• Current Donation Goals

CFCnet Admin

Media / Press

Recommended Posts

yes, yes, yes, yes and yes.

And yes.

What he said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beginning of the second half?

I expect he was still in the bar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair to Sky (just his once!) one of the three pundits (Souness, Henry or Quinn) said at half time, "That should have been a red - and had it been Costa on Fernandinho, it would have been." The other two smiled and nodded in unspoken agreement.

But yes, scandalous reporting of it in the Mail.

They then ran another article where they mocked the match review on the official club website. Admittedly there was a lot of blue tinted biased nonsense in there which I can't defend, but then this section in the Mail article had me seething:

"The report begins with mention of a disallowed Ramires goal which apparently happened at the beginning of the second half when the score was 1-0. Anyone remember that?

This 'errant' offside flag supposedly changed the complexion of the contest, but was of such significance that our own Sports Journalist of the Year, Martin Samuel, didn't deem it worthy of a mention in his match report..."

Well I'm not going to turn this into a bash Martin Samuel post because I enjoy his writing, and find him generally fair and balanced in what he writes about us. His match report did not mention the Ramires incident, but it should have done. Just because City were the better side and could feasibly have been 5-0 up by half time, the fact is that they weren't. They only had one goal to show for that first half dominance and as such the Ramires offside decision was a major moment in the game.

At the time it happened, we had stopped leaking chances at the back and had seemingly wrested midfield control. Had the goal stood there is every chance that we could have gone on to win from 1-1. City could have been demoralised thinking, "We've hammered this lot first half, how the hell is this 1-1?"

People pointing out that it finished 3-0 so was rendered immaterial are missing the point that goals change matches. At 1-1 we don't have to chase the game and take risks anymore, conversely City have to start taking more risks in an attempt to get back in front. This change in situation makes it less likely we'll concede again in the remainder of the match and more likely that they will.

If Ramires had indeed been offside, this whole discussion wouldn't have needed. But this is the second issue here, though at first watch he looked well offside, the replay showed him to be level with the back leg of the defender out wider - in other words, onside and the goal should have stood. Gary Neville admitted as much in commentary. I say replay because it was only the once. Sky, realising we'd been hard done by chose NOT to show it again and then it was not shown again or even discussed as an issue in the post match pundits discussion. A major moment which could have affected the whole pattern of the rest of the match was simply glossed over or airbrushed from history. The Daily Mail line above simply proves that.

And THAT is the real scandal about this whole affair. Bournemouth were similarly harshly treated last night (in fact even worse because at least their performance was deserving of a point whereas ours wasn't) and the pundits discussed the refereeing mistakes at length.

This is a perfect example of why Chelsea fans feel victimised and persecuted.

I'm with you and Droy on this one.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

How is the decision not even talked about? The broadcast I saw only showed one replay and from that he was not offside.

Major turning point of the game.

Now imagine of the situation had been reversed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chara   

Remember Frank's WC goal against Germany?.....same issue..given it changes the dynamics...and all "pundits" agreed with that one...how come it's different with a Chelsea game?.....oh wait a minute...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fatbloke   

I can probably cheer you up a bit with a true anecdote about Geoffrey:

A few years back now, he played Saturday football for Sandridge Rovers in the Herts County League. He was an annoying little toad even back then, with his constant billy Big Bollox about working for Sky and his favourite line when butting into any conversation about football, "I've seen "your team" more times than you have this season".

Anyway, he was a sub for the 2nd team and was whining on the touchline, when the manager made a change and put him on, a few of us clubbed together approached the manager and offered him some cash to take him off again. The manager duly obliged, Shouting "Shreevsy take a blow". Geoffrey jogged off the pitch kept going all the way to the changing rooms and never returned to the club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fact was, apart from the still Ramires looked far offside and would have done to the naked eye of the linesman (the defenders leg that put them all onside was hidden by another Chelsea player, who also seemed offside to the same linesman). Hardly worth discussing.

