Topic: Football/Soccer 2012/2013 Season Thread

[Typhlosion]

The Torres incident goes down to personal opinion, but I believed he was fouled. Evans caught him, the speed they were both going at would've caused such. Torres could've chosen to stay on his feet, which you have this problem with, but this goes both ways and I can think of plenty of times where you have defended your own players for going down under minimal contact because it was a foul, such as Rooney's penalty against Almunia a few years ago. Even more brilliant is how the other side of the coin, Ivanovic's sending off was under minimal contact and again, Young could've easily chosen to go clean through on goal but chose not to, got the man sent off.

Like you say dear, personal opinion. Personally I feel the right decision was made but on the other side of the coin I wouldn't have been that surprised if the foul had been given against Evans. Two major points to what you say though:

1. I believe the contact Ivanovic made with Young sent him down, he clipped his feet while he was running full pelt.

2. To clarify to everyone else, this is the Rooney v Almunia incident which Rob and myself have previously discussed at great length You're mixing me up a little bit here Rob. You argued that it wasn't a penalty because Rooney goes looking for the contact and because he's completely lost control of the ball. There is a difference between inviting contact and going down as soon as you feel it. I certainly don't feel Almunia spreading himself completely in front of Rooney and getting nothing of the ball can be classed as minimal contact.

It's this huge issue of inconsistent that I absolutely cannot stand because it always

You've hit the nail on the head. Ultimately I can't come up with stone clad evidence that says your opinion is "wrong", and I would suggest vice versa as well. One approach or the other needs to be taken and stuck to, because it's the inconsistency which fans are getting disillusioned with.

Yet, your lot got the rub of the green there and in both matches, just when you were starting to find the match swinging out of your favour, two inconsistencies occur in two of your hardest away matches and all of a sudden, you end up with six points and very questionable decisions.

But these things DO even themselves out. The immense spotlight that always seems to swing around whenever we get an incorrect or contentious decision winds me up something rotten. Match of the Day 2 treated us to a detailed analysis of the decisions that went our way on Sunday night. Match of the Day on Saturday night treated Arteta's clearly offside winner for Arsenal as though it was just a minor detail which didn't affect the game at all.

Decisions go for and against all the big teams and yet people focus in immense detail on anything which goes for us as though it's some kind of big conspiracy theory. I texted you yesterday morning about the decisions we've had go against us there. I'll elaborate further now.

2007: Essien hacks Eagles down in the area, referee has a clear view and waves play on. Chelsea 0 Man Utd 0.

2007 (2): Ashley Cole handles in the area twice, arms out away from his body both times. Referee waves play on both times. Chelsea 1 Man Utd 1.

2008: Michael Carrick penalised for a freak handball in the area, hands by his side, even Match of the Day acknowledged it was a ridiculous decision, giving Chelsea a late penalty. Chelsea 2 Man Utd 1.

2009: John Terry hauls Valencia down in the box as the last man, referee waves play on. Darren Fletcher cleanly tackles Ashley Cole but the referee awards a free kick. Carvalho hauls Wes Brown down in the area as Terry heads the ball in, via Drogba standing in an offside position. Goal given. Chelsea 1 Man Utd 0.

2010: Drogba latches onto a ball and smashes in, despite being 2 yards offside. Chelsea go above Man Utd in the table and both teams win their final games, giving Chelsea the title by 1 point. Man Utd 1 Chelsea 2.

I know you make these points as part of a balanced argument which is fine. A lot of people come across as though they're pursuing some kind of jealous vendetta though, especially amongst the media. It's important to remember the list I give above does not include decisions we have gotten against Chelsea. Such as the non-penalty in the Champions League in 2011. Or the Macheda handball goal in 2010. But I assure you the decisions Chelsea have had against us far outweigh anything we've had against them until Sunday, and most of them were pretty crucial decisions which influenced the outcome of the game. It irritates the hell out of me that people forget all these though and concentrate on the rare games where the big decisions all went to us.

What about Man Utd v Newcastle last season, when Newcastle were awarded a hilariously bad penalty decision and a last minute Hernandez goal was ruled offside when he was onside? Finished 1-1. My argument is just as many decisions go against us as go for us, yet people seem to forget this and concentrate just on what goes for us.

The only way you can really change this is to enforce 'after-match' punishments or to go down video technology route, punishing those who have blatantly dived to win a foul and not owned up to it afterwards.

After crying out for punishments for years, the media then threw a tantrum when Arshavin was given a ban for a clear dive against Celtic in the Champions League, and he was suddenly let off. Whenever a player is punished for diving people suddenly start saying how harsh it is. Like I said, we're all just as much to blame for diving being in the game.

[f3raligatr]

Oh, this is what makes football such an interesting game to talk about (or so I keep convincing myself, I'm sure it's so mundane to others) because nobody will ever share the exact opinions and that there will always be something to debate. Like I say, I can see why Torres was booked for diving, but I do not agree with it because of consistency's sake because I believe what Torres was sent off for Young was guilty of just prior to it.

The point that I'm making in regards to Rooney is very valid here, actually, because your point was about Torres going down not being caused by the contact from Evans (debateable in itself) which thus equates to being a dive and thus, a bookable offence. But, in the video shown, Rooney was going to the ground regardless and went for the penalty because of the ball being sent out of control, so do you punish him for that? After all, whether inevitable or not, he's gone down before any contact has been made full stop, which in my eyes is the same as doing what Torres has done; feigned an increased amount of contact to win a foul. Rooney knew what he was doing. But, of course, this is meaningless and pointless because at the end of the day, it happened what.. three years ago..? (I'm not one to hold a grudge.. honest..) and you'll never see the point where they punish blatant diving because it's hard to actually pinpoint whether the player definitely dived, otherwise you'll find instances where the player jumps to avoid collision but loses balance (for example); do we take that as a foul or not, and if not, why can everybody not fly in with the idea of preventing the opposition getting past..?

(Rambling on a little here...)

The problem is that because the game has grown so much and has become so pressured, so demanding and so fast, there will always be that element of players pushing their luck as much as they can to get that upper hand. But because it's fast as well, if I was running at full sprint I'd be far more inclined to get out of the way than actually be fouled as we all know what can happen in a split second (was it Marc Wilson who broke his fibula this weekend?) such as Eduardo and Ramsey, which makes it harder to determine intent; was the player avoiding contact, but was fouled, or was the player avoiding contact to win a foul?

Regardless! Arsenal's decision at the weekend is but one decision. After all, Stoke have had a helping hand (quite literally), as have Newcastle already this season and have Everton too. I think The bitters have, Liverpool, perhaps Chelsea too. The point is that every team will get decisions that go their way and go against them, but my point has always (and will always) been that you seem to get far more decisions go your way than any other team, including Chelsea. Always have done. There is a conspiracy mate, you perhaps just don't see it when it's going in your favour as the rest of the world looks on you with anger as you seemingly appear above it. In regards to Clattenburg, such as;

"Last season, The bitters romped to a 6-1 win at Old Trafford, inflicting on their rivals their biggest embarrassment under Ferguson. The referee on that day was Mark Clattenburg. He sent Johnny Evans off in the second half for a clear professional foul. It seems that the FA, for whatever reason, doesn’t want Clattenburg to referee Man United games anymore. Some of us more paranoid folk may just wonder who’s behind that decision. There have been 34 Man United league games since that day. The number of times Clattenburg has refereed them? Zero. Not a single one."

Let us not approach Howard Webb though for this big myth about him liking your lot more than the next person.. oh can we please?

"Webb’s history in Man United games are well known and documented. All I have to say on the matter is that more than 18% of the penalties he’s awarded in his ENTIRE premier league refereeing career have gone to Manchester United. Over a 9 year period, that’s a huge percentage."

From last season alone, you've the two infamous Ashley Young dives, the clear-cut penalty Fulham were turned away in your 1-0 defeat of them in the dying minutes (Murphy being fouled by Carrick was it?) along with a number of questionable decisions in I think.. eight matches was it where you went eight points clear at the top (I'm working off the top of my head here, excuse me). This season already you've got Welback against Wigan, Evans against Liverpool, the Chelsea match, where these inconsistences all work to your advantage.

Although, I've admittingly always had some form of bias since that game against Middlesbrough where somebody awarded a penalty against you, at Old Trafford, which is a crime punishable only by death really, and your players surrounded the referee and chased them halfway across the pitch. Since then I've probably noticed these incidents more, especially since we had a perfectly good goal disallowed and a clear penalty (and sending off appeal) turned down in the dying minutes of a 1-1 draw against you in 2001.

.. I really aren't one to hold a grudge am I?

My argument always has been that I suspect you get more decisions go your way because of Ferguson, but you get too many acts of karma for outright bribery; I think it's intimidation a lot of the time where, in the heat of the moment, you get the rub of the green. I know you'll admit when Ferguson is being out of order though, such as when he accused the five minutes added time against us as being an insult to the game (when it was worked out something like 4 minutes and 47 seconds was the amount of time to be added), or when he accused the amount of time against Tottenham the other week as "not being enough to win the match", completely disregarding the other ninety bloody minutes. Then again, cough cough Owen against The bitters cough cough, I suppose it can work sometimes...

The only one of your examples I can actually dispute is "2008: Michael Carrick penalised for a freak handball in the area, hands by his side, even Match of the Day acknowledged it was a ridiculous decision, giving Chelsea a late penalty. Chelsea 2 Man Utd 1.", I was always under the impression the change to "ball to hand" came into play then, although I can remember freak decisions like this going against us such as Erik Bakke against Newcastle in.. 2001/2 where we lost 4-3, somebody shot the ball at Bakke, hands down by side tucked in, clipped him and Newcastle were awarded a penalty. Changed the tide of the game and they won. So I guess maybe that's always been the case and it's just been more recently where it's being disputed more and more just what constitutes a penalty from a hand-ball contact in the box..

[OVOxo]

Phil Neville's dive was fantastic on the weekend!

[Milsap]

Could you see the FA coming out and fining Ashley Young for diving against Aston Villa? Against QPR? Against Chelsea?

I was going to suggest the same thing. Ashley Young is one of the most proficient divers out there but seems to get away with it.



And the Romanian judge gives him a 8.3

But I won't play my ref United bias card here... I won't... 

[OVOxo]

I had 5 a side so I missed the game of the season (so far) =o

[Typhlosion]

Oh, this is what makes football such an interesting game to talk about (or so I keep convincing myself, I'm sure it's so mundane to others) because nobody will ever share the exact opinions and that there will always be something to debate. Like I say, I can see why Torres was booked for diving, but I do not agree with it because of consistency's sake because I believe what Torres was sent off for Young was guilty of just prior to it.

Whereas I believe Young's reputation has sadly gone before him here, and the contact from Ivanovic looks like it felled him.

The point that I'm making in regards to Rooney is very valid here, actually, because your point was about Torres going down not being caused by the contact from Evans (debateable in itself) which thus equates to being a dive and thus, a bookable offence. But, in the video shown, Rooney was going to the ground regardless and went for the penalty because of the ball being sent out of control, so do you punish him for that? After all, whether inevitable or not, he's gone down before any contact has been made full stop, which in my eyes is the same as doing what Torres has done; feigned an increased amount of contact to win a foul. Rooney knew what he was doing. But, of course, this is meaningless and pointless because at the end of the day, it happened what.. three years ago..? (I'm not one to hold a grudge.. honest..) and you'll never see the point where they punish blatant diving because it's hard to actually pinpoint whether the player definitely dived, otherwise you'll find instances where the player jumps to avoid collision but loses balance (for example); do we take that as a foul or not, and if not, why can everybody not fly in with the idea of preventing the opposition getting past..?

