Could you tell me when and who exactly made you the reference point and judge on what it means to be "unbiased"? I hope you realize that there is no such thing.
The Pk situation, AGAIN, was a 50-50 one - some refs would give it, some wouldn't based on how they judge the extent/severity of the existent contact. However said contact was not a product of my or the refs imagination - if you actually took a closer look at it, you'd see that the defender was pulling Balotellin in exactly the opposite direction he was trying to go in order to intersect the trajectory of the cross. Call it dangerous/stupid/careless defending but when a dfeneder makes a play like that they better calculate the risks well because a PK is the outcome often enough ... not always, but often enough.
The reason why it looks such a contentious call does not really stem from the call itself but the circumstances of how and when it happened (end of a game Milan needed to win) and that it was given for Milan (the source of everything evil in Italian footie, as per Juve fans these days - some even have a theory about it and are likely close to publishing a book or at least a paper on the phenomenon).
My point is that a foul is foul whether it takes place in the PA or not and whether it happens 3 min into the game or 3 min away from it's end; whether it decides which team gets relegated or which team goes onto playing the CL. Granted, many refs don't have the balls to treat situations separate from the circumstances in which they take place but it's how it should be. hence why previous history of whether similar situations have been or not given as PK shouldn't really matter much, tbh.
So, unless you are claiming that I am imagining the contact you quite frankly got squat on the "biased" front.
As for whether what I said earlier was condescending and/or patronizing, I assure you I meant it as a light-hearted remark, nothing more. Whether you choose to buy that or not, is entirely up to you but you should know well by now that if I wanted to push someone's head up their ass, I don't beat about the bush but go straight for chain-saw
.
Furthermore, I challenge you go back 20-30 pages and see for yourself if anything of what I said earlier was untrue. If so, then it can't be condescending and/or patronizing, can it? It becomes inconvenient truth. The inconvenient truth of an easily predictable pattern being the hallmark of lack of complexity of thinking.
If your response was the function of you not liking the idea of you being part of said predictable pattern, well, I for one never implied you were ... but if you saw it that way, then I suppose you have much more serious matters to worry about than whether I was/am being condescending and/or patronizing or not.
In case you really need to know - while admitting Matri's goal was a good one, I said that Muntari's goal was more important as a single situation fr the simple and obvious reason that every moment in a game is a function of the entire game up to that point. E.g if Muntari's goal did count there is no saying that the situation of Matri's off-side goal would have ever happened as the game would have had a very diff complexion altogether. Similarly, there is no way to tell for sure that had Muntari's goal counted, Juve would have scored 3 goals after that and won the game.
All in all, I said that game and especially single episode in a whole season wasn't the reason why Juve won the scudetto.
Interesting though how you directly assumed what I may have said/implied without obviously having much if any info on the matter. Not unlike many people here putting all PKs that went Milan's way in the same basket independent of whether they should have been given or not, I must say. Someone might even say that illinformed assumptions are bias' little sisters.
And you were worried about me being biased.
- - - Updated - - -
I am not saying it wasn't soft i.e. on a diff day it may well not have been given or another ref may well not have given it on the same day under the same circumstances. It's just that quite a few people here have "selective" reading skills and see what they assume I am saying and not what I am actually saying.
Anyways, here is a little further on my opinion on the matter as part of a reply to a diff post:
unless you are implying that I am Galliani, I don't see the rationale of you assuming what he may or may not say 3 years from now - what is being said here is between me and some other people; Galliani is of absolutely no relevance here.
I mentioned that episode from the Barca-Milan game as an example that's relevant to the existing situation. Whether and what you decide to read into it is up to you. Doubt one assumption more or less would make a huge difference, context considered.
Buy on AliExpress.com