What annoyed me much more was the fact that several City players (chiefly among them Yaya, Fernandinho and Silva) got away with several tactical and cynical fouls without being punished (I think Silva didn't get a yellow at all). Meanwhile the same treatment saw yellows on our side, but for first time offenders. I distinctly remember Hazard following Yaya up the middle of the pitch and bringing him down, something both Yaya and Silva did to him several times. Hazard got a yellow for that one offence. Yaya got a yellow for something else, Silva didn't get one, despite a combined 5 or 6 tactical fouls on him (and that's not counting Fernandinho, the worst of them all).

Fair treatment would have seen pretty much all of City's midfielders off with a second yellow before the 70th minute, regardless of any other challenges (some of which were also worthy of yellows or reds).

We played badly, but this treatment by the refs is putting us on the back foot before the match even starts. That's why a performance like this generally ends up being a loss for us, while it's possible to win or draw for United or Liverpool when they play like that.

That said, when we're down a goal and bring Cuadrado and Falcao, I want to hang myself. So I'm not complaining. Mourinho clearly wasn't interested in winning that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not worth discussing that a perfectly good goal was rules out for an incorrect offside call?

You are a much, much bigger man than me.

I'm still furious and even more furious the media taunts us about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What annoyed me much more was the fact that several City players (chiefly among them Yaya, Fernandinho and Silva) got away with several tactical and cynical fouls without being punished (I think Silva didn't get a yellow at all). Meanwhile the same treatment saw yellows on our side, but for first time offenders. I distinctly remember Hazard following Yaya up the middle of the pitch and bringing him down, something both Yaya and Silva did to him several times. Hazard got a yellow for that one offence. Yaya got a yellow for something else, Silva didn't get one, despite a combined 5 or 6 tactical fouls on him (and that's not counting Fernandinho, the worst of them all).

Fair treatment would have seen pretty much all of City's midfielders off with a second yellow before the 70th minute, regardless of any other challenges (some of which were also worthy of yellows or reds).

There was a particularly blatant block by Fernandinho which the ref chose not to even give a free kick for - probably because he knew it would mean a 2nd yellow.

It's not worth discussing that a perfectly good goal was rules out for an incorrect offside call?

You are a much, much bigger man than me.

I'm still furious and even more furious the media taunts us about it.

It is wrong to wait for 14 replays and then say the ref or linesman should have given this decision or that.

That is a measure of how hard the ref's job is, not of bias.

Most linos would have called offside given their view, and all refs would have accepted that call.

On the other hand most refs would have given the Fernandinho Red, and his second yellow and a number of other yellows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a particularly blatant block by Fernandinho which the ref chose not to even give a free kick for - probably because he knew it would mean a 2nd yellow.

It is wrong to wait for 14 replays and then say the ref or linesman should have given this decision or that.

That is a measure of how hard the ref's job is, not of bias.

Most linos would have called offside given their view, and all refs would have accepted that call.

On the other hand most refs would have given the Fernandinho Red, and his second yellow and a number of other yellows.

I saw one replay of the incident. That was enough to see it was onside. Of course, one replay was a we got. I can't help but wonder if that would have been the case if it was reversed.

The one time Ramires has a decent run without effin it up and the ref robs him. Yes, it was hard to see in real time But it's the linos job to make the right call. Compare that to Gomis - equally contentious in real time but he did not have a problem calling it a pen. Of course it wasn't the same lino but still. And if it was Oliver who made the call then it is outrageous. He had zero chance of being sure we're the foul happened.

I do however agree regarding the yellows. Not sure I agree the Fernandinho elbow was a red. He is leading with his elbow yes but that happens all the time. Of course one could argue that's the problem but that's how it is. Virtually no ref would give a red for that.

Edited by Sleeping Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zoowraa   

For those that might be interested. Teamtalk website are running a new feature every Monday where they retrospectively review key decisions given by referees over the season.

Obviously it's not definitive, they have a panel of 5 which review these decisions and decide if he came to the right conclusion. Still subjective, but it's an interesting feature where they are logging the decisions over the whole season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now