I have long said that punishments should be dealt out in both directions in situations like this. Let's use the Evans/Torres incident as an example. Evans would commit the foul by clipping Torres, Torres also gets a yellow for diving and making the most of it. Was it you I had this discussion with who argued you can't do that as fouls have to go one way or the other, not both ways? Somebody made that point and I don't agree at all. When two players start fighting and attacking each other you don't send one off and leave the other, you send them both off (was it Bowyer and Dyer for Newcastle many years back?). The rules would have to be changed to allow for it, but it would stop players from throwing themselves on the floor the second that an opposition shoelace brushes against them.

The problem is that because the game has grown so much and has become so pressured, so demanding and so fast, there will always be that element of players pushing their luck as much as they can to get that upper hand. But because it's fast as well, if I was running at full sprint I'd be far more inclined to get out of the way than actually be fouled as we all know what can happen in a split second (was it Marc Wilson who broke his fibula this weekend?) such as Eduardo and Ramsey, which makes it harder to determine intent; was the player avoiding contact, but was fouled, or was the player avoiding contact to win a foul?

It's usually these same players who throw themselves to the ground on a regular basis though, so if they leap out of the way to avoid a challenge and then don't get a free kick then it's ultimately their own faults. Although saying that when players then decide to randomly do a swan dive after missing the contact, they make the referees decision harder. Once diving is eradicated, which it would be with retrospective 5 match bans for those found guilty of it, then you can start worrying about incidents like that. The players are the ones that do it, and it's usually the ones who protest innocence about it as well.

Yes Stevie Me, I'm looking at you.

... but my point has always (and will always) been that you seem to get far more decisions go your way than any other team, including Chelsea. Always have done. There is a conspiracy mate, you perhaps just don't see it when it's going in your favour as the rest of the world looks on you with anger as you seemingly appear above it. In regards to Clattenburg, such as;

"Last season, The bitters romped to a 6-1 win at Old Trafford, inflicting on their rivals their biggest embarrassment under Ferguson. The referee on that day was Mark Clattenburg. He sent Johnny Evans off in the second half for a clear professional foul. It seems that the FA, for whatever reason, doesn’t want Clattenburg to referee Man United games anymore. Some of us more paranoid folk may just wonder who’s behind that decision. There have been 34 Man United league games since that day. The number of times Clattenburg has refereed them? Zero. Not a single one."

But we're not responsible for choosing referees, the FA are. The same FA who banned Ferdinand for eight months for missing a drugs test (and then suddenly realised Euro 2004 was coming up inside those eight months) then a few weeks later banned another player for considerably less for failing a drugs test, surely a massively greater offence. The same FA who couldn't dish out three match bans to Rooney and Scholes quickly enough after they got sent off in a pre-match friendly in Amsterdam in 2007. Who then decided they couldn't ban Ivanovic when he got sent off in this seasons Community Shield because "it wasn't a competitive game". The same FA that decided that John Terry, found not guilty of racism in a court of law, WAS guilty of racism according to their own terms. Leaving my own feelings aside in that last example particularly, The FA as a general rule of thumb are an incompetent organisation who make up the rules as they go along, who couldn't even approach a new England manager without accidentally announcing to the world what they were doing when it was clear Eriksson was leaving. Who couldn't attempt to bid for the 2018 World Cup without seeming to break every single rule along the way. And we're supposed to believe Man Utd have some sinister, backhanded influence which the FA have managed to keep quiet for years? The FA are incapable of keeping anything quiet.

Let us not approach Howard Webb though for this big myth about him liking your lot more than the next person.. oh can we please?

"Webb’s history in Man United games are well known and documented. All I have to say on the matter is that more than 18% of the penalties he’s awarded in his ENTIRE premier league refereeing career have gone to Manchester United. Over a 9 year period, that’s a huge percentage."

