'Boro vs Blades 12/08/17

It was never a free kick in the first place but for some reason nobody's questioning that decision.

They had a freekick in the first half by the right corner where the black guy went down like a sack of spuds,followed by a corner which resulted from that free kick which was never a corner............we didn't moan but got on and defended them,unlike them with our free kick.

It looked to me that he made a meal out of the challenge and there was minimal contact.

......or to put it another way - he dived, and could have been booked for it on another day.

It was a good goal but the two bad decisions cancelled each other out so justice done.

......or to put it another way - he dived, and could have been booked for it on another day.

 

It was a good goal but the two bad decisions cancelled each other out so justice done.

No, there was contact. He went down, easily.

He bought what he was entitled to.

No, there was contact. He went down, easily.

He bought what he was entitled to.

So the slightest of contacts is always a foul? God help the game if that's what they're trying to turn it into.

So the slightest of contacts is always a foul? God help the game if that's what they're trying to turn it into.

But you would be OK with turning it into 2 wrongs make a right?

So the slightest of contacts is always a foul? God help the game if that's what they're trying to turn it into.

Depends on the speed a player is going.

If a player is running at full speed, the slightest touch can make them fly in another direction.

But you would be OK with turning it into 2 wrongs make a right?

Two bad decisions are two too many but I think it can be called rough justice.

---------- Post added 12-08-2017 at 22:22 ----------

Depends on the speed a player is going.

If a player is running at full speed, the slightest touch can make them fly in another direction.

But not on this occasion. He felt a touch and threw himself down. Only my opinion of course, the man that matters gave a free kick.

It was never a free kick in the first place but for some reason nobody's questioning that decision.

The free kick was a matter of opinion, but the onside goal was a stone cold fact.

Two bad decisions are two too many but I think it can be called rough justice.

 

---------- Post added 12-08-2017 at 22:22 ----------

 

 

But not on this occasion. He felt a touch and threw himself down. Only my opinion of course, the man that matters gave a free kick.

He dived simple as,never a free kick,the rest is fantasy

I seem to remember last season when we had some awful refereeing decisions go against us (the handball at Derby being the most memorable) the refs seem to get worse, wait till you get a Prem one officiating a game.

The free kick was a matter of opinion, but the onside goal was a stone cold fact.

That's true but in the opinion of the linesman it was offside. He won't be thinking that tonight of course but the ref might also have a different opinion of his free kick decision after seeing it again.

The free kick was a matter of opinion, but the onside goal was a stone cold fact.

The stonecold fact is,ur kid should have gone for diving,the boro lad never touched him:hihi: