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.
Reply With Quote