The "I can't believe the ref didn't see that" thread!

bobbysands81

I'll start you off from a game tonight between St Johnstone and Celtic.

The incident starts 20 seconds into the clip.

Makes Thierry Henry's handball look like it never happened!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqQRZFzA9Dc

Brilliant!!!

The_Kew_Tour

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-8dOjeVC80

Mr.Crinklewood

bobbysands81 wrote: »

I'll start you off from a game tonight between St Johnstone and Celtic.

The incident starts 20 seconds into the clip.

Makes Thierry Henry's handball look like it never happened!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqQRZFzA9Dc

Brilliant!!!

Just an honest mistake.

Paully D

I'm not a Chelsea fan, but if ever you want to see an example of corrupt refereeing at the highest level then here you go:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PENQDQ52SOY

NUTZZ

Has to be done I'm afraid

NUTZZ

WallyGUFC

Paully D wrote: »

I'm not a Chelsea fan, but if ever you want to see an example of corrupt refereeing at the highest level then here you go:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PENQDQ52SOY

Surely one of the worst refereeing performances in history.

lubo_moravcik

bobbysands81 wrote: »

I'll start you off from a game tonight between St Johnstone and Celtic.

The incident starts 20 seconds into the clip.

Makes Thierry Henry's handball look like it never happened!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqQRZFzA9Dc

Brilliant!!!

I'd like to say 'unbelievable', unfortunately it's all to believable in Scotland.

dfx-

WallyGUFC wrote: »

Surely one of the worst refereeing performances in history.

Alan Kelly's performance in Sligo on Monday night was worse than that (booking the wrong player etc). One penalty call wrong there.

keano_afc

Man Utd's end of season DVD will have some crackers in it. Neville at West Brom and Stoke, Brown at Villa, Evra at Chelsea, Rooney at Wigan, Vidic at West Ham to name but a few.

Fuhrer

keano_afc wrote: »

Man Utd's end of season DVD will have some crackers in it. Neville at West Brom and Stoke, Brown at Villa, Evra at Chelsea, Rooney at Wigan, Vidic at West Ham to name but a few.

We can bundle it with Arsenals then as well

keano_afc

Fuhrer wrote: »

We can bundle it with Arsenals then as well

You'll need to explain that one to me??

Essien

Fuhrer wrote: »

We can bundle it with Arsenals then as well

Arsenal have been sick unlucky with refereeing decisions this year.

bobbysands81

Paully D wrote: »

I'm not a Chelsea fan, but if ever you want to see an example of corrupt refereeing at the highest level then here you go:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PENQDQ52SOY

They are shocking mistakes - I presume Chelsa lost?

NUTZZ

bobbysands81 wrote: »

They are shocking mistakes - I presume Chelsa lost?

lol yes, yes they did!

TangyZizzle

bobbysands81 wrote: »

They are shocking mistakes - I presume Chelsa lost?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvANmxeiA5Y

Ring a bell?

Yakult

Paully D wrote: »

I'm not a Chelsea fan, but if ever you want to see an example of corrupt refereeing at the highest level then here you go:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PENQDQ52SOY

I can remember Ballacks reaction, was hoping he would give the ref a puck to wake him up. Disgraceful!

Paully D

Paully D wrote: »

I'm not a Chelsea fan, but if ever you want to see an example of corrupt refereeing at the highest level then here you go:

They were most shocking mistakes BUT I have to take umbrage at the use of the word "corrupt" here. It's small minded and petty.

It's a referees equivalent to having a very bad day at the office. One of those days where you do everything wrong.

I'm all for lambasting poor refereeing decisions but let's not take the p1ss.

Paully D

Deleted User wrote: »

They were most shocking mistakes BUT I have to take umbrage at the use of the word "corrupt" here. It's small minded and petty.

It's a referees equivalent to having a very bad day at the office. One of those days where you do everything wrong.

I'm all for lambasting poor refereeing decisions but let's not take the p1ss.

I'm not so sure Neil.

Corruption is rife in almost every sport and with the amount of match fixing scandals coming out in football now it wouldn't surprise me to see a referee involved.

If a referee has a bad day at the office then you could excuse 1 or 2 decisions, but 4? There was something more sinister behind it than just a bad day at the office for me.

MUSEIST

Paully D wrote: »

I'm not so sure Neil.

Corruption is rife in almost every sport and with the amount of match fixing scandals coming out in football now it wouldn't surprise me to see a referee involved.

If a referee has a bad day at the office then you could excuse 1 or 2 decisions, but 4? There was something more sinister behind it than just a bad day at the office for me.

To say he was corrupt is a bit far, but he was grossly incompetent and should never have been involved in a high level match again. One mistake is understandable but a catalogue of glaring mistakes in a semi final is just bringing the game into disrepute imo.

