Please refer to my previous post, thank you very much.
I'm NOT going to dignify any interrogation with a response.

Edited by Willo (01 May 2017 1.50pm)

I'm not. They might have got the decisions right and we might still have lost, or we might not. But not sending off a player for a professional foul in the first half is potentially match-changing. Or perhaps you think that performing poorly somehow takes away a team's entitlement to fair decision-making? Might we have performed better if we didn't feel the ref was against us?

Oh, and if he had been sent off as he should have been he would have had a three-match ban which would also have had a bearing on the relegation issues.

Now answer the question. Did the officials affect the match with bad decisions, or not?

============
The Ferret
============

HE wont answer it mate, he never has never will.....hes a troll whoo gets his kicks by winding people up

Says this person who gets "Kicks" from trying to wind-me up.
NOT falling for that old one.

I will break my self-imposed Willo ban to reply to this single point: every single major and minor footballing nation has had at least one, and typically multiple, match-fixing scandals. To assume that match officials who make bizarre decisions and errors in judgment are doing so because everything happens so fast is sadly naïve or deliberately blinkered.

I am not suggesting that every bad decision is the result of corruption, but I am sure that a lot of the high-profile ones most definitely are.

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

No. Madley got decisions wrong all game.

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.