Or is it just banter?
The standing joke of late is that United sold Webb a couple of years back. Basically, it's because he has given us nothing really since Berba's soft pen against Liverpool
So, he has several penatly claims to contend with and gives us 2.
The first claim was totally a foul. He doesn't give it. The fact it was outside the box is totally incidental. In real time ther is no way he could have known it was. The fact is, it was a foul and he didn't give it.
The second was a pen. Pretty much everyone says it was.
Danny did an AJ but not even close to being as bad. Yes, he left his foot in and went down but we see this week in week out. To blame Webb for this is a joke. I hate to see it is I am honest but all teams hav players that do this. Some say it is clever and the player is winning the pen, I sorta disagree but, all teams do it so gawd knows why everyone is up in arms when it's United. In fact, strike that, I know why.
(Sidenote - the diving by both teams got on my nerves today)
Cahill could have walked today too
In summary, how did Webb favour United and id you feel he did, why go on about it? It would be the first time is a couple of years!!
Finally, United were excellent today and Chelsea were pretty poor, particularly going forward. Mata's finish was top draw, as was the cross but gawd knows why Mata had that much space at the back post.
Anyway, deserved point and on most days, we would have won that game comfortably
Those blaming the ref have no clue and they arn't giving United credit for the fighting spirit to come back from 3 down at The Bridge
Are fans really this bitter?
posted on 6/2/12
comment by g13day (U12473)
posted 2 minutes ago
Not responding to the actual point of people's posts seems to be your trademark on this thread.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I beg you to go back and actually look at all of the comments made by myself and Scholesatov, you'll see my point. I only became difficult because he was being difficult.
----------------------
I don't think he was being difficult. He has answered your questions. Looks to me like you don't fancy trying to answer his.
posted on 6/2/12
Do you know what hypocrisy means? - Yes, I do.
Saying it twice is not hypocritical.
FYI i've only said it once, I suggest learning to count. - I've just re-read, and it turns out you actually didn't, it was said once, my greatest apologies. Turns out even God himself has his flaws.
Now then, now we've satisfied your ego in clarifying what had little to do with the original topic of conversation - that being the alleged foul on Welbeck - how about answering my questions on the matter instead of deflecting everything away seeing as you're aware that you're completely wrong.
I'd actually like to stress your mocking of my phrase 'given with regularity' is rather comparative with your obsession with the term 'hypocrisy'. That is all you seem to talk about, after all. So, can the mocking of an expression of words that got repeated, which in my case it did, not be correlated to your ongoing repitition of hypocrisy? I think it can. This is hypocrisy.
posted on 6/2/12
"I agree. It's either bitterness or just outright stupidity. Cahill should have been sent off, or a yellow card at the very least. The pulling of Young's shirt and the swiping away of his left leg was a stonewall penalty - which wasn't given. The 1st penalty was stonewall. The 2nd penatly was quite harsh, Welbeck made the most of it, but they are given with some regularity. See Adam Johnson. But there was certianly contact."
I was accused of not presenting a legitimate argument and subsequently called a hypocrite. Please explain at what point in this quote, did I not do this?
I'm waiting.
posted on 6/2/12
Webb got a little wrong both ways, mostly right, and overall he didn't affect the result.
Draw was both the correct and fair result of the match.
Fun to watch match.
posted on 6/2/12
Weasel
posted on 6/2/12
Turns out even God himself has his flaws.
Thank Scholesatov you have a sense of humour.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd actually like to stress your mocking of my phrase 'given with regularity' is rather comparative with your obsession with the term 'hypocrisy'. That is all you seem to talk about, after all. So, can the mocking of an expression of words that got repeated, which in my case it did, not be correlated to your ongoing repitition of hypocrisy? I think it can. This is hypocrisy.
This honestly makes me want to give a lecture on semantics comparing the repetition you so keenly point out.
Sufficed to say that your repetition focuses on your belief surrounding the topic at hand whereas mine was based on your actions and was sustained by you and then both of us being difficult.
Despite your intriguing turn of logic I find the repetitions to be of completely different nature not discounting the fact, of course, that my mocking of your repetition was centred around specific phrasing, alas I cannot rearrange the letters in hypocrisy.
posted on 6/2/12
Comment Deleted by Article Creator
posted on 6/2/12
A united moan even after they got something out of the game, using Adam Johnson to justify there own cheating.
Johnson dived we all know that so why don't you lot admitt it that man u have quite a few experts at winning penalties.
Difference is aguero should have had a nailed on pen that wasn't given.
Rooneys dive against arsenal last week was awfull.
posted on 6/2/12
officials sometimes get things wrong and when they do the team that feels hardest done by will complain, United fans have done so themselves in the past, it is not bitterness, just human nature.
posted on 6/2/12
comment by g13day (U12473)
I'd actually like to stress your mocking of my phrase 'given with regularity' is rather comparative with your obsession with the term 'hypocrisy'. That is all you seem to talk about, after all. So, can the mocking of an expression of words that got repeated, which in my case it did, not be correlated to your ongoing repitition of hypocrisy? I think it can. This is hypocrisy.
This honestly makes me want to give a lecture on semantics comparing the repetition you so keenly point out.
Sufficed to say that your repetition focuses on your belief surrounding the topic at hand whereas mine was based on your actions and was sustained by you and then both of us being difficult.
Despite your intriguing turn of logic I find the repetitions to be of completely different nature not discounting the fact, of course, that my mocking of your repetition was centred around specific phrasing, alas I cannot rearrange the letters in hypocrisy.
--------------------------------------------
Roughly translated, does that mean you will witter on about anything rather than answer his questions?