Huddersfield 0-3 Man City - Sunday 20th January, 2019

[Stan 6,181]

Kick-off 13.30

Live on Sky Sports

     VS     

Head to Head
Man City 6-1 Huddersfield
Man City 0-0 Huddersfield
Huddersfield 1-2 Man City
Man City 5-1 Huddersfield (FA Cup)
Huddersfield 0-0 Man City (FA Cup)

Recent Form
Huddersfield - DLLLL
Man City - WWWWW

[Gunnersauraus 492]

Man city should be looking to score every 30 seconds so I'm going for 180.0 

[Rick 795]

Come on Huddersfield.....👀

[Stan 6,181]

 

[Mel81x 1,147]

Has the working of a trashing in the making but Huddersfield have the hoodoo of a new manager which generally pumps players up. Still don't think they have enough to overcome this City side. 

[Pyfish 412]

Well that’s my FPL week screwed if Jesus isn’t starting!

[Rick 795]

Nah.... Huddersfield are gonna do fuck all.

[LFCMike 1,002]

22/1 for a Premier League team to win a home game

[RandoEFC 3,140]

OfFiCiAtInG iN tHiS lEaGuE iS aT a HiGhEr StAnDaRd ThAn It HaS eVeR bEeN. 

[RandoEFC 3,140]

Man City lead, Huddersfield pay the price for making zero effort to close down the ball in their own third as Danilos long range effort deflects past the keeper.

[LFCMike 1,002]

23 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

OfFiCiAtInG iN tHiS lEaGuE iS aT a HiGhEr StAnDaRd ThAn It HaS eVeR bEeN. 

Why do people do this?

[RandoEFC 3,140]

5 minutes ago, LFCMike said:

Why do people do this?

What criticise refs or the CaPs thing?

[LFCMike 1,002]

6 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

What criticise refs or the CaPs thing?

The caps thing. Is it to show everyone how angry you are?

[RandoEFC 3,140]

Just now, LFCMike said:

The caps thing. Is it to show everyone how angry you are?

Nah it's a childish internet thing to express sarcasm or doing an impression of someone who says stupid stuff.

E.g. you guys could have made a habit of posting "SaLaH dOeSn'T iMpRoVe Us ThOuGh" throughout last season every time he scored.

[RandoEFC 3,140]

It's a lovely second goal, Sane looks to have been an inch or two offside before providing the cross to Sterling. City have been pretty complacent here but looks like they'll get away with it.

[Mel81x 1,147]

And just like that its 3 goals for City. Punishment eminent now.

[Rick 795]

Pep must have given them the hairdryer at half time.

[Guest Cannabis]

 

[Gunnersauraus 492]

2 hours ago, RandoEFC said:

Nah it's a childish internet thing to express sarcasm or doing an impression of someone who says stupid stuff.

E.g. you guys could have made a habit of posting "SaLaH dOeSn'T iMpRoVe Us ThOuGh" throughout last season every time he scored.

Stupid stuff that has been studied heavily. Your very biased anyway a few weeks a go you moaned you should have had a penalty's against Chelsea and forgot to mention they should have as well

 

 

According to the PGMO (Professional Game Match Officials) Premier League referee makes around 245 decisions per game, three times more than an average player touches the ball over 90 minutes. That's one decision every 22 seconds.

Approximately 45 of these decisions are technical - whether goal-kicks, corners or throw-ins - leaving around 200 decisions to judging physical contact and disciplinary actions.

Of those 200, around 35 are visible decisions where an action is taken (fouls, restarts), and 165 are non-visible, where play is allowed to continue.

In total, refs make around five errors per game, meaning they are right 98 per cent of the time.

The number of decisions referees have to make has increased by around three per cent in each of the last two seasons, and that is only likely to go up in the coming years as discussion around rule changes intensifies.

 

[RandoEFC 3,140]

15 minutes ago, Gunnersauraus said:

Stupid stuff that has been studied heavily. Your very biased anyway a few weeks a go you moaned you should have had a penalty's against Chelsea and forgot to mention they should have as well

 

 

According to the PGMO (Professional Game Match Officials) Premier League referee makes around 245 decisions per game, three times more than an average player touches the ball over 90 minutes. That's one decision every 22 seconds.

Approximately 45 of these decisions are technical - whether goal-kicks, corners or throw-ins - leaving around 200 decisions to judging physical contact and disciplinary actions.

Of those 200, around 35 are visible decisions where an action is taken (fouls, restarts), and 165 are non-visible, where play is allowed to continue.

