The Sheffield Wednesday Saltiness

[Richard E]

Someone should remind the significant number of them accusing the ref of being corrupt rather than just incompetent of the laws of defamation.

[Edvard Remberg]

Logic:" Some say he just got a touch on the ball but that does not matter, the laws of the game say you cannot tackle from behind even if you get the ball because you will almost always bring the man down too. Thats why big D went down."

As mostly it will be a foul, it is always a foul???

[Richard E]

Logic:" Some say he just got a touch on the ball but that does not matter, the laws of the game say you cannot tackle from behind even if you get the ball because you will almost always bring the man down too. Thats why big D went down."

As mostly it will be a foul, it is always a foul???

I'm waiting for the argument "It looked like a foul to me in real time so the ref should have given it even if I can now see it wasn't one."

[The Edge]

They are off again!

Fuck me I thought pretty much all the London clubs were the worst losers out there. But step forward Sheffield Wednesday fans. Two days after their team lost by conceding no less than FOUR goals at home they are still saying the ref was "bunged" which is libelous, and an American football style block isn't a foul. John Terry clearly got the ball without fouling that big lump of theirs and there is an epidemic of Myopia around Hillsborough. There is absolutely NO WAY that ball was even close to going over the line. If they watch the bloody highlights without their blue tinted glasses on it might just stop them coming across as the biggest bunch of sore losers and complete knobheads that I've ever seen.

[PeterWithesShin]

Fact is they'd definitely have won if our players weren't better than theirs.

[dave.woodhall]

Logic:" Some say he just got a touch on the ball but that does not matter, the laws of the game say you cannot tackle from behind even if you get the ball because you will almost always bring the man down too. Thats why big D went down."

As mostly it will be a foul, it is always a foul???

I'm waiting for the argument "It looked like a foul to me in real time so the ref should have given it even if I can now see it wasn't one."

It's like the old one about "If it wasn't a foul he's got to be booked for diving". Because no player, ever, has gone down accidently after a fair tackle.

[The Edge]

I've looked at their gripes:

1. Our first goal, they claim Snoddy wasn't fouled for the free kick that led to it. Yes he was - It clearly shows him being pulled back. They then claim that Terry was offside. No he wasn't, you see him running with the defender to his right in front of him (not sure if they know they you only become offside once the ball is played, not before)

2. They should have had a penalty in the first half. This is the only close or debatable decision. I've watched it several times and still cannot make my mind up. There was definitely no trip as they claim but possibly a clash of legs. The ref was right on top of it and none of their players appealed for it bar the one who went down (which suggests that he was looking for it).

3. The ball crossed the line for the goalmouth scramble in the second half. Yeah right - Is the goal line technology corrupt as well?

4. The ball went out when Snoddy ran with it, leading to the corner for Connor's goal. TV clearly shows that it didn't.

5. It wasn't a penalty - The most silly claim of all and deserves no explanation.

None of their players, staff or manager have complained about the ref, nor their media or press - The only people complaining are a bunch of head the balls on the internet.

I suppose they are salty about the NFL style hit that led to a penalty at the end too?  It's almost like they don't know the rules to the game.  I'm an American that's followed "soccer" for all of about a decade.  I'm probably as ignorant as it comes, yet it seems I know more about the rules than their fans do.  The ball has to completely cross a boundary line for it to count, it's not a foul if the defender gets to the ball first, and off-sides only applies to where he was before the pass was made.  Do they not know this? 

By the way, please correct me if I'm wrong.

I will.  I know you put it in " ", however there is no excuse for using the term soccer.

I'm sure I read somewhere that it was us ( English & Scottish FA) that originally coined the the phrase "soccer" due to Rugby Football already being an established sport.

[PeterWithesShin]

Our penalty was blatant, quite why they think it wasn't is beyond me. The only argument i'd have if it had been against us is why was our player so fecking stupid to do that.

