that ref is a twunt

[bright1064]

Doesn't want to upset a Ferguson does he? I mean, he'll never make the Prem doing that. Cheating f***ing wanker.

Good point, well made.

 

[SNOOBS]

Questions...

Their centre back was climbing all over Andrew and Davies all night - hardly anything given
Their keeper came out, jumped over a load of players - and ended up with a free kick
They got a nothing pen
We had a shout just before for a pen (which probably wasn't, but was more than theirs!)
Let the game flow?! He made us take the ball back literally a yard to retake the free kick on the correct blade of grass

He was poor

 

[One True BHA]

Persistent fouling from their defenders, never a penalty for them. Disgraceful from the ref.

 

[Spearritt of the Albion]

And what about the time when their keeper came out and went flying over his own defender. Was that really a free kick?

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

Ok first half - rubbish second half. Never a penalty. It was as though somebody had spoken to him at half-time.....hmmm!!!

 

[Questions]

Questions...

Their centre back was climbing all over Andrew and Davies all night - hardly anything given
Their keeper came out, jumped over a load of players - and ended up with a free kick
They got a nothing pen
We had a shout just before for a pen (which probably wasn't, but was more than theirs!)
Let the game flow?! He made us take the ball back literally a yard to retake the free kick on the correct blade of grass

He was poor

I`d better concede on the penalty - though I`ve yet to see it on the tv - but enough of you lot have. As for our strikers being climbed all over it was 50-50 and there was a lot of backing in going on as well. ITS SOUR GRAPES. A much bigger mistake was made by Adams playing Forster in that wide and withdrawn role. It doesn`t get the best from him and just lumping it to the 2 new guys makes us so one dimensional.

 

[algie]

I`d better concede on the penalty - though I`ve yet to see it on the tv - but enough of you lot have. As for our strikers being climbed all over it was 50-50 and there was a lot of backing in going on as well. ITS SOUR GRAPES. A much bigger mistake was made by Adams playing Forster in that wide and withdrawn role. It doesn`t get the best from him and just lumping it to the 2 new guys makes us so one dimensional.

When you first broke onto the nsc board you were quite funny and interesting.Now i find you quite a bore fest and somewhat clueless about football.I think it went down hill after you changed your avatar for the first time.I liked the original one the best.

 

[Questions]

When you first broke onto the nsc board you were quite funny and interesting.Now i find you quite a bore fest and somewhat clueless about football.I think it went down hill after you changed your avatar for the first time.I liked the original one the best.

The thing is I`m being serious Algie, i did think he was ok. Its just that you are so f***ing blinkered that you cannot see the wood for the trees mate.

What was my first avatar I`ve forgotten. I might change it back and become funny and interesting again.

 

[TWOCHOICEStom]

I`d better concede on the penalty - though I`ve yet to see it on the tv - but enough of you lot have. As for our strikers being climbed all over it was 50-50 and there was a lot of backing in going on as well. ITS SOUR GRAPES. A much bigger mistake was made by Adams playing Forster in that wide and withdrawn role. It doesn`t get the best from him and just lumping it to the 2 new guys makes us so one dimensional.

I actually agree with you. It was never a pen, but other than that he let a lot of fouls against Peterborough go, which I thought were fouls.. Most of the ones against us where everyone went mental they actually won the ball. He wasn't perfect by any means, but he wasn't a DISGRACE.

Kept the game flowing and kept bookings to a minimum... although he could possibly have booked two of their players but meh..we just weren't good enough

 

[Brighton Breezy]

It looked a clear pen from where I was.

And the off-side was not off-side. Blame the idiots at the FA for making these ridiculous rules, not the officials forced to impliment them.

 

[The Large One]

I actually agree with you. It was never a pen, but other than that he let a lot of fouls against Peterborough go, which I thought were fouls.. Most of the ones against us where everyone went mental they actually won the ball. He wasn't perfect by any means, but he wasn't a DISGRACE.

Kept the game flowing and kept bookings to a minimum... although he could possibly have booked two of their players but meh..we just weren't good enough

Sorry Tom, but that is bollocks.

He didn't have a clue what to do. We even predicted that, despite their incessant shirt-pulling, their hacking, and their pulling back, the first iffy Brighton foul was going to result in a yellow card. If Virgo's booking (correct, by the way) was a marker for yellow cards, they should have had four or five - for persistent fouling if nothing else. But he didn't. If he'd have just booked one (it was the lino on the North side who signalled for the one booking of their players), they possibly might have stopped.

They're a pretty decent side on the ball, and a bunch of talent-free spoilers off it.

Incidentally, their second goal was offside - anyone who says the bloke in the offside position wasn't interfering with play isn't bothering their arse to think straight.

The bloke slipped for the penalty. He slipped and that's the end of it. It was almost as if the ref couldn't wait to give a penalty. And as for the decision to give a free-kick to their goalkeeper for climbing over his own players (it shouldn't even have been a foul if he'd run into one of our players) - stupidity doesn't even come close to describing the ref.

Decent, my arse.

Still, we've got Phil Prosser in the studio on Saturday - I can ask him all about shit reffing.

 

[Brighton Breezy]

Still, we've got Phil Prosser in the studio on Saturday - I can ask him all about shit reffing.

And your 12 listeners can hear what he has to say...

The guy WAS off-side but was not active.