In total, refs make around five errors per game, meaning they are right 98 per cent of the time.

The number of decisions referees have to make has increased by around three per cent in each of the last two seasons, and that is only likely to go up in the coming years as discussion around rule changes intensifies.

 

Only skim read the rest of your post because of this nonsense here. Firstly we last played Chelsea in mid-November and secondly neither side had a serious penalty appeal in that game, though if they did I'd happily acknowledge it as soon as complain about it on our behalf if the roles were reversed.

As to PGMOL or whatever they're called, these statistics are meaningless when there are so many grey areas in football rules that even qualified referees often disagree on their interpretation of the laws and half of them make it up as they go along. The referees union only admits one of their colleagues have made a mistake if it really is an absolute howler beyond all doubt. Also find it hard to give any credence to the percentage of calls they get right when most of them are awarding throw ins and goal kicks to the right team when the balls been twatted into the stands by an obvious player.

You see shocking calls every week. Its obviously not every decision but it does frequently affect matches. This time I'm referring to Sterling getting absolutely clobbered by a Huddersfield defender who's tackle didn't even come within 6 inches of making contact with the ball yet the referee and linesman somehow both missed it.

I'm not into abusing referees, they do a tough job at this level, but I'm not swallowing statistics from the referees union telling me that referees in their union are actually quite good. Let's see some data from a third party with no obvious agenda at least before I reconsider my opinion. I still think there's a lot of room for improvement in aspects of officiating in the Premier League.

[Gunnersauraus 492]

16 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

Only skim read the rest of your post because of this nonsense here. Firstly we last played Chelsea in mid-November and secondly neither side had a serious penalty appeal in that game, though if they did I'd happily acknowledge it as soon as complain about it on our behalf if the roles were reversed.

As to PGMOL or whatever they're called, these statistics are meaningless when there are so many grey areas in football rules that even qualified referees often disagree on their interpretation of the laws and half of them make it up as they go along. The referees union only admits one of their colleagues have made a mistake if it really is an absolute howler beyond all doubt. Also find it hard to give any credence to the percentage of calls they get right when most of them are awarding throw ins and goal kicks to the right team when the balls been twatted into the stands by an obvious player.

You see shocking calls every week. Its obviously not every decision but it does frequently affect matches. This time I'm referring to Sterling getting absolutely clobbered by a Huddersfield defender who's tackle didn't even come within 6 inches of making contact with the ball yet the referee and linesman somehow both missed it.

I'm not into abusing referees, they do a tough job at this level, but I'm not swallowing statistics from the referees union telling me that referees in their union are actually quite good. Let's see some data from a third party with no obvious agenda at least before I reconsider my opinion. I still think there's a lot of room for improvement in aspects of officiating in the Premier League.

There were 2 penalty claims in the Chelsea game I remember it very clearly. There's was more clear cut than yours which you forgot to mention. Although they were lucky to not have a man sent of.

I agree it would be better of done by a third party however it is still more reliable than fans with biases and a lack of understanding of the interpretation of the rules. You say you don't abuse referees but you do all the time. In fact I think you are one of the most biased posters on here towards your own team with referee decisions. 

[RandoEFC 3,140]

17 minutes ago, Gunnersauraus said:

There were 2 penalty claims in the Chelsea game I remember it very clearly. There's was more clear cut than yours which you forgot to mention. Although they were lucky to not have a man sent of.

I agree it would be better of done by a third party however it is still more reliable than fans with biases and a lack of understanding of the interpretation of the rules. You say you don't abuse referees but you do all the time. In fact I think you are one of the most biased posters on here towards your own team with referee decisions. 

Do you know which team I support? Because we didn't play Chelsea a few weeks ago, and I'd remember if there were significant penalty shouts. What I do remember is that Jorginho could have been sent off for a challenge on Sigurdsson, because that was debated after the game on multiple occasions, and in fact I wasn't in support of it being a red initially where many non-Everton fans said he should have been off and actually swayed my opinion. You've mentioned that in your post so at least I know we're talking about the same match now, probably.

It's baffling by the way that you're accusing me of forgetting to mention Chelsea's penalty shout when you're the one who brought that game up. And if I was as biased as you seem to think I'd surely remember any penalty shouts we'd had in that game.

As for the abuse part, you've got a very strange idea of what abuse is. Calling out poor refereeing decisions on an internet forum without even mentioning the official by name is not abuse. If I was at the game yelling that he was a cunt or taking to Twitter and sending him aggressive tweets then that would be abuse. What I've said in this thread and others about poor decisions is about as close to 'abuse' as me criticising Everton's performances on a weekly basis on an internet forum. Criticism and abuse are completely different things.

