Anyone still think the EPL isn't corrupt?

[canarydan23 4,060]

If so, lol, keep that tinfoil hat on.

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

So the tin foil hat is indicative of the person who doesn’t believe the conspiracy theory?

[canarydan23 4,060]

Just now, Hank shoots Skyler said:

So the tin foil hat is indicative of the person who doesn’t believe the conspiracy theory?

It has now become a conspiracy theory to believe that the EPL isn't corrupt.

To paraphrase Orwell, "And the Premier League told you to ignore the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final and most essential command."

[Sideshow Tim 110]

What you drinking/smoking?! 

[canarydan23 4,060]

2 minutes ago, Sideshow Tim said:

What you drinking/smoking?! 

Scotch. Lots of it.

Oops.

Edited November 30, 2021 by canarydan23

[canarydan23 4,060]

So obvious I showed it twice.

[Sideshow Tim 110]

We gained 1 point more than we should have done tonight so perhaps the conspiracy theories should be placed towards the Worlds most expensive football club still not getting a win after 14 games?? 

Just saying? 

[Jim Smith 2,314]

The second half one was blatant too. Can’t wait to see the Leeds pen tonight. No doubt a similar incident 

[canarydan23 4,060]

Just now, Sideshow Tim said:

We gained 1 point more than we should have done tonight so perhaps the conspiracy theories should be placed towards the Worlds most expensive football club still not getting a win after 14 games?? 

Just saying? 

Or just answer why their's was a penalty but ours wasn't? The same people making the decision in the same game. What possible, sensible answer is there for one being a penalty and the other not?

[hogesar 9,618]

The fact there were two handballs in the area from Newcastle make it really hard to swallow when their only real chance came from a pen given due to...handball in the area from us.

[hogesar 9,618]

3 minutes ago, Sideshow Tim said:

We gained 1 point more than we should have done tonight so perhaps the conspiracy theories should be placed towards the Worlds most expensive football club still not getting a win after 14 games?? 

Just saying? 

How do you work that out?

[Sideshow Tim 110]

Whether it was or not, it's not about corruption is it?

More like incompatance?! 

[canarydan23 4,060]

1 minute ago, Sideshow Tim said:

Whether it was or not, it's not about corruption is it?

More like incompatance?! 

How? If they were incompetent, they get both wrong. Or are they only incompetent some of the time? If so, do they choose when to be? Sounds fine, that.

Edited November 30, 2021 by canarydan23

[Sideshow Tim 110]

1 minute ago, hogesar said:

How do you work that out?

We didn't deserve to get a draw tonight, we were woeful. 

[duke63 541]

9 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Scotch. Lots of it.

Oops.

Yep I said the same. What is the difference? Other than one club is owned by one of the richest families in the world and the other is a relative pauper.

[Branston Pickle 3,638]

5 minutes ago, Sideshow Tim said:

We gained 1 point more than we should have done tonight so perhaps the conspiracy theories should be placed towards the Worlds most expensive football club still not getting a win after 14 games?? 

Just saying? 

Eh?  They had 1 shot on target in the entire game, but we won one point more than we should.? Utter utter ****!!!

[hogesar 9,618]

Just now, Sideshow Tim said:

We didn't deserve to get a draw tonight, we were woeful. 

That's demonstrably false.

The only real chance Newcastle had was the penalty.

They were down to ten men, we didn't play great but we were more than value for a draw. We had 2 penalty shouts, created more chances, had more shots on target, had better quality chances, scored a great goal, missed a one-on-one.

To say we didn't deserve a draw is just absolute nonsense

[hogesar 9,618]

Just now, Branston Pickle said:

Eh?  They had 1 shot on target in the entire game, but we won one point more than we should.? Utter utter ****!!!

The bloke must have been watching the Leeds game or something, god knows.

[The Great Mass Debater 1,078]

Newcastle is a team the Premier League wants to keep in it's brand. The huge amount of money that will flood into that club and the massive signings they will surely make has them salivating. 

What do little old family run, self-sustaining Norwich have to offer the brand?

[The Great Mass Debater 1,078]

Newcastle would never have scored in a month of Sundays without being given that penalty. It was the right call, but there has to be consistency. If their's was a penalty, so was ours

[Nuff Said 5,092]

16 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Scotch. Lots of it.

Oops.

The picture proves nothing. You need to see the run-up to it. Yes, the ball hits his hand but it’s deflected on by one of our players from extremely close by. There’s no way he could have got out of the way.

Gilmour’s hand was above his shoulder, which apparently is specifically called out in the rules (although it was said on the match commentary that the rule is above the head, so there may be a tiny case there) and he was jumping into the flight of the ball as it was struck.

This was explained more than once on the Prime commentary, but lots of us seem to be wearing yellow and green ear plugs.

