• Manchester United Message Board

  • Any Man U fans (not others),admit

    That the first goal was scored after the injury time whistle should have gone.

    Also that Saha's penalty was not a penalty...there was not enough contact to knock an ant out of it's stride and he went down like he had been shot with a Howitzer from point blank range.

    Yes Man U were the better side but it could and should have been nil nil. (Assuming the Evra penalty was still (wrongly) not given.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • I agree ref may not sending Obi off.
      I agree ref may not award a penalty to Saha.
      I agree ref may blew the whistle when United attacking at Chelsea's box.

      Plus,

      The ref already miss the Evra incident in the box
      The ref booked Rooney on a Cole's dive.
      The ref didn't send Joe Cole off for a much worse challenge.

      And we are playing at home.

      This ref has no side business with Roman.

      So why he has to give Chelsea all the advantages in all decisions?

    • OK Kipper let's see if I can help, although all your points have been fully answered by Man. Utd. fans in other threads. You ask can we admit 1. That the first goal was scored after the injury time whistle should have gone. - The fourth official indicated a minimum of 2 minutes and the goal was scored after 3 minutes. As Ian Harris explained the rules still leave the actual time in the hands of the referee. He must play a MINIMUM of 2 minutes, but can add any further time lost and can keep play going while one of the teams is still attacking. 2. That Saha's penalty was not a penalty and ... that he went down like he had been shot with a Howitzer from point blank range. - Ben Haim fouled him but yes, but he made an absolute meal out of it and I really wish he hadn't. It didn't change the overall result and I accept the referee was technically right to penalise the foul, but it was very harsh. I would rather have had the blatant Cole penalty on Evra to get an early goal instead of an irrelevant last minute goal. 3. Yes Man U were the better side but it could and should have been nil nil. (Assuming the Evra penalty was still (wrongly) not given. - Now I don't see how anybody can admit it should have been 0-0. Once a game moves on you never know what the alternative outcome would have been. On all measures it should have been a United win, which is how it turned out. Hope this answers your three questions.

    • No
      Simply because , despite outpourings from the media, the extra time is a minimum figure, so 32 seconds more is not unusual or wrong, and Saha's leg was hit, however slightly, in the area.
      What I find even stranger is the reaction to a dangerous tackle by Mikel and an even more dangerous one from Cole. They were both strong candidates for a red card, one was shown. By comparison, Rooney's incident with Cole was silly but not remotely dangerous , yet he is demonised as usual.
      Its difficult for any fan to watch incidents dispassionately , but I found the Sky commentary biased against United and the press dribblings this morning as generally London biased as usual.

    • Can you admit Chelski should have had joe Cole sent off?

      Can you admit that United were CHEATED out of a penalty when Cole brought down Evra?

      Can you admit that there WAS contact on Saha?

      Can you admit that Mikel had his studs showing on Evras ankle which by law CAN be given as a red card.

      All that talk fro you bin dippers and now look, our worst start and already we're above you!!!! Hahaha nice diving by torres against Porto. What a cheat!

    • kipper, I've got the game on tape ... the ref looked at his watch a few times, he didn't like the time wasting and added another minute, as he's entitled to do, the two minutes is a minimum, not a maximum.

      The penalty was just that, a penalty. I suggest you look at the rules, the ref could have given a penalty even if there was NO contact, let alone the TWO contacts in this case.

      Now, you answer this ... should Cole have been red carded for the foul on Ronaldo, and should United have been awarded a penalty for the foul on Rooney?

      • 2 Replies to A Yahoo! User
      • Villa fan Ian,been one since the late 70's.

        Back A. Yes it was a red 4 J Cole and it was a penalty for Evra. There can be no doubt about those two.

        However,as a neutral,i find it amazing that Man U fans are happy to say that Saha's was a penalty.

        In my opinion any fan would be mortified to have that decision go against them. Saha should be banned retrospectivly.(IN MY OPINON)

        The only thing i can think off is that the ref realised he made a mistake with Evra and tried to make ammends with Saha.

        THANKS FOR THE MEASURED RESPONSES FROM ALL YOU GUYS.

      • Oops, I've got Rooney on the brain, that should have read ..

        " ... and should United have been awarded a penalty for the foul on Evra?"

    • I havent seen it yet Kipper. I listened to 606 after the match and Spoony (completely biased Liverpool fan) said that it was a penalty, however Saha dived. If thats true then its a big shame.

      Also, you cannot say that it would have been 0-0 had the goal in the first half not have been. At times, some of our players were walking round the pitch in the second half at 1-0.