of 11.

The Friedel one as well, but as we were 4-0 up at that point it didn't really make a difference

[Craig_H]

The Friedel one as well, but as we were 4-0 up at that point it didn't really make a difference

There's surely a difference though. The Friedel one, whilst you may think it shouldnt have been given, it was still one where there was an element of doubt - 10 people would probably be split on it.

The manc ones, against Bolton and Spurs, literally EVERYONE thought the ref got it wrong. They werent even difficult or debatable decisions.

[Scratch]

The Friedel one, whilst you may think it shouldnt have been given, it was still one where there was an element of doubt - 10 people would probably be split on it.

Nah, that should never have been given...Friedel was stranded after the ball was knocked past him and had no where to go...hence the decision of red being overturned.

[Craig_H]

Nah, that should never have been given...Friedel was stranded after the ball was knocked past him and had no where to go...hence the decision of red being overturned.

Yeah i'd agree with you on that, but in terms of sheer 'laws of the game', he DID foul Torres - and he WAS the last man. A bit of discretion was required from the ref, but ultimately, he can just point to the laws of the game and say "well i applied the laws as they're written".

The Gomes/Carrick one is different, the keeper played the ball cleanly and there's no aspect of the rules which points to a penalty.

[TheStig]

Yeah i'd agree with you on that, but in terms of sheer 'laws of the game', he DID foul Torres - and he WAS the last man. A bit of discretion was required from the ref, but ultimately, he can just point to the laws of the game and say "well i applied the laws as they're written".

The Gomes/Carrick one is different, the keeper played the ball cleanly and there's no aspect of the rules which points to a penalty.

[Exiled_red]

Yeah i'd agree with you on that, but in terms of sheer 'laws of the game', he DID foul Torres - and he WAS the last man. A bit of discretion was required from the ref, but ultimately, he can just point to the laws of the game and say "well i applied the laws as they're written".

The Gomes/Carrick one is different, the keeper played the ball cleanly and there's no aspect of the rules which points to a penalty.

Fair point, just thought it was worth mentioning as it was the only one to be overturned

[Scratch]

Yeah i'd agree with you on that, but in terms of sheer 'laws of the game', he DID foul Torres - and he WAS the last man. A bit of discretion was required from the ref, but ultimately, he can just point to the laws of the game and say "well i applied the laws as they're written".

The Gomes/Carrick one is different, the keeper played the ball cleanly and there's no aspect of the rules which points to a penalty.

Surely tho, if what you say is true, then the FA would have stood by the referees decision of a red card, rather than over-turning it...they very rarely overturn cards, so there must have been strong reason for doubt?