|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2013 23:52:11 GMT
The comments made by Terry Conroy on radio Stoke today after the game hardly gave a true reflection of Atkinsons three crucial decisions. I've seen far worse errors of judgement and many would argue he didn't make any. We were the directors of our own downfall. . I think you need help mate On the contrary....Radio Stoke need people who understand the rules of the game. Conroy hasn't got a clue. A nice bloke none the less.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2013 0:00:41 GMT
. I think you need help mate On the contrary....Radio Stoke need people who understand the rules of the game. Conroy hasn't got a clue. A nice bloke none the less. Come on mumf. There is no need to play devils advocate here. It's just making you out to be a bit of a twat.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2013 0:05:53 GMT
On the contrary....Radio Stoke need people who understand the rules of the game. Conroy hasn't got a clue. A nice bloke none the less. Come on mumf. There is no need to play devils advocate here. It's just making you out to be a bit of a twat. I've watched the incidents FOUR TIMES. Each and every time I have reached the same conclusion. If I was playing Devils Advocate I'd tell you. Listening to Conroy and Johnson gave the impression that Atkinson had committed the crimes of the century...which is absolute fucking rubbish. He was spot on infact.
|
|
|
Shearer!
Dec 27, 2013 0:20:35 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2013 0:20:35 GMT
Come on mumf. There is no need to play devils advocate here. It's just making you out to be a bit of a twat. I've watched the incidents FOUR TIMES. Each and every time I have reached the same conclusion. If I was playing Devils Advocate I'd tell you. Listening to Conroy and Johnson gave the impression that Atkinson had committed the crimes of the century...which is absolute fucking rubbish. He was spot on infact. Even when the ball went out of play he was 'spot on'? Like I said....Devils advocate...bit of a twat.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2013 0:31:25 GMT
I've watched the incidents FOUR TIMES. Each and every time I have reached the same conclusion. If I was playing Devils Advocate I'd tell you. Listening to Conroy and Johnson gave the impression that Atkinson had committed the crimes of the century...which is absolute fucking rubbish. He was spot on infact. Even when the ball went out of play he was 'spot on'? Like I said....Devils advocate...bit of a twat. Yes....If the linesmen indicates that the ball went out , and the Referee wasn't sure or didn't have a clear view , then the Referee has to be advised by the linesmen. The referee reserves the right to over rule the linesman at any time but didn't. This was the correct course of action whether the ball went out or not according to the rulebook...and I didn't write it. I just know it and abide by it. mumf
|
|
|
Shearer!
Dec 27, 2013 0:38:17 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2013 0:38:17 GMT
Even when the ball went out of play he was 'spot on'? Like I said....Devils advocate...bit of a twat. Yes....If the linesmen indicates that the ball went out , and the Referee wasn't sure or didn't have a clear view , then the Referee has to be advised by the linesmen. The referee reserves the right to over rule the linesman at any time but didn't. This was the correct course of action whether the ball went out or not according to the rulebook...and I didn't write it. I just know it and abide by it. mumf Well done for quoting the rulebook but you have no idea what Atkinson saw or thought. He may have seen it and thought... 1. That's in. He'd be wrong and his decision wouldn't be spot on. 2. Thats out but fuck Stoke. His decision wouldn't be spot on. 3. That's out but my linesman didn't flag so oh well. His decision wouldn't be spot on.
|
|
|
Post by johnnysoul60 on Dec 27, 2013 0:44:50 GMT
The comments made by Terry Conroy on radio Stoke today after the game hardly gave a true reflection of Atkinsons three crucial decisions. I've seen far worse errors of judgement and many would argue he didn't make any. We were the directors of our own downfall. You are like Atkinson entitled to your view and can no doubt argue that technically within the law the referee was right to make the decisions that he did, I disagree with you and would say that if someone like Webb had taken charge of that game or Halsey that Stoke would not have been on the end of the same decisions , which were really harsh and all could have gone either way , the fact that they all went against us really pisses me off as does so much about football today
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2013 0:48:19 GMT
Yes....If the linesmen indicates that the ball went out , and the Referee wasn't sure or didn't have a clear view , then the Referee has to be advised by the linesmen. The referee reserves the right to over rule the linesman at any time but didn't. This was the correct course of action whether the ball went out or not according to the rulebook...and I didn't write it. I just know it and abide by it. mumf Well done for quoting the rulebook but you have no idea what Atkinson saw or thought. He may have seen it and thought... 1. That's in. He'd be wrong and his decision wouldn't be spot on. 2. Thats out but fuck Stoke. His decision wouldn't be spot on. 3. That's out but my linesman didn't flag so oh well. His decision wouldn't be spot on. Yes....But then again , neither do you. The other 3 points you make are pure speculation and conjecture. mumf
|
|
|
Shearer!
