A lot has been said about Chelsea's offside goal against us...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by splott parker

On holiday the other week and on two separate occasions blokes came up to me and brought the subject up about our misfortunes with refereeing decisions. One was a Sheffield Utd fan who was expecting the same treatment next season. It seems our woes hadn’t gone unnoticed by others. I was obviously recognised due to me sporting a Bluebird thong👍

---

Burnley fan was telling me the same a few days ago

as I've said before...if the gunnar foul on the chelsea centre back at chelseas first corner was given...the fouls on morrison and the offside goal wouldn't have happened.
and as for bambas offside goal being marginal..dream on..he was around the same distance offside as dave was for chelsea...have another look.
i have to say that morrison generally has bern grabbed a lot..and it's not as if it's a 50/50 thing as all morrison ever wants to do is head the ball.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kendoddsdadsdogsdead

as I've said before...if the gunnar foul on the chelsea centre back at chelseas first corner was given...the fouls on morrison and the offside goal wouldn't have happened.
and as for bambas offside goal being marginal..dream on..he was around the same distance offside as dave was for chelsea...have another look.
i have to say that morrison generally has bern grabbed a lot..and it's not as if it's a 50/50 thing as all morrison ever wants to do is head the ball.

---

The sedate about the Bamba one was whether the ball was flicked on by one of ours or one of theirs.

It was also pretty chaotic in there.

The Chelsea offside would have been obvious for the linesman had he not decided not to try to look around William.

Agree on the Gunnar one, but the same could be said of the Huddersfield penalty after we’d had one turned down

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUETIT

The reversal of the pelanty awarded at Burnley !!!

---

That though was the right decision :facepalm:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trigger

Our goal to win at home against Brighton was pretty bad. I firmly believe that Chelsea result would have inspired us and Brighton would have shit themselves.

Flip it around though and without that win against Brighton maybe we never get close enough to test them.

For me the non award of the penalty home to Watford was the worst of the lot. Ref has clear sight of it, not far from him and its nailed on. He actually saw it far closer than I did and decided not to give it. Least with Chelsea the linesman didn't get himself in the right position to have a choice to make.

---

So we lose 5-2 to Watford? I don't see the significance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cretin Hop

That though was the right decision :facepalm:

---

See post on page 1

No it was not wrong, in fact we should have had 2 pelantys

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYCBlue

So we lose 5-2 to Watford? I don't see the significance.

---

It would have made it 1-1 at half time.

No way would we have lost 5-2 from there.

At the end of the day though it’s all done and dusted now . It won’t change so we move on

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lawnmower

It would have made it 1-1 at half time.

No way would we have lost 5-2 from there.

At the end of the day though it’s all done and dusted now . It won’t change so we move on

---

You're right that nothing will change. But Watford DESTROYED us over both games. That 3-2 up at their place was an insult to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYCBlue

You're right that nothing will change. But Watford DESTROYED us over both games. That 3-2 up at their place was an insult to them.

---

Strange game that, lashing down with rain, absolutely battered for 80 odd minutes then we score and they panicked, we get another and they were melting. Another five minutes and I’d have backed us to draw level. It was amazing how they switched off after being so much in control. Unfortunately for them they displayed that ten minutes of defending for ninety minutes yesterday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by splott parker

On holiday the other week and on two separate occasions blokes came up to me and brought the subject up about our misfortunes with refereeing decisions. One was a Sheffield Utd fan who was expecting the same treatment next season. It seems our woes hadn’t gone unnoticed by others. I was obviously recognised due to me sporting a Bluebird thong��

---

I've recently had similar comments from Sheffield United, Sheffield Wednesday, Man United and West Ham fans (all accompanied by commiserations and sympathies about the Emiliano Sala tragedy). I think most pundits and opposition fans would agree that Cardiff (and Huddersfield) had the rough end of the stick with refereeing decisions last season. Got a few in our favour; got a lot against.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYCBlue

You're right that nothing will change. But Watford DESTROYED us over both games. That 3-2 up at their place was an insult to them.

---

It certainly was one sided st Vicerage Road. Could and should have been 5/1 there

But they destroyed us at ours due to us having to go at them.