Statistics are incredibly easy to manipulate Rob. 82% of penalties that the apparently biased Howard Webb have given have had nothing to do with Man Utd. And how do we know there's not another team that have had 17% of the penalties he's given? We don't, and because of that it's hard to take statistics like that seriously.

Also worth remembering as probably the most attacking team of all time in the Premier League, we're usually in the position of being able to win penalties compared to other teams. Reminds me of Boothroyd whining about Watford not being given a single penalty in the Premier League by the time it had got to December. Yes Aidy, that's because your Watford side are hardly ever in the opponents penalty area.

Who did that survey on incorrect decisions and how they'd influenced Premier League games? I can't find it now annoyingly, but Chelsea had accrued the most points from incorrect decisions in the Premier League era and in terms of overall incorrect decisions in our favour we were something like 5th or 6th. Of course it's a nightmare to measure. Just because you get that dodgy penalty and go 1-0 up with 10 minutes left doesn't mean that penalty has DEFINITELY given you +2 points compared to what you should have. You'd play a bit more attacking for those 10 minutes without the penalty, compared to pulling back a little to try and protect your lead now you have the goal. And just because you were wrongly called offside as you ran clean through on goal in a match which finished 0-0, doesn't mean you'd DEFINITELY have scored it and won the game. It's incredibly manipulable data and it should be labelled as such, but it gives a rough idea as to how ridiculous this conspiracy is.

From last season alone, you've the two infamous Ashley Young dives, the clear-cut penalty Fulham were turned away in your 1-0 defeat of them in the dying minutes (Murphy being fouled by Carrick was it?) along with a number of questionable decisions in I think.. eight matches was it where you went eight points clear at the top (I'm working off the top of my head here, excuse me). This season already you've got Welback against Wigan, Evans against Liverpool, the Chelsea match, where these inconsistences all work to your advantage.

The Fulham non-penalty.. in my defence you will remember the second that was waved away I texted you in complete disbelief that we'd gotten away with that one The Young dives LOOKED like penalties at first glance though. While being the wrong decisions I didn't think it was completely unbelievable that either decision was given. In an ideal world Young would be retrospectively banned for the dives, but was it really a major "headdesk" moment that on first glance they were given as penalties? As you mention, the speed and pace the game is played at nowadays, with angles constantly changing and players constantly running in the referees and linesman's eyesight, I don't really think they were.

Although, I've admittingly always had some form of bias since that game against Middlesbrough where somebody awarded a penalty against you, at Old Trafford, which is a crime punishable only by death really, and your players surrounded the referee and chased them halfway across the pitch. Since then I've probably noticed these incidents more, especially since we had a perfectly good goal disallowed and a clear penalty (and sending off appeal) turned down in the dying minutes of a 1-1 draw against you in 2001.

Exactly. You notice these decisions more because you look for them. Just like I now roll my eyes everytime anything goes for Chelsea. They went through a period under Mourinho when it was impossible to get anything at all at Stamford Bridge. Which links in nicely to the point I know you've made next.

Can't find it on Youtube, but remember when John Terry made a brilliant diving save at Stamford Bridge? As a central defender? And the referee had a clear view and waved play on? One of the most ridiculous decisions you've ever see in any match.

.. I really aren't one to hold a grudge am I?

Not at all dear

My argument always has been that I suspect you get more decisions go your way because of Ferguson, but you get too many acts of karma for outright bribery; I think it's intimidation a lot of the time where, in the heat of the moment, you get the rub of the green. I know you'll admit when Ferguson is being out of order though, such as when he accused the five minutes added time against us as being an insult to the game (when it was worked out something like 4 minutes and 47 seconds was the amount of time to be added), or when he accused the amount of time against Tottenham the other week as "not being enough to win the match", completely disregarding the other ninety bloody minutes. Then again, cough cough Owen against The bitters cough cough, I suppose it can work sometimes...