Dec 27, 2013 0:52:06 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2013 0:52:06 GMT
Well done for quoting the rulebook but you have no idea what Atkinson saw or thought. He may have seen it and thought... 1. That's in. He'd be wrong and his decision wouldn't be spot on. 2. Thats out but fuck Stoke. His decision wouldn't be spot on. 3. That's out but my linesman didn't flag so oh well. His decision wouldn't be spot on. Yes....But then again , neither do you. The other 3 points you make are pure speculation and conjecture. mumf Yes but I'm not the one saying his decisions are spot on?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2013 0:55:18 GMT
The comments made by Terry Conroy on radio Stoke today after the game hardly gave a true reflection of Atkinsons three crucial decisions. I've seen far worse errors of judgement and many would argue he didn't make any. We were the directors of our own downfall. You are like Atkinson entitled to your view and can no doubt argue that technically within the law the referee was right to make the decisions that he did, I disagree with you and would say that if someone like Webb had taken charge of that game or Halsey that Stoke would not have been on the end of the same decisions , which were really harsh and all could have gone either way , the fact that they all went against us really pisses me off as does so much about football today On balance..I concur... I'm not the enemy , I'm not biased ...but I do know the rules. There is an argument for the ref being harsh...but certainly not the worst refereeing performance I've seen (as Nigel Johnson and TC were suggesting)... The only element of this discussion/ of this debate I'm right about is the rulebook. It's the interpretation of it that some find hard to swallow.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2013 0:56:55 GMT
Yes....But then again , neither do you. The other 3 points you make are pure speculation and conjecture. mumf Yes but I'm not the one saying his decisions are spot on? I am. To the letter of the law. Harsh perhaps...but well within the rules.
|
|
|
Shearer!
Dec 27, 2013 1:00:14 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2013 1:00:14 GMT
Yes but I'm not the one saying his decisions are spot on? I am. To the letter of the law. Harsh perhaps...but well within the rules. You've kinda missed the point. Without knowing what Atkinsons reasoning is for each decision you can't say he's spot on. Rule book or no pissing rule book.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2013 1:06:58 GMT
I am. To the letter of the law. Harsh perhaps...but well within the rules. You've kinda missed the point. Without knowing what Atkinsons reasoning is for each decision you can't say he's spot on. Rule book or no pissing rule book. I don't need or profess to know what Atkinson was thinking. On the contrary... I think you are missing the point. Read my previous comments
|
|
|
Post by lastoftheldk on Dec 27, 2013 1:07:48 GMT
that linesman had a strange/guilty look on his face when that goal was scored
|
|
|
Shearer!
Dec 27, 2013 1:15:40 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2013 1:15:40 GMT
You've kinda missed the point. Without knowing what Atkinsons reasoning is for each decision you can't say he's spot on. Rule book or no pissing rule book. I don't need or profess to know what Atkinson was thinking. On the contrary... I think you are missing the point. Read my previous comments Your previous comment I originally quoted was along the lines of...'he was spot on'. You can't say that with certainty hence you were merely playing devils advocate and being a bit of a twat
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2013 1:18:43 GMT
I don't need or profess to know what Atkinson was thinking. On the contrary... I think you are missing the point. Read my previous comments Your previous comment I originally quoted was along the lines of...'he was spot on'. You can't say that with certainty hence you were merely playing devils advocate and being a bit of a twat I didn't call you a twat...so there endeth our debate. Goodnight. mumf
|
|
|
Post by playhowwewant on Dec 27, 2013 3:30:42 GMT
Come on mumf. There is no need to play devils advocate here. It's just making you out to be a bit of a twat. I've watched the incidents FOUR TIMES. Each and every time I have reached the same conclusion. If I was playing Devils Advocate I'd tell you. Listening to Conroy and Johnson gave the impression that Atkinson had committed the crimes of the century...which is absolute fucking rubbish. He was spot on infact. Can't agree with this because while Atkinson can hide behind the rule book and say he acted correctly and to the letter of the law you need to ask yourself this. For consistency If both of Whelan's challenges are deemed bookings how many players should have booked through the 90 minutes ? The handball I suppose in the extreme can be seen as ball to hand, but I'm sorry this decision should be given our way as his hands weren't by his sides and the ball hitting his hand away from his body both changed the direction of the ball and prevented the ball reaching it's intend destination I.e our player on the wing. The ball deffo looked out of play for their goal, but the officials can again hide behind the fact that all the ball needs to be over the line, but was out in my opinion. The penno and sending off I believe we would be disappointed if we hadn't have got the same decision given our way at the other end. Still a very very poor inconsistent display by the officials.
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Dec 27, 2013 7:36:58 GMT
For me he's shown no leniency what so ever and if he went with the level he did every game there'd be 4/5 sending offs every match. Would he have sent off Rooney for Whelans 2 challenges? Of course he wouldnt.
So for me
Whelans sending off - Very very harsh WRONG.
Cabaye - No bookings WRONG
Wilson sending off - Harsh but if it was a foull RIGHT for me but compounded by the Whelan sending off.
The handball - WRONG and he was very close to it.
Hughes sending off - WRONG just made himself not Hughes look stupid.
2nd GOAL - WRONG though not his fault the linesmans.
The decisions made all the worse by the fact we were playing so well. Hopefully the feeling of injustice will inspire us in the next game v Spurs.
|
|