Just "Fulhamish" or Atrocious Reffing, Part II

Exhibit A: Clear foul not called as Fulham is dispossesed, leading directly to Man City goal.


Exhibit B: A mysterious extra minute is added to injury time in first half at ManU, allowing ManU to score go-ahead goal; later, a clear dive earns a penalty.



Compare and contrast.

 

In defence of Exhibit B:

1) It's "a minimum of two minutes", not two minutes. Therefore any timewasting from the moment the ref has signalled to the 4th official how much he's adding should be taken into account.

2) It's Chelsea.

 

Re: RE: Just "Fulhamish" or Atrocious Reffing, Par

LOL -- yeah, I'm not exactly crying for Chelsea, but that as ridiculous. There ended up being nearly 4 minutes of injury time when only 2 was indicated. It's not like the goal came just a few seconds after 2:00 -- it came a full minute after 2:00 were up.

 

I know every fan thinks their team is the victim of bad calls, but Sanchez is absolutely correct to blast the linesman after another officiating debacle against Bolton -- already this campaign, week in and week out, game after game, Fulham are being absolutely hosed again and again. Obvious goals not given. Phantom offsides. Clear penalties not awarded. Phantom penalties given.

This is getting f-ing ridiculous. Have we had a single game yet where a controversial call/non-call didn't directly impact a goal/non-goal?

 

To answer your question CF - no, I don't think so. We have been on the end of some very poor officiating. But with that said, that isn't the only thing keeping us from having more than just one win.