|
Post by buxtop on Jan 1, 2009 12:27:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by white wall boy on Jan 1, 2009 12:35:59 GMT
oooooooohhhhhh get on with it tango man ;D
|
|
|
Post by Targaryen Stokie on Jan 1, 2009 12:39:09 GMT
They should shut up, it clearly wasn't a handball so it would of been wrong for them to have a penalty for it.
What do they really hope to achieve from appealing? Silly Tango man. ;D
|
|
|
Post by DansViews on Jan 1, 2009 12:41:40 GMT
If there was influence from a 3rd party, then they are doing the game a favour by showing up stupid officials.. So if its found that there was video stuff going on, fair play to hull
|
|
|
Post by DodgyDino on Jan 1, 2009 12:43:18 GMT
People moan when the refs get things wrong and Tango man moans when they get them right....He going to make himself look a right arse.
|
|
|
Post by daverichards on Jan 1, 2009 12:45:18 GMT
where was the Bloody 3rd party on boxing day. Maybe the 3rd party only gets invloved when it helps big clubs. Now theres one for serpico ;D
|
|
|
Post by DodgyDino on Jan 1, 2009 12:45:02 GMT
If there was influence from a 3rd party, then they are doing the game a favour by showing up stupid officials.. So if its found that there was video stuff going on, fair play to hull Hows it fair play....If they get decisions right then let them use a third party
|
|
|
Post by Peters Pipe on Jan 1, 2009 12:45:45 GMT
FFS, Doesn't matter if it was a pen or not, the fact that there may have been third party interference in a way that is not permitted is a bit of a concern.
And no, I'm not on Hulls side or anything. If it had been against us we'd be equally outraged and well within our rights to ask for a formal explanation of what happened.
|
|
|
Post by DansViews on Jan 1, 2009 12:46:41 GMT
You cant let them use a 3rd party because its against the rules.
|
|
|
Post by GazMcNicol on Jan 1, 2009 12:52:26 GMT
FFS, Doesn't matter if it was a pen or not, the fact that there may have been third party interference in a way that is not permitted is a bit of a concern. And no, I'm not on Hulls side or anything. If it had been against us we'd be equally outraged and well within our rights to ask for a formal explanation of what happened. My thoughts exactly. I'm all for video evidence being used, but it has to in a fair and consistent manner, not "sneaking" it in when it suits, after all, Villa area a 'top 4' club (even if it is for the time being!)
|
|
|
Post by DodgyDino on Jan 1, 2009 12:52:33 GMT
All we ask is that referees get decisions right, we all moan when they dont, Perhaps they shouldnt be using it but if it helps the game to be played with all the correct decisions throughout the game then bring it on
|
|
|
Post by tuum on Jan 1, 2009 12:53:02 GMT
Perhaps, just like our Tone, all they are asking for is a bit of consistency & fairness.
|
|
|
Post by Peters Pipe on Jan 1, 2009 12:55:28 GMT
DodgyDino, You cannot have one rule for some and another for everybody else. I agree with you about refereeing decisions, but it has to be the same treatment for all clubs in all games.
|
|
|
Post by DodgyDino on Jan 1, 2009 12:58:27 GMT
DodgyDino, You cannot have one rule for some and another for everybody else. I agree with you about refereeing decisions, but it has to be the same treatment for all clubs in all games. Totally agree mate, All im saying is that the technology is there and should be used all the time for the game to recieve the correct outcome everytime
|
|
sting
Youth Player
Posts: 354
|
Post by sting on Jan 1, 2009 13:09:49 GMT
Interesting how this story has been turned round by Hull. I thought Brown's comments totally lacked integrity when he suggested that even though it wasn't a handball they should have had the penalty. Surely a cast iron case of bringing the game into disrepute.
The decision was correct and if the officials worked together on it then surely this should be applauded. It does beg the bigger question about using video technology. It took 30 seconds for the WHU winner to be shown on the big screen where 35,000 could see that the goal was at the very least questionnable.
I hope the FA have a new year resolution to introduce technology. Their argument that there must be the same rules "on Hackney Marshes" is a nonsense when there is so much at stake. The professional game is different. Cricket and Rugby League have managed to integrate it successfully.
