Bovril 264 Posted September 19, 2009 I''m convinced after such an appauling performance that he gave us that holt goal as a form of an apology...Strange I know, but how many times have we seen that kind of ''goal'' been ruled out for some sort of foul on the keeper...i waited and waited for the whistle to blow for a foul but to me delight he gave the goal...would he have given it if the crowd wasn''t on his back the whole game for an inept performance? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brendo 0 Posted September 19, 2009 [quote user="The Lord"]I''m convinced after such an appauling performance that he gave us that holt goal as a form of an apology...Strange I know, but how many times have we seen that kind of ''goal'' been ruled out for some sort of foul on the keeper...i waited and waited for the whistle to blow for a foul but to me delight he gave the goal...would he have given it if the crowd wasn''t on his back the whole game for an inept performance?[/quote]Well said, Me and my brother both thought it would be ruled out. Good idea, sounds plausable. But to be fair, if we are abusing the ref, surely he would be then less likely to favour us, as he would be a bit peed off at our fans. On the other hand, he would want to prove he is actually a good ref! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Bump 0 Posted September 19, 2009 [quote user="Brendan"][quote user="The Lord"]I''m convinced after such an appauling performance that he gave us that holt goal as a form of an apology...Strange I know, but how many times have we seen that kind of ''goal'' been ruled out for some sort of foul on the keeper...i waited and waited for the whistle to blow for a foul but to me delight he gave the goal...would he have given it if the crowd wasn''t on his back the whole game for an inept performance?[/quote]Well said, Me and my brother both thought it would be ruled out. Good idea, sounds plausable. But to be fair, if we are abusing the ref, surely he would be then less likely to favour us, as he would be a bit peed off at our fans. On the other hand, he would want to prove he is actually a good ref![/quote]But can you imagine the crowd if he had disallowed it? He wouldn''t want to aggravate the crowd even more Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
curnster 0 Posted September 19, 2009 [quote user="The Lord"]I''m convinced after such an appauling performance that he gave us that holt goal as a form of an apology...Strange I know, but how many times have we seen that kind of ''goal'' been ruled out for some sort of foul on the keeper...i waited and waited for the whistle to blow for a foul but to me delight he gave the goal...would he have given it if the crowd wasn''t on his back the whole game for an inept performance?[/quote] You''re absolutely right Lord. I heard a few people saying the same on the way out. Referees are such cowards that they tend to bottle what they actually think and alternate the big decisions when they don''t know any better. The ref knew he''s got it properly wrong in not sending Bailey off for a shocker in the first half and clearly thought he would give us the doubt if another big decision came his way. On another day he would have given a cheap free-kick against the keeper, despite there not actually being a foul. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCFC_Thain 0 Posted September 20, 2009 [quote user="curnster"][quote user="The Lord"]I''m convinced after such an appauling performance that he gave us that holt goal as a form of an apology...Strange I know, but how many times have we seen that kind of ''goal'' been ruled out for some sort of foul on the keeper...i waited and waited for the whistle to blow for a foul but to me delight he gave the goal...would he have given it if the crowd wasn''t on his back the whole game for an inept performance?[/quote] You''re absolutely right Lord. I heard a few people saying the same on the way out. Referees are such cowards that they tend to bottle what they actually think and alternate the big decisions when they don''t know any better. The ref knew he''s got it properly wrong in not sending Bailey off for a shocker in the first half and clearly thought he would give us the doubt if another big decision came his way. On another day he would have given a cheap free-kick against the keeper, despite there not actually being a foul.[/quote] TBH that''s a load of bollocks. Tanner has reffed lot bigger games than this, I''m sure he didn''t care one bit about the crowd. But of course you need to be a coward to put yourself in a position where everyone hates you, sounds like cowardly behaviour to me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fuglestad 0 Posted September 20, 2009 He was very poor. I think most referees try to "even it out" if they think they''ve made a mistake, by giving a few they''re not sure about to the team who have been treated harshly before. The one thing that really annoyed me about the ref, was his special handshake and little chat with Deon Burton right before kick off, and constant little chats with Charlton players even when the game was in progress. I don''t think players and referees should be "mates" with players and I''m sure you used to be booked for any physical contact with the ref, friendly or otherwise. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
G 0 Posted September 20, 2009 [quote user="The Lord"]I''m convinced after such an appauling performance that he gave us that holt goal as a form of an apology...Strange I know, but how many times have we seen that kind of ''goal'' been ruled out for some sort of foul on the keeper...i waited and waited for the whistle to blow for a foul but to me delight he gave the goal...would he have given it if the crowd wasn''t on his back the whole game for an inept performance?[/quote]Not as an apology. He was just diabolical. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