At 1-1 we still would have been in it.
Warnock said the penalty decision ripped the guts out of our players, who up until then had been doing OK.

No guarantee at all that they would have gone on to beat us from there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lawnmower

No guarantee at all that they would have gone on to beat us from there.

---

No guarantee at all that City would have scored the penalty to make it 1-1 either.

:thumbup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the comedy penalty at Old Trafford last weekend. Can you imagine Warnock's reaction if a penalty like that had been given against City in a game that had something riding on it? Oddly, he didn't complain about the quality of the officials at Manchester.

---

The ref knew we were down by then, would never have been awarded if we had needed 3 points to stay up!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by life on mars

If our home results had been better against Burnely, Huddersfield, Leicester and Newcastle , these decisions would not be such a talking point .

---

But they would because there we so many blatantly against us, if we would have stayed up it would have been despite them!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman

No guarantee at all that City would have scored the penalty to make it 1-1 either.

:thumbup:

---

Christ you're a glass-half-empty man!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman

No guarantee at all that City would have scored the penalty to make it 1-1 either.

:thumbup:

---

That is fair point. No Camerasa that night either

Watford stuffed us twice and I'm 90% certain they would have done so even if we had been given that penalty and scored it. That non decision is a distraction in a thread like this in my view - surely it's the games where controversial refereeing decisions obviously cost us the points which would have kept us up which should take priority?

Cunningham at Everton, the multitude of poor decisions in the Chelsea game and the matches at Burnley (there's no way their second goal would have been scored in that manner if the score was 1-1 at the time) and Fulham are all examples of games which could have finished with a better result for us if official interpretations had been more favourable to us - we're talking six points there and, even if you take away the two wrongly gained against Brighton that would still leave us a couple of points above the relegation positions.

Yes, I appreciate this is over simplifying things, but none of the decisions in question would have been as blatantly wrong as Chelsea's equaliser was if they had been given in our favour.

It's relevant as well that fans from other clubs seem to agree that we had a rougher time of it at the hands of the officials than most and, to be honest, I don't get the arguments from some on here (like, for example, the one about none of the incidents which went against us in the Chelsea game would have occurred if Gunnar had been penalised at the first corner) that anyone who is pointing out something which, to me, seems perfectly obvious is being one eyed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

Watford stuffed us twice and I'm 90% certain they would have done so even if we had been given that penalty and scored it. That non decision is a distraction in a thread like this in my view - surely it's the games where controversial refereeing decisions obviously cost us the points which would have kept us up which should take priority?

Cunningham at Everton, the multitude of poor decisions in the Chelsea game and the matches at Burnley (there's no way their second goal would have been scored in that manner if the score was 1-1 at the time) and Fulham are all examples of games which could have finished with a better result for us if official interpretations had been more favourable to us - we're talking six points there and, even if you take away the two wrongly gained against Brighton that would still leave us a couple of points above the relegation positions.

Yes, I appreciate this is over simplifying things, but none of the decisions in question would have been as blatantly wrong as Chelsea's equaliser was if they had been given in our favour.

It's relevant as well that fans from other clubs seem to agree that we had a rougher time of it at the hands of the officials than most and, to be honest, I don't get the arguments from some on here (like, for example, the one about none of the incidents which went against us in the Chelsea game would have occurred if Gunnar had been penalised at the first corner) that anyone who is pointing out something which, to me, seems perfectly obvious is being one eyed.

---

...which bit of it don't you get Bob?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kendoddsdadsdogsdead

...which bit of it don't you get Bob?

---

How you can jump to a conclusion like that.

what conclusion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kendoddsdadsdogsdead

what conclusion?

---

Forget it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

Forget it

---

...sorry paul..just wondering if you're aware of the chaos theory...if the chelsea pen is rightly given and it's scored or missed..the whole game pans out different to the one we saw..including iffy decisions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kendoddsdadsdogsdead

...sorry paul..just wondering if you're aware of the chaos theory...if the chelsea pen is rightly given and it's scored or missed..the whole game pans out different to the one we saw..including iffy decisions.