As for the bias thing, again I'm struggling to see where you're coming from. This started with me pointing out a shocking decision made in Huddersfield's favour against Manchester City, neither of whom (and try not to fall out of your chair here) are Everton, so how that prompted you to call me biased as a counter argument I don't know. To my memory, the most recent example you'll find of me bitching about a decision that went against my team was Calvert-Lewin's goal against Spurs that got disallowed and shouldn't have been.

I'm sure there have been others since where I've whinged in the heat of the moment but that's no different to any football fan. I might be wrong but I'd imagine you'd be looking a while to find many other people on this forum who would name me as one of the most biased fans when it comes to referees. I try my best to be balanced even if you may think I go over the top criticising referees, that doesn't just happen from Everton related decisions so it's not born out of any bias.

[Gunnersauraus 492]

I never said you played them a few weeks ago it was a game that stuck in my mind. There were 2 moderate penalty appeals in the game. However I will admit it is likely you were referring to the jorginho foul and not saying Everton should have had a penalty.

In general though I think fans are biased and I think there is a lot of disrespect for referees. They have a very hard job and the referees accosiation does put a lot of time and effort into increasing the standard. You get howlers of course you do. But to say the standard is poor is unfair in my opinion. 

[Stan 6,181]

The standard is poor but what grates on me most is the inconsistency of some decisions, either by the same ref or not. Maybe the inconsistency emphasises or exaggerates the poor standard... 

[Gunnersauraus 492]

1 hour ago, Stan said:

The standard is poor but what grates on me most is the inconsistency of some decisions, either by the same ref or not. Maybe the inconsistency emphasises or exaggerates the poor standard... 

Maybe you should have a go at it then if you think it is so bad. Find out how hard it is. You say it is poor but compared to where? Similar mistakes happen all around Europe

[The Artful Dodger 1,300]

By what objective measurement are the standards of officiating poor, is there a league where tedious bores don't whinge and bleat about referees all the fucking time? 

[Stan 6,181]

2 minutes ago, Gunnersauraus said:

Maybe you should have a go at it then if you think it is so bad. Find out how hard it is. You say it is poor but compared to where? Similar mistakes happen all around Europe

Eh?

I didn't say I didn't realise how hard it is. I appreciate it can be difficult. But that also doesn't excuse some basic decisions being called wrongly...?

It's just poor considering these are meant to be some of the best referees in the game; for me, there are a few referees who 'bottle' a big decision because it may go against a big team or go against the grain.

The best referees, or the best refereeing performances, are the ones where you come away from the game and one of the things that doesn't get mentioned is the referee or the decision he makes. Too many referees in the Premier League really fancy making the game all about themselves, when it should be about the 2 teams on the pitch, not the man in the middle. Fair enough some referees need to assert their authority on the game (and perhaps this is where the difficulty herein lies) but it feels as if too often by doing so, they get the bigger decisions wrong under the pressure of the game.

[Gunnersauraus 492]

2 minutes ago, Stan said:

Eh?

I didn't say I didn't realise how hard it is. I appreciate it can be difficult. But that also doesn't excuse some basic decisions being called wrongly...?

It's just poor considering these are meant to be some of the best referees in the game; for me, there are a few referees who 'bottle' a big decision because it may go against a big team or go against the grain.

The best referees, or the best refereeing performances, are the ones where you come away from the game and one of the things that doesn't get mentioned is the referee or the decision he makes. Too many referees in the Premier League really fancy making the game all about themselves, when it should be about the 2 teams on the pitch, not the man in the middle. Fair enough some referees need to assert their authority on the game (and perhaps this is where the difficulty herein lies) but it feels as if too often by doing so, they get the bigger decisions wrong under the pressure of the game.

I think you're taking bollocks to be honest. Mistakes are gonna be made. Footballer's make loads of mistakes I don't really know what fans like you expect to be honest. 

[Stan 6,181]

4 minutes ago, Gunnersauraus said:

I think you're taking bollocks to be honest. Mistakes are gonna be made. Footballer's make loads of mistakes I don't really know what fans like you expect to be honest. 

More consistent refereeing .

I admit mistakes will be made, but if they're made less frequently, people will moan less...

[Gunnersauraus 492]

5 minutes ago, Stan said:

More consistent refereeing .

I admit mistakes will be made, but if they're made less frequently, people will moan less...

Mistakes are made by referee's all over the world humans make mistakes. It doesn't matter how good it is some fans would still moan.