The all-new Premier League thread Page 3352

  • Page

    of 5502 First / Last

  • Humperfunk 19 Mar 2013 13:50:05 2,257 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    Hahaha Michael Owen's Wikipedia page does remind me of one of the best things about Wikipedia:

    He scored the second goal of the 3–0 win. Dimitar Berbatov completed a run down the right flank before pulling the ball back into the box, with Owen scoring past Ross Worner.

    There is a link to current Farnborough keeper Ross Worner's Wikipedia page. Why on earth Ross has gone into Michael Owen's Wikipedia page to add a mention of himself...good luck to him is all I can say, haha go on Ross!

    Edited by Humperfunk at 13:50:45 19-03-2013

    PSN, XBL & NNID: Wedjwants

  • LionheartDJH 19 Mar 2013 14:32:46 19,486 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Owen was my favourite player growing up. Very disappointing that his career as a whole leaves so much unfulfilled promise. He was always a bit fragile (multiple hamstring problems before he left us) and I never felt he recovered properly from that WC2006 injury.

    Respect to him for playing in Carragher's testimonial despite the jeers he got. Was good to see him in our shirt one last time.

    Will never forget this.

    Edited by LionheartDJH at 14:38:44 19-03-2013

    She dives for cheese pasties

  • Humperfunk 19 Mar 2013 15:36:10 2,257 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    Mate, read Ross Worner's page and you'll forget all about Owen.

    PSN, XBL & NNID: Wedjwants

  • nickthegun 19 Mar 2013 15:38:33 60,135 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Heh, no further action for mcmanananananamaman, hiding behind the old 'one idiot official saw it and did nothing, so up yours' defence.

    Despite a precedent for completely ignoring that.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    someone say something funny

  • imamazed 19 Mar 2013 15:39:45 5,705 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Did they take into account that he's not that sort of player? Martinez even attested to that
  • ecureuil 19 Mar 2013 15:43:35 76,873 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    nickthegun wrote:
    Heh, no further action for mcmanananananamaman, hiding behind the old 'one idiot official saw it and did nothing, so up yours' defence.

    Despite a precedent for completely ignoring that.
    Holy crap, that's mental. The ref apologised to Pardew for missing it.

    I assume the official that did see it and decided it wasn't worthy of anything will be severely punished for his inadequacy?
  • TheSaint 19 Mar 2013 15:46:06 14,478 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Something tells me that the outcome of all this would have been very different if one of the top six were involved.
  • imamazed 19 Mar 2013 15:46:58 5,705 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    or liverpool
  • oceanmotion 19 Mar 2013 15:47:30 15,969 posts
    Seen 11 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    What a bonkers rule.
  • nickthegun 19 Mar 2013 15:51:13 60,135 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I would like to know which official saw it and thought it wasnt that bad.

    To continue to bang a drum, this is why goal line technology is the wrong ball to chase. We need to make refs better not give them something to hide behind. Its absolutely fucking ludicrous that not only someone saw it, but they thought it wasnt worth a card.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    someone say something funny

  • Dougs 19 Mar 2013 15:53:14 68,038 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    That is absolutely insane. Not a fan of Pardew, but I hope he goes absolutely nuts. There's precedent everywhere, the FA/PL seem to be the ones hiding behind it the most. And we don't even have to worry about upsetting FIFA for any WC bid.
  • ecureuil 19 Mar 2013 15:55:26 76,873 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    TheSaint wrote:
    Something tells me that the outcome of all this would have been very different if one of the top six were involved.
    Yeaa.. no, let's not go there. It's nothing to do with the stature of the club, it's these utterly absurd FA rules. Portsmouth weren't a top 6 club when Ben Thatcher got banned for knocking Mendes out, the only time this rule has been broken. If this was a player from a top 6 club getting away with it, you'd say "I bet the outcome would be different if a player from a lower down the league did it." Yet Wigan are in the bottom three and have got away with it. The over-protection of officials is damaging the game.
  • Deckard1 19 Mar 2013 15:57:33 28,244 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    It's fucking appalling that he's not even getting a 3 match ban for it, it really is. One of the most dangerous tackles I've seen in a long time. Whether he intended to hurt him or not is irrelevant.
  • nickthegun 19 Mar 2013 15:59:30 60,135 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Its the same principle as the nani red. Regardless of intent, he went in carelessly studs up, so should get fucked for it.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    someone say something funny

  • mikew1985 19 Mar 2013 16:00:38 12,785 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    I am shocked at the shitness of the FA on this one, if ever a retrospective ban was justified, surely it was now.

