Like I said, all teams do it, it's just highlighted more when we do. If you think not then you should start watching more football and spend less time reading tabloid match reports.
I don't really see how the number of matches I've been to is really especially relevant. However since you ask, I've been to over 20 matches in the last 6 months (actually been to as in went to the stadium), which is nearly a match a week, so even if match attendance was relevant it's diffcult to see how I could go to more games.
As you're probably going to ask how I went to this many matches, here is the list: Charlton v Swindon, Inter v Bayern (CL), England v Mexico, Holland v Japan (WC), Australia v Serbia (WC), Ivory C v North Korea (WC), Argentina v Mexico (WC), Holland v Slovakia (WC), Japan v Parag (WC), Holland v Brazil (WC), Argentina v Germany (WC), Watford v Leeds, Fulham v Wolves, Tranmere v Colchester, Arsenal v Braga, Chelsea v Marseille, Arsenal v Shakhtar, Ireland v Russia, Fulham v Spurs, Arsenal v West Ham, Chelsea v Spartak
The entire premise of the eurosport article is to incite and provoke people, playing up to a common idea. The person who compiled it was so pleased with their work they decided not to put their name to it. A sure sign of a decent bit of writing.
Eurosport don't usually author such articles as they are written by teams of journalists - here are two more examples of that style (
One,
Two) - they will typically only list an explicit author when it is a specific single match report, where only one Eurosport employee was attending and describing the match. Sky Sports operate a similar policy (e.g.
1 or
two). Any article published on a major pan-european media company's website will still have had to pass rigourous editorial scrutinisation.
Well I watched the match, from the sounds of it you didn't. The referee did blow the whistle but nobody actually heard it and play continued. Everton broke into our area and Jagielka shot but it was saved by VdS. That's when everyone realised it was over. If he'd have scored there'd be even more commotion but as it was, he didn't.
Actually I saw the whole game, it was on in the pub before the Fulham v Wolves game. He blew the whistle before the Everton shot. Both the Fulham and the Wolves fans were shocked at the decision, saying how it was bad to allow the Man Utd attack to happen but to blow for time as Everton were counter attacking.
I've got the whole match on my laptop, it happened bang on 20mins if that's any help. I've found a small mention of it here at 21mins.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/oct/30/manchester-united-tottenham-hotspur-live
They're no less noteworthy than your ones, the fact they weren't reported kinda proves my point doesn't it?
It's hardly anything like the same level as the Duff handball decision (n.b. described by two different national news papers as extrememly harsh). Both of the incidents I listed (Duff handball and Everton match end, alhtough I could have mentioned the Neville lack of red card too) have been described as contentious decisions in indepenent media reports, you're one is listed virtually as a footnote, stating something along the lines of "it was out but thats not the point".
Ok so it boils down to a hatred of SAF.
Again like your comment on my match attendances, this is wild blind character speculation. You know very little about me but seem happy to speculate that I
"hate" Ferguson, simply because I point out his hypocracy about respecting refs. It looks like a cheap attempt to end the argument / debate. Along the lines of "
Oh he hates Ferguson, so he's biased against us and his opinion is not valid".
5 league 1 domestic 2 cl ... FOCUS!
How were we lucky?