---

...it's akin to saying if we'd scored those 2 last min pens against wolves we would have won...wrong..if we'd scored the first one the second wouldn't have happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kendoddsdadsdogsdead

...it's akin to saying if we'd scored those 2 last min pens against wolves we would have won...wrong..if we'd scored the first one the second wouldn't have happened.

---

I agree about the Wolves game - it finishes 1-1 if Madine scores his penalty.

However, the Chelsea game is different surely. Chelsea are awarded a penalty for Gunnar's foul and score from it, so that means that, at best from a City perspective, all of the game's other controversial incidents, apart from one, occur with us either drawing or losing (i.e. a situation where we would be expected to have a more attacking attitude than we would have had in the way the match panned out in reality). If anything, that would mean us pumping or throwing more high balls into the Chelsea goalmouth from dead ball situations and more opportunities for the sort of challenges on Morrison that the pundits on Match of the Day agreed should have resulted in two penalties for us (I don't see that a difference in the score at the time would affect the way Chelsea "handled" the threat posed by our captain).

I accept that Chelsea would not have been as light at the back when Rudiger brought down Zohore late on if the score had been 2-1 to them rather than 1-1, but I don't believe that it was solely the fact that they were losing which enabled Chelsea to gain the corner they equalised from - they would have just as likely have got it if the score was 1-1 at the time and the linesman would have made the same, truly dreadful, error either way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

However, the Chelsea game is different surely. Chelsea are awarded a penalty for Gunnar's foul and score from it, so that means that, at best from a City perspective, all of the game's other controversial incidents, apart from one, occur with us either drawing or losing....

---

I don't think you're getting this at all.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman

I don't think you're getting this at all.....

---

...hallelujah!!!...dave..he's not got it at all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kendoddsdadsdogsdead

...hallelujah!!!...dave..he's not got it at all

---

..there's fact and conjecture

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bluebina

The ref knew we were down by then, would never have been awarded if we had needed 3 points to stay up!!!

---

It was like a token gesture wasn’t it? Here you are Neil have this one now as we know we’ve ballsed up so often this season, have a win on us at Man Utd for a bit of goodwill....sneaky****ers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kendoddsdadsdogsdead

...hallelujah!!!...dave..he's not got it at all

---

Interesting that you refer to the Wolves game as the example to back up what you say. As I mentioned, I agree that the second penalty would not have happened if we'd scored the first one and, in fact, said that very thing either on my blog or on here in the days following the game. However, whereas you appear to put this down to chaos theory, I base my opinion on the view that if Madine had scored, especially with so little time left, both sides would have been happy to settle for a 1-1 draw rather than risk losing the game in pursuit of a winner.

The game you refer to would have ended with two teams prepared to see the remaining minute or two out with an outcome they could both live with. This, plainly, would not have been the case if Chelsea had taken the lead early on with a penalty awarded for the foul by Gunnar. It is my opinion that two things would have happened then.

First, a lifetime watching the game has shown me that, unless they are trying to turn around an aggregate deficit in a two leg tie, teams become more circumspect to different degrees when they go ahead in a match. Second, nearly three years of watching Neil Warnock's City side has taught me that we go even more direct if we fall behind. Therefore, we would have been likely to see more dead ball deliveries into the Chelsea penalty area not less and, given the way they "marked" Sean Morrison throughout that afternoon there would be a strong chance of more penalty shouts for the officials to deal with.

I say this not because I don't "get" chaos theory, but because I believe more in the practicalities of football - you and Dave are the ones trying to use references to complex mathematical theory to, for some reason, deny what was obvious to anyone who was watching the match impartially, not me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

I say this not because I don't "get" chaos theory, but because I believe more in the practicalities of football - you and Dave are the ones trying to use references to complex mathematical theory to, for some reason, deny what was obvious to anyone who was watching the match impartially, not me.

---

You've lost it.

This is not about complex mathematical theories. It's about reality. If the penalty was given to Chelsea for the early foul, the whole game changes immediately regardless of whether Chelsea score it or not. That's not an opinion based on watching the game or otherwise. It's just the way the world works.