Oh yeah. I love Fergie to bits but he doesn't half chat crap at times. Wound me up something rotten when he started chatting on about injury time when we lost 2-3 to Spurs a few weeks ago. I mean, you're whinging about injury time not being given and thus not giving us a chance to win the game? If we hadn't spend the entire first 45 minutes stood back watching Spurs run at us without even trying to close them down we'd have had a damn sight better chance of winning that match that another 2 minutes of injury time would have given us. Ugh.

And against you... you defended like heroes that day and got the rub of the screen (I think we missed 2 sitters that day). On the other side of the coin that Snodgrass free kick that hit the bar could easily have gone in. Sometimes you just have to hold your hands up and admit the other team were better than you that day and deserved the win. Like you did that day.

But linking back to what I said before. Intimidation is probably spot on. Officials ARE scared of him but ultimately that isn't Fergie's problem. That's part of his character, that anger, that passion, that drive is part of exactly what has made him probably the best manager ever, and the onus should be on the FA to find linesman and referees who can stand up to that. It's not just a Fergie thing though. Referees were terrified of what Mourinho would say when he was here. They're terrified of upsetting particular crowds. Anfield is a good one for that. I even suspect the real Suarez was called offside for his last minute "winner" against Everton at the weekend was because the linesman was scared of allowing a last minute Liverpool winner at Goodison.

The only one of your examples I can actually dispute is "2008: Michael Carrick penalised for a freak handball in the area, hands by his side, even Match of the Day acknowledged it was a ridiculous decision, giving Chelsea a late penalty. Chelsea 2 Man Utd 1.", I was always under the impression the change to "ball to hand" came into play then

The rule is "deliberate handball" though. I can't find a YouTube clip for that either, but genuinely it was a ridiculous decision given because the crowd were getting rowdy because the pressure was really on Chelsea to win that game, after I think Chelsea had already gotten away with a similar incident earlier on in the game.

All comes back to inconsistency again doesn't it.

[Milsap]

And against you... you defended like heroes that day and got the rub of the screen (I think we missed 2 sitters that day). On the other side of the coin that Snodgrass free kick that hit the bar could easily have gone in. Sometimes you just have to hold your hands up and admit the other team were better than you that day and deserved the win. Like you did that day.

I have only seen Fergie hold his hands up and say there was a better team on the day once. That was when Barcelona absolutely demolished United at Wembley a couple of years ago.

(was it Bowyer and Dyer for Newcastle many years back?)

It was. I remember it being the funniest thing ever at the time.

Also worth remembering as probably the most attacking team of all time in the Premier League

I'd agree with that.

"Our defense is awful, our midfield isn't too good, what shall we do, Alex?"
"Buy Van Persie"

[Typhlosion]

*headdesk and reach for another Strongbow*

Karma's a you-know-what, eh?

[Milsap]

So what excuses will it be from Fergie tonight?

[Typhlosion]

So what excuses will it be from Fergie tonight?

Why would there be any excuses?

[Liam]

Scott Wootton's Wikipedia page is becoming hilarious.

"October 31st , Scott Wootton played his last game in Manchester United Shirt"

"On October 31, 2012 Wootton was sold to Liverpool."

[Typhlosion]

Scott Wootton's Wikipedia page is becoming hilarious.

"October 31st , Scott Wootton played his last game in Manchester United Shirt"

"On October 31, 2012 Wootton was sold to Liverpool."

Lmao Shame, he'd looked rather decent until injury time.

[Liam]

I think he needs another season on loan (y)

[Milsap]

I wonder if after all that, Fergie will still buy another striker in January.

[f3raligatr]

So what excuses will it be from Fergie tonight?

I wonder if after all that, Fergie will still buy another striker in January.

Lets not fool ourselves into blind bias and ignore the fact that it was an undeniable second string played by Manchester United tonight, a far cry from Chelsea's side which ended up with eight or nine of their first team players on the field. Ferguson doesn't have much to answer for, his decision was to play a mix of youngsters, Chelsea were itching to somewhat point score after Sunday which pulled them into playing the players they did.