Dogawful Officiating

[The Butcher]

2 minutes ago, NEEJ said:

Post with context, man!

It's the 'Dogawful Officiating' fred

[Optimistic Nut]

39 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

Same argument and no it wasn't, it was travelling at about 50mph towards the advertising boards. 

 

It was in play. 

[Optimistic Nut]

30 minutes ago, Eveready said:

Schar one was a pretty clear penalty, as was the one today.  Think that would be a pretty clear consensus with football fans.

 

Both stonewall to me. 

[Vinny Green Balls]

Maybe should have been a penalty, but the shot was going off target. Yeah it's technically in play, but it for all practical purposes wasn't because there is nothing that could possibly stop the ball from going out of play. One of those where I would have been resigned if it was given.

[KingArthur]

5 minutes ago, Vinny Green Balls said:

Maybe should have been a penalty, but the shot was going off target. Yeah it's technically in play, but it for all practical purposes wasn't because there is nothing that could possibly stop the ball from going out of play. One of those where I would have been resigned if it was given.

This Logic baffles me. Couple years ago we got a penalty against Brentford when ball was going out and Gordon jumped infront of Flekken who made a (quite small) contact with him. But now the same thing doesnt apply? 

[Kid Icarus]

Fair, it was in and the rules don't stipulate about anything beyond that.

 

Can only assume it was down to ref guidelines about interpretation ie a shot had been taken and Schär's challenge was a natural consequence, or it was just an error. My own view, rules aside, is that because he's taken the shot before the foul and the ball is no longer in his control and goes out of play beyond that, it's not a pen.

 

Either way it changes nothing about today's one obvious pen, and two other strong contenders that are in different circumstances to each other and the Foden one.

[Vinny Green Balls]

2 minutes ago, KingArthur said:

This Logic baffles me. Couple years ago we got a penalty against Brentford when ball was going out and Gordon jumped infront of Flekken who made a (quite small) contact with him. But now the same thing doesnt apply? 

I thought that one was a bit harsh. 

 

My logic is very clear. With Schar, I probably would have given a penalty if I was in charge of VAR. But I can see KI's reasoning, because the ball was absolutely going out of play without divine intervention. If it was given, I would have seen the reasoning given what the law technically states. What you are talking about with Gordon is clearly against the law on shoulder barging, because it was absolutely excessive.

 

Your logic baffles me because you first minority report people's arguments by predicting their future stance, then you throw a red herring in about another Gordon penalty a couple of years ago. Gordon jumping in front of Flekken in hte past has nothing to do with him being body rammed off the ball today.

[geordiesteve710]

The Schar one on Foden was a penalty to the letter of the law, but they never seem to get given (and I'm not sure why tbh.)

 

The Gordon one today was absolutely a penalty and if the shirts were thr other way around the ref would have had no problem calling it that way.

 

Fwiw if that was our defender going into that challenge in the box I would be furious with him for being so reckless.

[Ronson333]

Andy Madley, remember the cunt’s name 

[Cf]

The Schar one was a clear penalty. 

 

The Gordon one was an even clearer penalty. 

[Ronson333]

Peter ‘scouser’ Banks on VAR… Cunt

 

 

Edited December 20, 2025 by Ronson333

[The Prophet]

Had calmed down about this until Swan mentioned it on the cricket.

[Disco]

Would love to hear the reasoning why Garnacho, going in studs first into the ankle after the balls gone in a deliberate action to injure, wasn’t upgraded? His hair cut alone is a yellow so clear red with this.

[GideonShandy]

1 hour ago, Ronson333 said:

Andy Madley, remember the cunt’s name 

It's not difficult. This thread is named after his brother.

[Danh1]

Madley is a cunt. 

 

 

Edited December 21, 2025 by Danh1

[Virtua Stiva]

1 hour ago, Disco said:

Would love to hear the reasoning why Garnacho, going in studs first into the ankle after the balls gone in a deliberate action to injure, wasn’t upgraded? His hair cut alone is a yellow so clear red with this.

While they’re at it, they can give the reasoning for Mr Brobbey doing the same for the mackems last weekend 

[KingArthur]

6 hours ago, Vinny Green Balls said:

I thought that one was a bit harsh. 