As for their endless banging on about Snodgrass diving and not liking him for calling Forestieri a diver is also bizarre considering this

[The Edge]

I've looked at their gripes:

1. Our first goal, they claim Snoddy wasn't fouled for the free kick that led to it. Yes he was - It clearly shows him being pulled back. They then claim that Terry was offside. No he wasn't, you see him running with the defender to his right in front of him (not sure if they know they you only become offside once the ball is played, not before)

2. They should have had a penalty in the first half. This is the only close or debatable decision. I've watched it several times and still cannot make my mind up. There was definitely no trip as they claim but possibly a clash of legs. The ref was right on top of it and none of their players appealed for it bar the one who went down (which suggests that he was looking for it).

3. The ball crossed the line for the goalmouth scramble in the second half. Yeah right - Is the goal line technology corrupt as well?

4. The ball went out when Snoddy ran with it, leading to the corner for Connor's goal. TV clearly shows that it didn't.

5. It wasn't a penalty - The most silly claim of all and deserves no explanation.

None of their players, staff or manager have complained about the ref, nor their media or press - The only people complaining are a bunch of head the balls on the internet.

I suppose they are salty about the NFL style hit that led to a penalty at the end too?  It's almost like they don't know the rules to the game.  I'm an American that's followed "soccer" for all of about a decade.  I'm probably as ignorant as it comes, yet it seems I know more about the rules than their fans do.  The ball has to completely cross a boundary line for it to count, it's not a foul if the defender gets to the ball first, and off-sides only applies to where he was before the pass was made.  Do they not know this? 

By the way, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Good attempt mate but it's never the boundary line. The length of the pitch is always referred to as the touch line. The ends are always the  byline and between the goalposts  is the goal line.No idea where these terms come from apart from the goal line. Maybe someone can explain that bit?

[Damo70]

I like the one who says "I've never written to the FA before" as if most fans skip fans websites, social media in general and national and local radio call ins and go straight to the FA with any complaints. Like a 'Points Of View' for football fans. Also, it was hardly a promotion or relegation six pointer. They should forget about us and worry about getting points off the clubs around them in the table.

[nodge]

They were getting really wound up next to us in the lower tier left hand side. One guys face was so red I thought his head was going to explode. Quite funny seeing men in their 50's covering their faces with scarves, it was chilly though to be fair.

[Risso]

They are off again!

I may write to the FA asking for some sort of fair play aware on our behalf. 

They're getting increasingly hatstand.

"I know it won't make any difference to the match result, but seriously, I think the club should be reporting all this to the FA, along with a full video of the game... why let this ref. get away with it? He's either bent or incompetent. Let the FA decide which and act accordingly."

If only there was a way that referees could be assessed on their performance in a match.  Perhaps the barrage of nonsense from Wednesday fans will make the FA and the EFL introduce people to assess the referees.  They could call them 'assessors' and they could write a report on the ref after the match.

[PeterWithesShin]

They are off again!

I may write to the FA asking for some sort of fair play aware on our behalf. 

They're getting increasingly hatstand.

"I know it won't make any difference to the match result, but seriously, I think the club should be reporting all this to the FA, along with a full video of the game... why let this ref. get away with it? He's either bent or incompetent. Let the FA decide which and act accordingly."

If only there was a way that referees could be assessed on their performance in a match.  Perhaps the barrage of nonsense from Wednesday fans will make the FA and the EFL introduce people to assess the referees.  They could call them 'assessors' and they could write a report on the ref after the match.

We paid the assessor off as well. And the FA. And Royal Mail so the letters won't get there anyway.

[Brassneck]

I think that they're all coming around to accepting the fact that the refs decisions were correct. Their main focus now seems to be the fouls count. Imight buy the full highlights on TV and re-watch the match, being the saddo that I am with time on my hands. I'll count up any fouls they should have had.

[Damo70]

I think that they're all coming around to accepting the fact that the refs decisions were correct. Their main focus now seems to be the fouls count. Imight buy the full highlights on TV and re-watch the match, being the saddo that I am with time on my hands. I'll count up any fouls they should have had.

I wouldn't bother. I used to drink with a guy who liked to bet on the number of free kicks, corners and cards in a game. When he went to the bar or the bog he always delegated me as his official counter. Trust me, it is even less exciting than it sounds.