As for the Hull Chairman and his whinging manager, I think they should reflect on the integrity of gaining a penalty at all costs! I would be disappointed if we appealed against Ric's sending off because the referee didn't see it.
|
|
|
Post by sportsman on Jan 1, 2009 13:14:29 GMT
So Brown would prefer a 'cheat' goal stood then, is that what he's saying? Can we all go down the route of having investigations to why we have had the decisions we have had this season. Like why jeff winter said it wouldn't have been a good 'career move' for Chris Foy to have sent off Rooney and Ronaldo?
This is just to divert the freefall of Hull. Look at me,me,me 'media whore' Brown.
|
|
coggy
Youth Player
Posts: 340
|
Post by coggy on Jan 1, 2009 13:18:15 GMT
Exact this, as others, is all about "look at me, me me me " Pathetic !!!
|
|
|
Post by swanlandtiger on Jan 1, 2009 13:22:44 GMT
As usual you people don't bother to find out what the problems are before you wade in with you uninelligent comments. The issue is twofold. Firstly Steve Bennett allowed his decision to be affected by the Aston Villa players. That is against the rules, even though it was not hand-ball, he should not have allowed the players to sway his decision. Secondly, the linesman was clearly in communication with a third party before Bennett came over to him to ask his opinion. He was not talking to Bennett because he was busy fending off and arguing with half the Villa team. I know this because I was sat about 20 yards away from the lino. So who was he talking to? This is the key issue our chairman (not Phil Brown) is asking the Premier League about. We are only looking for consistency. If video evidence was used to overrule then penalty decision then why shouldn't video evidence be used to rule Agbonlahor off-side for their goal (which he was!), another wrongful decision in the game. Referees make poor decisions all the time, you have to accept it and hope it's all swings and roundabouts. What is not acceptible is that illegal influences affect those decisions so that they are inconsistent, as I suspect is the case here.
|
|
|
Post by Squeekster on Jan 1, 2009 13:23:40 GMT
Interesting how this story has been turned round by Hull. I thought Brown's comments totally lacked integrity when he suggested that even though it wasn't a handball they should have had the penalty. Surely a cast iron case of bringing the game into disrepute. The decision was correct and if the officials worked together on it then surely this should be applauded. It does beg the bigger question about using video technology. It took 30 seconds for the WHU winner to be shown on the big screen where 35,000 could see that the goal was at the very least questionnable. I hope the FA have a new year resolution to introduce technology. Their argument that there must be the same rules "on Hackney Marshes" is a nonsense when there is so much at stake. The professional game is different. Cricket and Rugby League have managed to integrate it successfully. As for the Hull Chairman and his whinging manager, I think they should reflect on the integrity of gaining a penalty at all costs! I would be disappointed if we appealed against Ric's sending off because the referee didn't see it. You would be disappointed,why?A ref can't make a decision that he has not seen 99 times out of a 100 when a ref misses something they all ways say they haven't seen it so can't give it. The rules seem to be flexible when it comes officials but not certain teams and players.
|
|
|
Post by Squeekster on Jan 1, 2009 13:27:16 GMT
As usual you people don't bother to find out what the problems are before you wade in with you uninelligent comments. The issue is twofold. Firstly Steve Bennett allowed his decision to be affected by the Aston Villa players. That is against the rules, even though it was not hand-ball, he should not have allowed the players to sway his decision. Secondly, the linesman was clearly in communication with a third party before Bennett came over to him to ask his opinion. He was not talking to Bennett because he was busy fending off and arguing with half the Villa team. I know this because I was sat about 20 yards away from the lino. So who was he talking to? This is the key issue our chairman (not Phil Brown) is asking the Premier League about. We are only looking for consistency. If video evidence was used to overrule then penalty decision then why shouldn't video evidence be used to rule Agbonlahor off-side for their goal (which he was!), another wrongful decision in the game. Referees make poor decisions all the time, you have to accept it and hope it's all swings and roundabouts. What is not acceptible is that illegal influences affect those decisions so that they are inconsistent, as I suspect is the case here. I have to agree, Bennett only approached the linesman to tell Barry to move away and only then did he decide to speak to the linesman. IMHO if the Villa players had just congregated around the ref the pen would of stood rightly or wrongly.
