Will be interesting to see what kind of hand-waving and excuses they come up with.

  • @hangonasecond
    link
    English
    711 months ago

    I mean we know what the outcome is gonna be. Not sufficient evidence the ball was out. Push in the back not harsh enough to overrule the infield decision. Not sufficient evidence the player was offside.

    I think the goal shouldn’t have stood, I disagree with the presumption that there wasn’t enough evidence and we have seen the kind of push in the back given against us and in our favour so many times. I can see the reasoning that led to the goal being allowed though and I don’t expect this will lead to any material change for that exact reason.

    • @AstrealixM
      link
      English
      311 months ago

      What they said is literally out there. It’s still bullshit. But then again, if they hadn’t already lost their entire legitimacy, the fact that an “independent panel” did not even unanimously think that Bruno’s back-of-the-head hit was a red card surely does. They hate us.

    • @Gingerrific
      link
      English
      311 months ago

      This is all theatrics, and I’m not holding my breath. It’s quite clear that rules are applied subjectively week over week and anything resembling consistency is a pipe dream.

      • @AstrealixM
        link
        English
        311 months ago

        and yet it’s still worse than one would think. Barely checks the foul, and doesn’t know what offside is. How???