He was not blocking Sullivan's view for the first shot and did not touch the rebound.

Of course he was interfeering with play. But, according to the latest interpretation sent out to refs he WAS not active.

Blame the people behind the stupid rule. Not the ref/lino who get in trouble and miss games if they don't apply them.

 

[Huple]

Sorry Tom, but that is bollocks.

He didn't have a clue what to do. We even predicted that, despite their incessant shirt-pulling, their hacking, and their pulling back, the first iffy Brighton foul was going to result in a yellow card. If Virgo's booking (correct, by the way) was a marker for yellow cards, they should have had four or five - for persistent fouling if nothing else. But he didn't. If he'd have just booked one (it was the lino on the North side who signalled for the one booking of their players), they possibly might have stopped.

They're a pretty decent side on the ball, and a bunch of talent-free spoilers off it.

Incidentally, their second goal was offside - anyone who says the bloke in the offside position wasn't interfering with play isn't bothering their arse to think straight.

The bloke slipped for the penalty. He slipped and that's the end of it. It was almost as if the ref couldn't wait to give a penalty. And as for the decision to give a free-kick to their goalkeeper for climbing over his own players (it shouldn't even have been a foul if he'd run into one of our players) - stupidity doesn't even come close to describing the ref.

Decent, my arse.

Still, we've got Phil Prosser in the studio on Saturday - I can ask him all about shit reffing.

You are ignorant of the offside law. He was not active and that is what matters within the new laws of the game.

AND ...DO YOU DO A RADIO SHOW THEN.............. you should mention it occasionally.

 

[The Large One]

You are ignorant of the offside law. He was not active and that is what matters within the new laws of the game.

How can he be inactive when he has to get out of the way of the rebounding ball?

AND ...DO YOU DO A RADIO SHOW THEN.............. you should mention it occasionally.

We've already had that one. It was shit then as well.

 

[Questions]

How can he be inactive when he has to get out of the way of the rebounding ball?



We've already had that one. It was shit then as well.

If a Brighton player had been impeded by him after the save then the ref might have blown, but that never happened so shut up and go and have some breakfast.

 

[The Large One]

If a Brighton player had been impeded by him after the save then the ref might have blown, but that never happened so shut up and go and have some breakfast.

I'm going to break with tradition and agree with Algie here.

You are becoming a clueless tedious bore and it really doesn't suit you.

 

[Curious Orange]

You are ignorant of the offside law. He was not active and that is what matters within the new laws of the game.

Right, lets clear up this interpretation bollocks.

Law 11 of the Laws of the Game relates to the Offside Law.

We spoke to The FA's Head of Refereeing, John Baker, to clear things up regarding the offside rule: "At its business meeting in September 2003 the International FA Board reconfirmed its commitment to attacking play and to reducing the number of goals cancelled out through offside judgements. The Board delivered a clear interpretation of involvement in active play in Offside situations," he told us.

"This is the function of the International Board. The important thing to remember is that no change was made to the Law itself. The Board merely offered advice on its application.

"The emphasis was on deciding whether or not a player in an offside position was actively involved in play and therefore penalised.

"Match Officials have been given the clear instruction not to decide too soon. Wait, Wait, Wait and see was the advice. Often the media and spectators interpret this as "a late flag" but it is in the best interests of the game for the decision to be made only when the player becomes involved in active play."

The Advice from the Board was as follows:

How to interpret: Interfering with play

PLAYING OR TOUCHING a ball passed or touched by a team-mate.

How to interpret: Interfering with an opponent

· PREVENTING an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball. For example by clearly obstructing the goalkeeper's line of vision or movements.

· Making a gesture or movement while standing in the path of the ball to DECEIVE OR DISTRACT AN OPPONENT.

How to interpret: Gaining an advantage by being in that position

· PLAYING A BALL that rebounds off a post or the crossbar having been in an offside position.

· PLAYING A BALL that rebounds off an opponent having been in an offside position.

The referee's decision is final.

So are you really trying to tell me that a chap moving about directly in front of the goal and keeper isn't a distraction?

 

[Jam The Man]

The fact of the matter is that Peterborough took the lead twice due to poor officiating. Their first goal should have been chalked off for the chap who was offside in the middle of the goal throughout, yeah, I know he didn't touch it but he was certainly interfering with play where he was. The penalty was extremely soft, it didn't look like Virgo touched Boyd, just that he lost his footing as he cut back - it was notable that nobody appealed for it.

Overall I felt that, despite the poor defending for the first and fourth goals, the Albion put on a good performance. Ultimately though, the officials have cost us what would have been a well deserved point.

I wholeheartedly agree with this chap, a few rows back to my rear right. Ahem...


Can't believe hardly anyone has picked up on the offside issue for their second goal. Diabolical officiating by the lino...he had two opportunities to flag and chose not to.

 

[glasfryn]

He got the biggest decision of the night completely wrong. Was never a penalty, their player slipped over!

your forgetting the managers name was Fergie.......................

 

[glasfryn]

And your 12 listeners can hear what he has to say...

The guy WAS off-side but was not active.

He was not blocking Sullivan's view for the first shot and did not touch the rebound.

Of course he was interfeering with play. But, according to the latest interpretation sent out to refs he WAS not active.

Blame the people behind the stupid rule. Not the ref/lino who get in trouble and miss games if they don't apply them.

men or mice ................................they should squeak up