Blatter

Go to 1.10 on this.

This is so bad, it's actually quite funny:pac:

Paully D

Paully D wrote: »

I'm not so sure Neil.

Corruption is rife in almost every sport and with the amount of match fixing scandals coming out in football now it wouldn't surprise me to see a referee involved.

If a referee has a bad day at the office then you could excuse 1 or 2 decisions, but 4? There was something more sinister behind it than just a bad day at the office for me.

Ok, but I feel that until you have proof of such "corruption" then it's a very big accusation to make, and IMO making unfounded claims undermines your argument.

Don't forget that in this game, he sent Abidal off and booked Alves ruling them out of the final. The Alves booking was a booking but you've seen them allowed to go. The Abidal sending off was as bad a decision as the 3 (I don't rate the Pique handball as a pen, it was ball to hand IMO) he got wrong on Chelsea's side. Now if he was corrupt and trying to help Barca, why would he do such a thing? It left them without 2 of their 1st choice back 4 for the final.

A lot of things come into the equation. After the 1st 1 or 2 the crowd and the players would have been going nuts, maybe he folded undder pressure. Not good enough I know, UEFA should appoint strong officials, but again, not corrupt. Should he be given more big games? No. At least not until he shows stronger character and better judgement but that's not corruption. There are a myriad of factors that could have caused it, but typically, people have to go down the sinister route.

It's a big accusation to make, bordering on libelous actually, and without any definitive proof, I don't think you should go there.

As far as I'm concerned it was just an incredibly inept performance.

Essien

I don't think the Chelsea/Barca thing belongs in this thread tbh.

It would be more at home in a "I can't believe the ref wasn't arrested" thread.

MUSEIST

Essien wrote: »

I don't think the Chelsea/Barca thing belongs in this thread tbh.

It would be more at home in a "I can't believe the ref wasn't arrested" thread.

It was a bad night for football alright especially because for once chelsea actually had the better chances, but thats the way it goes.

But I actually respect guardiola so much for admitting chelsea were seriously unlucky after the game, that man has class.

dfx-

Yakult wrote: »

I can remember Ballacks reaction, was hoping he would give the ref and all puck to wake him up. Disgraceful!

His reaction would've been good had he channelled that desperation by throwing himself at Iniesta's shot a minute beforehand. Instead he knelt down and turned his back on it, iirc.

vicwatson

Stoke V West Ham United -

Watch as Robert Huth pulls Thomas Hitzlsperger to the ground to open up the wall for them to score - look where the ref is standing.

This was in the second leg of the FA Cup they cheated and we lost, thanks Referee

Come on Bolton - Do the honours over Stoke to let justice be done !

NeoKubrick

Deleted User wrote: »

Ok, but I feel that until you have proof of such "corruption" then it's a very big accusation to make, and IMO making unfounded claims undermines your argument.

There is no evidence of 'corruption' but there is no evidence of 'innocence'. So, technically, you both have unfounded claims.

NeoKubrick

NeoKubrick wrote: »

There is no evidence of 'corruption' but there is no evidence of 'innocence'. So, technically, you both have unfounded claims.

Innocent until proven guilty is a fairly widely accepted ethos

superfrank

superfrank

superfrank wrote: »

Did you factor Carvalho's bear hug on Valdes in 2005 into this corruption scandal? Or was that just an example of a ref missing something?

OhNoYouDidn't

For someone who has no especial interest in Engerlish football, why would UEFA give a damn about Chelsea over any other club, let alone go after them?

Hank Scorpio

This is shocking, I bet she got a roasting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQx2_KQVkpI

Blatter

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

For someone who has no especial interest in Engerlish football, why would UEFA give a damn about Chelsea over any other club, let alone go after them?

English football were really dominating the CL for a couple of years there (07-09) when 3 out of the 4 semi final teams were English, two sonsecutive seasons in a row.

They were getting there through dogged, defensive tactics and knocking out the ''great footballing'' sides of Barcelona, Real Madrid etc.

This is when the conspiracy theories of UEFA anti PL bias started to really develop.

Morzadec

nuxxx wrote: »

This is shocking, I bet she got a roasting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQx2_KQVkpI

Lol, I love the way the commentator still shouts GOOOLLLLLL!!!

Paully D

Deleted User wrote: »

Ok, but I feel that until you have proof of such "corruption" then it's a very big accusation to make, and IMO making unfounded claims undermines your argument.

Don't forget that in this game, he sent Abidal off and booked Alves ruling them out of the final. The Alves booking was a booking but you've seen them allowed to go. The Abidal sending off was as bad a decision as the 3 (I don't rate the Pique handball as a pen, it was ball to hand IMO) he got wrong on Chelsea's side. Now if he was corrupt and trying to help Barca, why would he do such a thing? It left them without 2 of their 1st choice back 4 for the final.

