Have you seen the clusterfcuk that is the Liverpool penalty decision last week and the utter ******** cover up that Mike Riley and co came up with to hide the fact the ref had been doing what he wanted against the rules?
The ball was played through and Kane was brought down but he looked offside. Referee couldn't decide what to do so was talking to the linesman. Harry Kane thought he wasn't offside because the ball had touched a Liverpool player on its way to him. linesman to ref: all i need to know is did lovrrn touch the ball or not? Ref: I don't know Linesman: if he's not touched the ball he's offside so you're chalking off the penalty. It has to be offside if lovren has not touched the ball. I cannot be sure if lovren has touched the ball or not. That is the question I am asking. You know what I'm asking. I need to clarify if lovren has touched the ball or not. If he has its a deliberate action and therefore a penalty. If he has not then he's he's offside. Referee: I've no idea if he's touched the ball or not to be honest with you. Martin (4th official on headset) have you got anything from TV? *ref pauses with finger holding headset to ear* Referee: I'm giving the penalty. TV replays and VAR were not allowed to be used in that match. After the game the pgmol has stated that the fourth official never replied to the question and that the referee just magically decided in that couple of seconds he was listening to nobody in his headset that he should give the penalty. They also say that despite him clearly saying twice that he does not know he has touched the ball that he DID know he had touched it he just didn't realise it was lovren that's why he kept saying I don't know. Utter balls and a complete cover up
"This is the referee speaking. I'm giving a penalty because that bloke there tripped that bloke there...no,hang about, it was that bloke over there - just turn around a minute mate - yeah, number 23. So, that bloke there - oi, have you two just swapped places? You sure? I thought it was that dark-haired bloke, er, number 4? No? Must have been number 6 then. It was one of em anyway. Stuck his leg out and made contact. Definite penalty... Look there's no point in you lot behind the goal all booing, I've made my mind up and that's that. Oh yeah, and a red card for number 6... er.. or maybe number 4."
Newcastle just been denied a stonewall v manure just now, happens in almost every match and it's always always the smaller side that gets **** all
Appalling decision, only compounded by not evening it up in the second half. "Sh*t refs we only get sh*t refs....".
Why was there only 3 minutes of injury time when we had about 5 minutes stoppage for the head injury when their lad got booked. **** knows why he couldnt walk off for treatment, as the last time I looked your nose was on your face not your legs.
Should have been 5 mins minimum. Was also 4 subs 2nd half which is usually 30 secs each. I don’t think he even played the full 3 mins. Bent as ****.
More I've looked at it the less it looks like a pen. Nothing ever surprises me against them though. It's a game we should eagerly look forward to, but for me it's being spoilt over the years by the way luck and officials favour them time and again. They were absolutely pants on Saturday. Weakened team, low on confidence and away from home, yet we couldn't put them away. One of the only consolations of potential relegation is that we wouldn't have to play them, but with our luck they'll come down with us. Horrible club.
Just seen the Hammill incident. How the f*ck was that not a penalty. AH heading towards goal player made no attempt to connect with the ball and just took Hammill out. More than incompetence given the 1st penalty decision (where the ref was miles behind the play and view of contact blocked by Yiadom) but a bent or biased ref. No other explanation. Shocking!