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Jan 1, 2009 13:27:36 GMT
Crazy. Hull fans must be relieved Brown has time to waste on this.
|
|
|
Post by victoriaboothenboy on Jan 1, 2009 13:28:27 GMT
As anyone who has read any of my previous posts (H.T humiliation) will know I consider Tango a laughing stock any way. But now he has surpassed himself, The word DESPERATION springs to mind. The bubble as well and truly POPPED
|
|
|
Post by AlbertTatlock on Jan 1, 2009 13:28:39 GMT
And all this bollox coming from those who were looking at ways of Ric cheating his way out of his ban. Rules are there for all teams if the ref did act on third party advice then he should get his arse kicked for it. If it were against us we’d all be up in arms shouting to get the match replayed and the officials hung by their balls over the Boothen end. What I would suggest though is that whoever is in chare of the new screen should replay all the dodgy decisions that these wank refs give against us, in the case such as Rooney and Ronaldo they should have been played at least 5 times when there was a break in play so the wanker Foy could see what a joke of a biased twat he really was. Gouranga.
|
|
|
Post by Squeekster on Jan 1, 2009 13:31:13 GMT
And all this bollox coming from those who were looking at ways of Ric cheating his way out of his ban. Rules are there for all teams if the ref did act on third party advice then he should get his arse kicked for it. If it were against us we’d all be up in arms shouting to get the match replayed and the officials hung by their balls over the Boothen end. What I would suggest though is that whoever is in chare of the new screen should replay all the dodgy decisions that these wank refs give against us, in the case such as Rooney and Ronaldo they should have been played at least 5 times when there was a break in play so the wanker Foy could see what a joke of a biased twat he really was. Gouranga. Prem rules say you cannot replay match incidents only goal replays.They can also show the live footage.
|
|
|
Post by PerCyfilth ....Captains Log on Jan 1, 2009 13:32:57 GMT
Swanland you are right wanting clarification although clearly injustice if pen was given.Surely the lino is only connected to the ref so perhaps he was trying to get his point across and with the melee around Bennett he couldnt hear him? JMO.
|
|
|
Post by AlbertTatlock on Jan 1, 2009 13:34:28 GMT
And all this bollox coming from those who were looking at ways of Ric cheating his way out of his ban. Rules are there for all teams if the ref did act on third party advice then he should get his arse kicked for it. If it were against us we’d all be up in arms shouting to get the match replayed and the officials hung by their balls over the Boothen end. What I would suggest though is that whoever is in chare of the new screen should replay all the dodgy decisions that these wank refs give against us, in the case such as Rooney and Ronaldo they should have been played at least 5 times when there was a break in play so the wanker Foy could see what a joke of a biased twat he really was. Gouranga. Prem rules say you cannot replay match incidents only goal replays.They can also show the live footage. Not even at HT? Gouranga.
|
|
|
Post by daverichards on Jan 1, 2009 13:35:35 GMT
swanlandtiger: I am only speeking for myself here, but when the (not given) penalty decision was shown time and again to be the incorrect one, at which point do you and you manager decide to shut the fuck up about it and move on ?
|
|
|
Post by Squeekster on Jan 1, 2009 13:39:48 GMT
Prem rules say you cannot replay match incidents only goal replays.They can also show the live footage. Not even at HT? Gouranga. The way i understand it not at all.
|
|
|
Post by buxtop on Jan 1, 2009 13:57:45 GMT
FFS, Doesn't matter if it was a pen or not, the fact that there may have been third party interference in a way that is not permitted is a bit of a concern. And no, I'm not on Hulls side or anything. If it had been against us we'd be equally outraged and well within our rights to ask for a formal explanation of what happened. Just bringing you the news. Don't shoot the messenger!
|
|
|
Post by Bick on Jan 1, 2009 14:19:36 GMT
Such a big fuss, the ball hit the ball the pete's sake!
(Who's pete?)
|
|