 

My logic is very clear. With Schar, I probably would have given a penalty if I was in charge of VAR. But I can see KI's reasoning, because the ball was absolutely going out of play without divine intervention. If it was given, I would have seen the reasoning given what the law technically states. What you are talking about with Gordon is clearly against the law on shoulder barging, because it was absolutely excessive.

 

Your logic baffles me because you first minority report people's arguments by predicting their future stance, then you throw a red herring in about another Gordon penalty a couple of years ago. Gordon jumping in front of Flekken in hte past has nothing to do with him being body rammed off the ball today.

My point: people (of all football clubs) complain about dog shit referees, but only remember when decisions goes against them. Spurs fans were saying they are robbed against Liverpool yesterday. Couple of seasons ago Liverpool was not given perfectly good goal against Spurs because refs fucked up on the radio.

 

I mentioned Gordon case v Brentford because if you say this or that is/is not a penalty, then you have to use the same logic when things are other way around. Otherwise you are having double standards. 

 

It all evens out in the long term, especially now with VAR. It gives too easy explanation to a poor performance usually. I am glad Howe very rarely whines about refs post match. In fact I dont remember him doing that once. 
 

I get that refs make mistakes, and they make a lot of them.

 

 

Edited December 21, 2025 by KingArthur

[Rod]

2 hours ago, KingArthur said:

My point: people (of all football clubs) complain about dog shit referees, but only remember when decisions goes against them. Spurs fans were saying they are robbed against Liverpool yesterday. Couple of seasons ago Liverpool was not given perfectly good goal against Spurs because refs fucked up on the radio.

 

I mentioned Gordon case v Brentford because if you say this or that is/is not a penalty, then you have to use the same logic when things are other way around. Otherwise you are having double standards. 

 

It all evens out in the long term, especially now with VAR. It gives too easy explanation to a poor performance usually. I am glad Howe very rarely whines about refs post match. In fact I dont remember him doing that once. 
 

I get that refs make mistakes, and they make a lot of them.

 

 

 

Howe was furious about the non penalty/foul on Gordon yesterday. Why are you still here on the wind up? Go away.

[Lush Vlad]

Just put him on ignore, Rod. Not worth your time and effort. 

[Rod]

2 minutes ago, Lush Vlad said:

Just put him on ignore, Rod. Not worth your time and effort. 

I love debate and different opinions but I just get the impression that Arthur is shit stirring for the sake of it. To back up his argument he's now mentioning stuff that happened in the past. So annoying. 

[KingArthur]

27 minutes ago, Rod said:

Howe was furious about the non penalty/foul on Gordon yesterday. Why are you still here on the wind up? Go away.

He very rarely is, and I dont think he has once gotten any kind of sanction (like Arteta or Klopp for ex have) for being an ass towards referees.

 

I think this is a forum anyone can share they're opinion though.

[Rod]

1 minute ago, KingArthur said:

He very rarely is, and I dont think he has once gotten any kind of sanction (like Arteta or Klopp for ex have) for being an ass towards referees.

 

I think this is a forum anyone can share they're opinion though.

I said go away!

[KingArthur]

10 minutes ago, Rod said:

I love debate and different opinions but I just get the impression that Arthur is shit stirring for the sake of it. To back up his argument he's now mentioning stuff that happened in the past. So annoying. 

 

You don't get it.

I am taking stuff that has happened in the past, to prove people have selective memory when it comes to fouls. Every football fan thinks ref is against their team and bent and corrupt. It is just boring thing to use as an excuse.
 

[Rod]

5 minutes ago, KingArthur said:

 

You don't get it.

I am taking stuff that has happened in the past, to prove people have selective memory when it comes to fouls. Every football fan thinks ref is against their team and bent and corrupt. It is just boring thing to use as an excuse.
 

Go away.

[Optimistic Nut]

10 hours ago, geordiesteve710 said:

The Schar one on Foden was a penalty to the letter of the law, but they never seem to get given (and I'm not sure why tbh.)

 

The Gordon one today was absolutely a penalty and if the shirts were thr other way around the ref would have had no problem calling it that way.

 

Fwiw if that was our defender going into that challenge in the box I would be furious with him for being so reckless.

 

I still think Foden has to rush his shot though, because he sees Schar already diving in. So if he doesn't shoot and takes the clattering it's a foul, he tries to take on the shot despite the tackle incoming, therefore not a foul? Penalty for me.