    Mental, truly mental.
  • mikew1985 19 Mar 2013 16:01:32 12,785 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    nickthegun wrote:
    Its the same principle as the nani red. Regardless of intent, he went in carelessly studs up, so should get fucked for it.
    :D

    Thats a poor attempt Nick.
  • kalel 19 Mar 2013 16:01:50 87,910 posts
    Seen 11 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I think some of the 'rah rah ban for 12 games rah rah' was a bit much, but yes, it's a red and a three game ban. FA have made exceptions to their stupid rules before and am surprised they didn't this time.
  • ecureuil 19 Mar 2013 16:05:02 76,873 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    I think some of the 'rah rah ban for 12 games rah rah' was a bit much, but yes, it's a red and a three game ban. FA have made exceptions to their stupid rules before and am surprised they didn't this time.
    I was sure he'd get a three game ban because no action was taken during the game. They actually are quite consistent in that they don't retroactively ban players if the ref has already issued a yellow card during the game. Rooney got away with the same thing for elbowing someone (against Wigan?) a couple of years ago and IIRC he wasn't booked but got away with it because the ref said he saw it. They need to sort this shit out tbh.
  • nickthegun 19 Mar 2013 16:05:12 60,135 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    mikew1985 wrote:
    nickthegun wrote:
    Its the same principle as the nani red. Regardless of intent, he went in carelessly studs up, so should get fucked for it.
    :D

    Thats a poor attempt Nick.
    I wasnt trolling! Its the same thing, regardless of intent he went in studs up and deserves/d to be punished!

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    someone say something funny

  • ecureuil 19 Mar 2013 16:09:31 76,873 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    mikew1985 wrote:
    nickthegun wrote:
    Its the same principle as the nani red. Regardless of intent, he went in carelessly studs up, so should get fucked for it.
    :D

    Thats a poor attempt Nick.
    It actually serves as a pretty good example of the difference between a reckless challenge deserving of a yellow (Nani) and one which uses excessive/unnecessary force (McManaman). "Studs up" isn't in the rules and means nothing btw.
  • King_Edward 19 Mar 2013 16:14:01 11,454 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Unbelievable that there's no ban. I knew Whelan was friends with the higher ups, but I didn't realise he was the Don.

    At least we know that sort of challenge isn't a foul now.

    Edited by King_Edward at 16:15:40 19-03-2013
  • SuperCoolEskimo 19 Mar 2013 16:15:45 9,884 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    They should take retrospective action against the official who saw it then. These incompetent fuckers are just untouchable.
  • nickthegun 19 Mar 2013 16:20:21 60,135 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Didnt Wheelan get his leg smashed in a bad tackle, leading to his retirement? You would have thought he'd take a bit of a firmer stance on it.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    someone say something funny

  • ecureuil 19 Mar 2013 16:22:10 76,873 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Referees should be interviewed on TV after the game at times like this. It's as if the FA are trying to pretend they don't make mistakes.
  • ecureuil 19 Mar 2013 16:26:25 76,873 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago

    Following consultation with the game's stakeholders (the Premier League, the Football League, the Professional Footballers’ Association, the League Managers’ Association, Professional Game Match Officials Limited and the National Game) in the summer, it was agreed that retrospective action should only be taken in respect of incidents which have not been seen by the match officials.

    Where one of the officials has seen a coming together of players, no retrospective action should be taken, regardless of whether he or she witnessed the full or particular nature of the challenge. This is to avoid the re-refereeing of incidents.

    In the case of McManaman, it has been confirmed that at least one of the match officials saw the coming together, though not the full extent of the challenge. In these circumstances retrospective action cannot be taken.

    The principal objective behind the not seen policy is to address off the ball incidents where match officials are unlikely to be in a position to witness misconduct.
    Do they not realise how stupid this sounds?
  • nickthegun 19 Mar 2013 16:27:48 60,135 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    As I say, goal line technology is literally the least of the things that is needed to fix football.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    someone say something funny

  • Mr_Sleep 19 Mar 2013 16:36:02 17,095 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Wow, that's staggeringly misguided by the FA. If I was Newcastle I would seriously consider some form of legal action. Presumably the job of the referee is as much to protect the players as anything else, the referees answer to the FA and so the FA have allowed their employee to make a bad decision, the person who saw the challenge and did nothing about it should at least have some kind of fine/demotion as he's clearly not able to correctly assess the game.

    You are a factory of sadness.

  • King_Edward 19 Mar 2013 16:47:50 11,454 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Mr_Sleep wrote:
    Wow, that's staggeringly misguided by the FA. If I was Newcastle I would seriously consider some form of legal action.
    It's times like this I miss Shepard being in charge (believe me, it doesn't happen often). Big mouth, conman that he was, he'd get the rules changed and a few million compensation.

    Not sure Ashley will want the hassle.
  • billythekid 19 Mar 2013 16:53:51 11,146 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    John Carver has been charged with misconduct :D
  • Mr_Sleep 19 Mar 2013 16:54:32 17,095 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Indeed, I can't see it happening, there'll be a bit of media focus and some strong words from both camps but it'll come to nothing and it'll be forgotten about by the summer.

    You are a factory of sadness.

  • Page

    of 5502 First / Last

Log in or register to reply