A lot of things come into the equation. After the 1st 1 or 2 the crowd and the players would have been going nuts, maybe he folded undder pressure. Not good enough I know, UEFA should appoint strong officials, but again, not corrupt. Should he be given more big games? No. At least not until he shows stronger character and better judgement but that's not corruption. There are a myriad of factors that could have caused it, but typically, people have to go down the sinister route.

It's a big accusation to make, bordering on libelous actually, and without any definitive proof, I don't think you should go there.

As far as I'm concerned it was just an incredibly inept performance.

Very good post Neil, I can't argue with that.

OhNoYouDidn't

SOCCER4LIFE wrote: »

English football were really dominating the CL for a couple of years there (07-09) when 3 out of the 4 semi final teams were English, two sonsecutive seasons in a row.

They were getting there through dogged, defensive tactics and knocking out the ''great footballing'' sides of Barcelona, Real Madrid etc.

This is when the conspiracy theories of UEFA anti PL bias started to really develop.

So its utter nonsense....

Irish fans with a persecution complex that UEFA are out to get England. I really have seen it all now.

TangyZizzle

Madness isn't it? Tonight it's "Don't touch our English club," tomorrow it's "keep your filthy foreign queen,"

NeoKubrick

Deleted User wrote: »

Innocent until proven guilty is a fairly widely accepted ethos

In the rules of law, it is, but in the rules of debating and logic, it isn't. Otherwise, any hick can post an argument and legitimately claim it is the truth (innocent) until proven false (guilty), too.

KaiserGunner

One of the worst refereeing performances ever seen in the premier league from the one and only Mike Riley.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUgP96XjEpY

RandolphEsq

NUTZZ wrote: »

Has to be done I'm afraid

If they had shown a replay in the stadium when that happened Henry would have been killed

KaiserGunner wrote: »

One of the worst refereeing performances ever seen in the premier league from the one and only Mike Riley.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUgP96XjEpY

It seems so long ago since Arsenal played such sexy football

NeoKubrick

NeoKubrick wrote: »

In the rules of law, it is, but in the rules of debating and logic, it isn't. Otherwise, any hick can post an argument and legitimately claim it is the truth (innocent) until proven false (guilty), too.

By your logic the recent doping allegations against Barca were fair game?

So if a player is an impressive athlete we should just accuse of being a drugs cheat as it's up to him to prove otherwise? What about if he passes a test? Ah but sure there are ways around these things. Where does it end?

As far as I'm concerned the burden of proof is on the accuser, especially when such big accusations are made, and making such unfounded accusations is low and cheap in my opinion. Making them about a serious offence like match fixing is downright nasty.

Dolph Starbeam

dfx- wrote: »

His reaction would've been good had he channelled that desperation by throwing himself at Iniesta's shot a minute beforehand. Instead he knelt down and turned his back on it, iirc.

Yep

Eirebear

I'm beginning to think we should move the Chelsea and Celtic superthreads here

NeoKubrick

Deleted User wrote: »

By your logic the recent doping allegations against Barca were fair game?

So if a player is an impressive athlete we should just accuse of being a drugs cheat as it's up to him to prove otherwise? What about if he passes a test? Ah but sure there are ways around these things. Where does it end?

As far as I'm concerned the burden of proof is on the accuser, especially when such big accusations are made, and making such unfounded accusations is low and cheap in my opinion. Making them about a serious offence like match fixing is downright nasty.

You don't understand. The onus is on everyone to prove claims he or she has posted. Paully D claimed that the referee was corrupt and you claimed that he was just inept (i.e. innocent). Both claims are equally unfounded, because neither you nor Paully D has not provided evidence to support the claim. In logic, there is no distinction between a claim based upon innocence or guilt and therefore, the 'innocent until proven guilty' ethos has no precedence.

In response to the initial sentence, if there is no evidence, then the allegations are unfounded. If there is evidence, then the accused should argue the validity of the evidence not the validity of his innocence. If he argues, his innocence, then the onus on the accused would be to prove his innocence just as the onus and burden was on the accuser to prove his allegation. Rules of logic are to different to that of law.

I agree that it is cheap (and I have been guilty of it too: however, sometimes your intuition confirms what's true what you cannot prove [Mike Riley ]), and it is foolish to presume guilt but equally as foolish to presume innocence.

dreamers75

UCD handball in tonights match, lino was about to stick up flag but then stopped

monkey9

dreamers75 wrote: »

UCD handball in tonights match, lino was about to stick up flag but then stopped

Bloody joke!! He actually did wave the flag, then put it down.

citytillidie

superfrank wrote: »

The ghost goal:rolleyes:

The ref came out after the game and said if he did not award the goal he had to award a pen and send of the keeper but seems to have been forgotten by Chelsea fans over time thanks to Jose