Referee criticism

[Cripps]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/31698123

Why am I not surprised?

[StokeFan]

Well if Steve Bruce says it must be true.

[Va-Va-Voom]

Well if Steve Bruce says it must be true.

Ireland deliberately studded a Hull player, Figueroa gave him one back and he came off worse. It was tit for tat and Ireland lost.

[StokeFan]

Well if Steve Bruce says it must be true.

Ireland deliberately studded a Hull player, Figueroa gave him one back and he came off worse. It was tit for tat and Ireland lost.

Hahahaha, typical Arsenal fan. Can't be objective at all.

Ireland went over the top of the ball, a poor and unnecessary challenge but certainly not intent to hurt the player. Figueroa's was revenge (notice the difference right there) and went out to hurt Ireland. Both were bad tackles, both were daft, but only one had the intention to cause a catastrophic injury.

I suppose that's what I'm used to though, Arsenal fans all for justifying bad tackles on Stoke players... after all, there's no hypocrisy there is there.

Dear me....

[Dubs4Sam]

Well if Steve Bruce says it must be true.

Yep when it comes to this incident he sure is

[Cripps]

So Ireland has no intent to hurt the player? Stoke players never do apparently yet it just keeps happening.

Somehow Figueroa did intend it though

The victim card Stoke are famous for playing is happening.

[Vinny]

Well if Steve Bruce says it must be true.

Ireland deliberately studded a Hull player, Figueroa gave him one back and he came off worse. It was tit for tat and Ireland lost.

Hahahaha, typical Arsenal fan. Can't be objective at all.

Ireland went over the top of the ball, a poor and unnecessary challenge but certainly not intent to hurt the player. Figueroa's was revenge (notice the difference right there) and went out to hurt Ireland. Both were bad tackles, both were daft, but only one had the intention to cause a catastrophic injury.

I suppose that's what I'm used to though, Arsenal fans all for justifying bad tackles on Stoke players... after all, there's no hypocrisy there is there.

Dear me....

You can't possibly know this.

[StLGooner]

Video technology doesn't always work. We got f***ked over at the weekend because the camera didn't cover the middle of the field and the player on the wing on the camera side. Couldn't prove he was onside even though it's clear from the run made. Cause the technology can't show a still picture of it, it's disallowed and cost us the game.

So even if they bring it in, there will still be moaning to go on. Things like this are still going on and we brought it in with Rugby League and still can't get it right.

But on the other subject. It's harder for refs these days. Players are always trying to con them all the time and every decision is looked at over and over again all over the internet.

One thing they should take from Rugby League is respect for the referee. It gets drilled into you at a young age to call the ref 'sir' and the respect seems to stick. I also like that the ref has a headset on and you can hear him on SKY. You can see/hear such a good relationship with him and the players, even if a player doesn't agree with the decision.

Right! Some people think that if it's on video then there aren't any questions, but sometimes it just adds more questions, cause video doesn't capture everything. We see it here all the time in the NFL and the few other sports it is utilized in. There isn't a perfect system. However, as far as the bias, that is obviously wrong and needs to be dealt with, but for the most part I feel for refs in many sports. We as fans get to see things in slow motion replay and tend to get upset when the ref gets it wrong but at full speed. I don't blame refs for the most part. I couldn't be one that's for sure, and I think they have a very tough job and don't get enough credit at times for the calls they do get right.

[Va-Va-Voom]

Well if Steve Bruce says it must be true.

Ireland deliberately studded a Hull player, Figueroa gave him one back and he came off worse. It was tit for tat and Ireland lost.

Hahahaha, typical Arsenal fan. Can't be objective at all.

Ireland went over the top of the ball, a poor and unnecessary challenge but certainly not intent to hurt the player. Figueroa's was revenge (notice the difference right there) and went out to hurt Ireland. Both were bad tackles, both were daft, but only one had the intention to cause a catastrophic injury.

I suppose that's what I'm used to though, Arsenal fans all for justifying bad tackles on Stoke players... after all, there's no hypocrisy there is there.

Dear me....

Did you not read my post?

I said Figueroa "gave him one back and it was tit for tat" i.e. revenge.

Lol, I love how you admit that Ireland's challenge was "poor" and "unnecessary" but concluded he didn't mean to hurt anyone... tell me what Ireland's intention was in making that challenge then?

In my eyes anytime a player deliberately studs someone it was done with the intention of hurting them - otherwise why would they do it, what is the point?

As I said, Ireland stamped on a Hull player and Figueroa returned the favour.

And I'm not justifying anything, just pointing out the way football works: if you dish out the rough stuff you can expect to get it back - you know that so stop acting naive.

[StokeFan]

Mark Clattenburg was excellent last night.

[GoonerAlexandre]

Well if Steve Bruce says it must be true.

Ireland deliberately studded a Hull player, Figueroa gave him one back and he came off worse. It was tit for tat and Ireland lost.

Hahahaha, typical Arsenal fan. Can't be objective at all.

Ireland went over the top of the ball, a poor and unnecessary challenge but certainly not intent to hurt the player. Figueroa's was revenge (notice the difference right there) and went out to hurt Ireland. Both were bad tackles, both were daft, but only one had the intention to cause a catastrophic injury.

I suppose that's what I'm used to though, Arsenal fans all for justifying bad tackles on Stoke players... after all, there's no hypocrisy there is there.

Dear me....

Man, how do you measure intent to maim on a screen?

[StokeFan]

Well if Steve Bruce says it must be true.

Ireland deliberately studded a Hull player, Figueroa gave him one back and he came off worse. It was tit for tat and Ireland lost.

Hahahaha, typical Arsenal fan. Can't be objective at all.

Ireland went over the top of the ball, a poor and unnecessary challenge but certainly not intent to hurt the player. Figueroa's was revenge (notice the difference right there) and went out to hurt Ireland. Both were bad tackles, both were daft, but only one had the intention to cause a catastrophic injury.

I suppose that's what I'm used to though, Arsenal fans all for justifying bad tackles on Stoke players... after all, there's no hypocrisy there is there.

Dear me....

Man, how do you measure intent to maim on a screen?

I dunno., You seemed to work it out with the whole Shawcross Ramsey incident, so I'll leave it up to you, you are the expert after all.

[Va-Va-Voom]

Round of applause for Michael Oliver.

Superb game and got two crucial decisions correct. Didn't know any referee had the gumption to deny United a last minute penalty at OT - luckily he has integrity and saw the horrific dive for what it was.

Time Magazine Person of the Year for 2015.

[UFGN]

Round of applause for Michael Oliver.

Superb game and got two crucial decisions correct. Didn't know any referee had the gumption to deny United a last minute penalty at OT - luckily he has integrity and saw the horrific dive for what it was.

Time Magazine Person of the Year for 2015.

Hear hear. Future Fifa world cup referee there. The guy's got a massive pair

[Leody]

That would have certainly been a penalty under Fergie... Great call on the dive that it was!