All this “corruption” conspiracy theory stuff is just embarrassing. That makes us look tinpot, not our results.

[Sideshow Tim 110]

9 minutes ago, hogesar said:

The bloke must have been watching the Leeds game or something, god knows.

Sorry, I thought this forum was about opinions?

We were rubbish tonight and didn't deserve anything from it.. That said I am happy with a point. 

[Branston Pickle 3,638]

6 minutes ago, The Great Mass Debater said:

Newcastle would never have scored in a month of Sundays without being given that penalty. It was the right call, but there has to be consistency. If their's was a penalty, so was ours

I was astounded, it didn’t even appear to be looked at or mentioned; there were actually two good shouts and IMO if the one against Gilmour was a pen, all three could easily have been.

[canarydan23 4,060]

1 minute ago, Nuff Said said:

The picture proves nothing. You need to see the run-up to it. Yes, the ball hits his hand but it’s deflected on by one of our players from extremely close by. There’s no way he could have got out of the way.

Gilmour’s hand was above his shoulder, which apparently is specifically called out in the rules (although it was said on the match commentary that the rule is above the head, so there may be a tiny case there) and he was jumping into the flight of the ball as it was struck.

This was explained more than once on the Prime commentary, but lots of us seem to be wearing yellow and green ear plugs.

All this “corruption” conspiracy theory stuff is just embarrassing. That makes us look tinpot, not our results.

 

1 minute ago, Nuff Said said:

The picture proves nothing. You need to see the run-up to it. Yes, the ball hits his hand but it’s deflected on by one of our players from extremely close by. There’s no way he could have got out of the way.

Gilmour’s hand was above his shoulder, which apparently is specifically called out in the rules (although it was said on the match commentary that the rule is above the head, so there may be a tiny case there) and he was jumping into the flight of the ball as it was struck.

This was explained more than once on the Prime commentary, but lots of us seem to be wearing yellow and green ear plugs.

All this “corruption” conspiracy theory stuff is just embarrassing. That makes us look tinpot, not our results.

As I said;

"And the Premier League told you to ignore the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final and most essential command."

You have complied.

[Canary Jedi 578]

Clattenburg said the defender was turning away from the ball and his arm didn’t make him any bigger.

But I have to say that still photograph  makes the decision look quite dodgy.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

2 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

The picture proves nothing. You need to see the run-up to it. Yes, the ball hits his hand but it’s deflected on by one of our players from extremely close by. There’s no way he could have got out of the way.

Gilmour’s hand was above his shoulder, which apparently is specifically called out in the rules (although it was said on the match commentary that the rule is above the head, so there may be a tiny case there) and he was jumping into the flight of the ball as it was struck.

This was explained more than once on the Prime commentary, but lots of us seem to be wearing yellow and green ear plugs.

All this “corruption” conspiracy theory stuff is just embarrassing. That makes us look tinpot, not our results.

It was explained by Mark Clattenburg in his geordie twang and his explanation was frankly complete bullsh*t that I’m surprised he could say with a straight face.

Of the two handball shouts (ignoring the blatant one we didn’t get in the second half) the one not given to us sees the defender making us body far more unnaturally bigger. 

[The Great Mass Debater 1,078]

5 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

The picture proves nothing. You need to see the run-up to it. Yes, the ball hits his hand but it’s deflected on by one of our players from extremely close by. There’s no way he could have got out of the way.

Gilmour’s hand was above his shoulder, which apparently is specifically called out in the rules (although it was said on the match commentary that the rule is above the head, so there may be a tiny case there) and he was jumping into the flight of the ball as it was struck.

This was explained more than once on the Prime commentary, but lots of us seem to be wearing yellow and green ear plugs.

All this “corruption” conspiracy theory stuff is just embarrassing. That makes us look tinpot, not our results.

 

The video is on the match thread, Jim Smith has it

[The Great Mass Debater 1,078]

Just use the slider and run that back and forth like they do with the VAR check and explain to me how that is not a penalty.

Arm in an unnatural position absolutely increasing the defenders 'size' and it changes the trajectory of a goal-bound header. Its a penalty. 

[chicken 2,605]

I think the keepers face at the end says a fair bit, he's looking to see if the assistant referee is going to suggest it was handball.

To be honest, I think it'd be a harsh handball if given going on that. There doesn't look to be too much power on the header so would have had to have been a brilliant flick to beat the keeper and I'm not sure the player had much time to get his arm out of the way, it was already there before the ball was headed and I'm sure he wasn't intending to handle it.

There is an argument to say that it may have prevented a goal so could have been given but I think it's pretty borderline IMHO. 

[The Great Mass Debater 1,078]

Need to make a gif of that ball hitting the arm and changing trajetory over and over again - not that I know how to do such internet wizardry