What penalty were they talking about?.....Forest were shite in that game against us.
No forest were talking about a supposed penalty they should have got against us at the end of that season.....I can't remember any contentious decisions in that game.Roy Keane is talking about the play off final where Huddersfield were robbed.
Surridge offsideNo forest were talking about a supposed penalty they should have got against us at the end of that season.....I can't remember any contentious decisions in that game.
Thanks....I don't remember .Surridge offside
Bit like the ones in the Leeds game people have to decide if they want VAR to spot that sort of thing or just go along with the flow of the game and not have it disrupted so much.Surridge offside
Forest think they should have had a penalty. (They shouldn't). But their logic is that they would have scored said penalty and been given 2 goals for it meaning they would have won and they would have finished above us.
I think thats rather more far fetched than us complaining the goal line technology was out by 2mm and we were robbed of the league title that year.
If I remember correctly, Florists charming chairman then accused the lino of being biased because "My family own Olympiacos, and his family support Panathinaikos" or something along those lines.Surridge offside
Steve Cook at Norwich springs to mind.Good idea and I totally agree about the deflection part particularly.
Although how many handballs are deliberate I guess some will argue?
Should be clear to the naked eye. No more 'off by a nasal hair'. FFS !!As for offside. Originally it was about seeking an advantage by being in an offside position. That meant offside traps wouldn't be offside. I'd say any offside that needs 5 minutes to analyse shouldn't be offside.
Agree it’s easy to solve. Just say there has to be a clear gap between the lines, or draw the attacking line thicker.Should be clear to the naked eye. No more 'off by a nasal hair'. FFS !!