blue and white army
New member
The ref had no bottle or character the majority of the decisions were WRONG
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
that ref is a twunt
- Thread starter Buzzer
- Start date
Spiros
Well-known member
Can't agree with that. Diabolical lawmaking yes. Diabolical officiating - no. The lino actually applied the law. The striker WAS in an offside position but wasn't active. If he'd beaten the other striker to the ball (the one who actually went past one of OUR defenders to get it) then it would have been offside. But he didn't. So it wasn't. And yes it's a stupid rule as it stands BUT the lino is there to apply the rules not make them up (though I know it's not always easy to tell).
From my distant position in C Block it looked a pen at first sight and our players didn't seem to protest too much. Saw it later on the telly and it loked a bit dubious to say the least. Also couldn't understand why Virgo got booked for his block on Boyd but their forward (McClean?) got away with a very late and very blatant block on Sully later on
BUTTERBALL
East Stand Brighton Boyz
The ref must have been a Peterborough fan. His decisions were diabolical last night.
Curious Orange
Punxsatawney Phil
FFS I posted the guidance earlier, the strikers positioning in front of both the goal and Sully couldn't be anything other than a distraction, therefore he was active and offside. Don't forget that the line of site thing is just an example of distraction.
Right, I`m getting back to being racist and irrevererent then........ fatso.
1066familyman
Radio User
- Jan 15, 2008
- 15,235
I can't comment on the pen as I didn't have any binoculars with me in the family stand and I haven't seen it on tv.
I do think their two cente backs, Zakuani & Chester were very physical and kept bundling into the back of Davies in particular time and time again. Every attack we had seemed to get broken up at some point by a free kick. After a while it began to wind me up as it was clear the ref was prepared to tolerate it all night without booking either one of them for persistant fouling.
I'd be reluctant to blame the ref for the result though. I think Peterborough looked very good going forward and yet again we had poor communication in defence resulting in soft goals. They deserved the 3pts.
I do think their two cente backs, Zakuani & Chester were very physical and kept bundling into the back of Davies in particular time and time again. Every attack we had seemed to get broken up at some point by a free kick. After a while it began to wind me up as it was clear the ref was prepared to tolerate it all night without booking either one of them for persistant fouling.
I'd be reluctant to blame the ref for the result though. I think Peterborough looked very good going forward and yet again we had poor communication in defence resulting in soft goals. They deserved the 3pts.
Interesting that JB and Harty and Naylor thought it was a cert penalty with their view from the North stand whereas in F, G and H blocks South Stand we all saw clearly that the boro' player just slipped over. To be fair to the ref IIRC he was slightly north of the incident so may have looked like contact to him. Apart from that I thought he was very lenient over some of the boro tackles and as for giving them a free kick when their goalie climbed over his own players, well, I stamped my feet at that point!
SeagullRic
New member
If you hd bought the argus today, you would have seen that there was clearly contact.
SeagullRic
New member
No bottle to give a penalty to the away side?
Talk about tinted glasses....
I did buy the Argus today and that picture shows how the camera can lie! It appears to show Virgo tripping the boro player but does not show that the boro player had slipped and then fell over Virgo's leg. I am still not sure that there was even contact but will await the TV replay.