Reply With QuoteOK, you're always Mr Rational about these things, la. Do you never look at that game and think there was more to it than just a ref having a shìt night?Originally Posted by Luis Anaconda
Not like Riley is in a position of power like actually in charge of all Premier League referees now or anything. That would make me angry
OK, you're always Mr Rational about these things, la. Do you never look at that game and think there was more to it than just a ref having a shìt night?
I thought Wenger didn't go far enough as well. My recollection of his comments were something along the lines of 'they did not approach the game with the right spirit'.
Whereas what he should have said was 'they couldn't play football with us so they kicked us off the park and Mike Riley let them do it. And if that wasn't enough he then ignored two blatant red cards and awarded them a penalty for a dive. His performance today was disgraceful and it brings shame upon the game of football that this was allowed to happen'.
and I'd question whether it's actually possible to be that incompetent, without actually being bent
Grey and Tyler are sat there saying 'surely Arsenal should have expected United to try and ruffle them within the laws of the game'. This would have been less infuriating if they hadn't, at the time, been watching Van Nistelroooy rake his studs down Ashley Cole's shin two yards away from the linesman.
They seem to be criticising our players for their reaction when, from what I remember, we did little other than complain to the ref a bit- far less vehemently than the United players when he had the cheek to speak to them about their latest 'challenge'.
The most lenient interpretation I can make is that it was simply the perfect storm moment when all the pre-existing factors like the intrinsic pro-United/anti-Arsenal bias by Sky, referees and the media; Old Trafford; Ferguson's influence, etc, etc came together to create an absolute travesty of a game. Somehow it was felt that Arsenal were due their comeuppance by whatever means and that United were the team to do it. And afterwards, everyone went along with that story because to do otherwise would've involved admitting that those pre-existing factors did actually exist.
I think the biggest factor in that game was the game the season before- the Battle of Old Trafford. We lost the PR war over that and I think, without question, there was a feeling that we deserved whatever happened to us next time.
Of course, the 'Battle of Old Trafford' was itself instigated by two awful refereeing decisions beginning with an outrageous piece of cheating from Van Nistelrooy. I can remember other football fans saying they cheered when KEown lumped him. He was almost universally despised as a cheat
Sure, but you also have to remember how much our unbeaten season and wonderful football got on people's tits. People were sick of it and that 50th game was clearly set up by the FA to be a showdown. That in itself gave tacit permission for something a bit odd to go on.
Absolutely, although I think it is a big step to suggest corruption and I generally haven't heard anything from "those in the know" to remotely suggest it either. There are several factors at play -
The kicking: Riley was certainly known to have a United bent shall we say, whether it was conscious or unconscious, and I have no doubt that Ferguson would have used that to see how much his team could get away with. Added to the fact that refs were under pressure to allow thugs to get away with murder, I mean let the game flow and not get card happy and once again United played to the ref (and to be fair Cole and Edu produced two horrendous tackles on Ronaldo), I don't think there is as much mystery there as some make out two very physical teams playing at a tempo that no one else in the league would match. In fact you could make a case for some of our treatment of Ronaldo down the years - a New Year's Day game at Highbury when Cygan put him into row A (he was aiming for Z) several times comes to mind - was just as shameful and unpunished as the assault on Reyes, yet Ronaldo went on to become the best player in the world and didn't wuss off back to Iberia in a sulk.
The penalty: Obviously no argument that it was a dive but it goes in the same category as "seen 'em given". At full pelt it looked a penalty and it's called conning a ref for a reason (of course, they do say you can't con a honest man)
Foul on Freddie: One hundred per cent bottle job, knew it was a red card if he gave a free kick so gave nothing. Homer ref but again not unusual at OT
Assault on Cole: This for me was the worst one - pure thuggery right under the lineman's nose and nothing given. Really no excuse, or possible reason for that
VERDICT: Mike Riley is a corrupt **** - but Mike Dean is worse
Agree with most of that. The penalty would have been given whoever had been refereeing that game. Same goes for the foul on Freddie- I dont think any ref would have given that and sent Rio off.Absolutely, although I think it is a big step to suggest corruption and I generally haven't heard anything from "those in the know" to remotely suggest it either. There are several factors at play -
The kicking: Riley was certainly known to have a United bent shall we say, whether it was conscious or unconscious, and I have no doubt that Ferguson would have used that to see how much his team could get away with. Added to the fact that refs were under pressure to allow thugs to get away with murder, I mean let the game flow and not get card happy and once again United played to the ref (and to be fair Cole and Edu produced two horrendous tackles on Ronaldo), I don't think there is as much mystery there as some make out two very physical teams playing at a tempo that no one else in the league would match. In fact you could make a case for some of our treatment of Ronaldo down the years - a New Year's Day game at Highbury when Cygan put him into row A (he was aiming for Z) several times comes to mind - was just as shameful and unpunished as the assault on Reyes, yet Ronaldo went on to become the best player in the world and didn't wuss off back to Iberia in a sulk.
The penalty: Obviously no argument that it was a dive but it goes in the same category as "seen 'em given". At full pelt it looked a penalty and it's called conning a ref for a reason (of course, they do say you can't con a honest man)
Foul on Freddie: One hundred per cent bottle job, knew it was a red card if he gave a free kick so gave nothing. Homer ref but again not unusual at OT
Assault on Cole: This for me was the worst one - pure thuggery right under the lineman's nose and nothing given. Really no excuse, or possible reason for that
VERDICT: Mike Riley is a corrupt **** - but Mike Dean is worse
Assault on Cole, the linesman sees this clearly, says nothing, and Riley does not show any interest in even looking at him. That is beyond weird.
The two challenges by Neville on Reyes are outrageous. The fact that he doesnt book him for the first one is just beyond ridiculous. Even Andy Grey couldnt believe his eyes andwas still going on about it after the game.
Our players clearly had the previous year in the back of their minds because they were really calm about the whole thing. Normally they would have been screaming at the ref. I am sure Wenger told them to just put up with whatever happened and keep calm.
Posting Permissions