Hanshithispantz

I just don't buy this shit about having to bed in and the 'good football will come later', it just seems like a shit excuse for not taking the game to the opposition.

Look at West Ham though against the top 8, I don't see why it has to be baby steps. I think there's a few positives to take from our games so far (excluding Swansea) but all in all we've been pretty unimpressive.

If every refereeing performance was like his yesterday football wouldn't be worth watching, it's the best example in recent memory of a referee going all out to show that he's in charge. His name is Andre Marriner and he takes no shit blah blah blah. It's what pisses me off more than the fact I think we'll unfairly be without Mitrovic for a few games. Just as I'm starting to look forward to our games again, I wait all week for the Arsenal match and then some jumped up little arsehole makes it his mission to suck every bit of life he can from the game.

God I hate football fans.

Yeah I don't think the McManaman challenge has much relevance tbh. That just highlighted what a fucked up system we have. I can see why people agree with the Mitrovic red card, I just think they're overestimating the severity of it because studs touched shin.

Didn't FIFA come out and say that the FA not being able to take retrospective action was bullshit anyway? They have the right but they just choose not to for some arbitrary reason.

I was wondering what he said like

Congratulatons...you've found a link that allows you to back up your view. Please see every single match report as a means to up mine. Anyway man, seriously what's the point. It was a red card (deserved or not). I can't be bothered to talk about it anymore. I don't think it backs up my point of view does it? It's pretty mixed. Just an example from a neutral and popular website that everyone outside of this forum doesn't think it was a red card.

There's a load of neutrals talking about the challenge, I'd hazard a guess and say there isn't 95% of them claiming it was a red.

No, but it doesn't mean it wasn't dangerous. I don't get why there's such an argument about it. Vast majority of pundits and NUFC fans can see why he gave a red. It's not like it's an outrageous decision. I personally think it is a red. Can see why people think it's soft, but to hear people say "never a red" is ludicrous when basically 95% of all coverage of it has agreed that it was probably the right decision. A... Do you think it would have been a red had Giroud done it ? B....Do you think there was intent ? b) No, but it's already been established that they don't take that into account. Yes they do ffs The fucking Referees Association said it was the correct decision because it was malicious intent, it's in the name man.

Err, it was a foul like

fucking pack it in trying to shoot your mouth off cod you had a drink man you fucking weirdo. Cannot be fucked.

honestly I can see how people can think it was a red if they thought there was intent (in which case it is a red) but I don't get this nasty leg breaker bollocks. It was soft as shite.

This fat lass in the Metrocentre was telling every man and his son that it was a yellow.

Would like to see that challenge done on yourself, you'd be changing your mind instantly. I doubt I'd give a fuck if someone scraped their studs down my shinpad like.

All neutrals I know said it was a red card. All neutrals I know said it wasn't, so there.

It's the 2nd time I've read you saying it.

He made contact but it had very little weight behind it. People saying it was a potential leg breaker are off their tits.

You keep saying this place would be up in arms, despite the fact plenty of neutrals outside this place think it was a fucking stupid decision.

Is it fuck man

Try saying it without the other bollocks like "him being a Geordie works against him" and "it will be ignored" maybe. People don't really like him, I'm not sure what you expect them to do every-time he has a decent enough game? It's the same with Obertan and Gouffran.

No it fucking doesn't

The ref can deem it dangerous play though, otherwise we could appeal to have it rescinded, but I can guarantee we won't. It was no-where near rash enough to be considered wreckless though. I agree we'll never get it rescinded, it'll be viewed as malicious intent as he's apparently a massive nutcase and purposefully missing the ball to instead lightly scrape a defensive midfielder's shinpad is obviously something he'd be well into.

It's not the rule though. Nowhere in the history of the rulebook does it state that studs showing = an automatic red card. The only way it could be a red is if it's deemed malicious intent, which I think is complete bollocks personally.

"fact!" FWIW on NBC Robbie Earle and the other guy in the studio as well as Waddle and the other commentator all thought it should have been a yellow.