The ice breaker back in the day to a non-Cov fan was always 'Yeah I remember you lot in the Premier League' or 'What's going on with your ground?'Another Cov top related story;
Wearing my Cov top round the pool and a Liverpool fan clocked it. He mentioned this game and said we were robbed. Never offside etc.
I know we all know that, but a) I think it’s universally recognised we were and b) made me realise I’m still disappointed we missed out on another Wembley trip!!
Also goes to show it helped the profile of the club.
I get that often when I bring up I'm a Cov fan, it doesn't make it any easier! I don't want to be reminded of it.Another Cov top related story;
Wearing my Cov top round the pool and a Liverpool fan clocked it. He mentioned this game and said we were robbed. Never offside etc.
I know we all know that, but a) I think it’s universally recognised we were and b) made me realise I’m still disappointed we missed out on another Wembley trip!!
Also goes to show it helped the profile of the club.
You;ll always have Teignmouth, though. Every cloudI don't think i will ever get over this
We won that game fair and square and watching Man City in the final we'd have given them a good game too
I had same in summer from a Plymouth and a Chelsea fan.Another Cov top related story;
Wearing my Cov top round the pool and a Liverpool fan clocked it. He mentioned this game and said we were robbed. Never offside etc.
I know we all know that, but a) I think it’s universally recognised we were and b) made me realise I’m still disappointed we missed out on another Wembley trip!!
Also goes to show it helped the profile of the club.
What a strange feeling this thread and match gives you, joy and despair.
He was onDo people really still think it was onside?
It was off, the argument you should be having is was it off be enough to justify VAR involvement but in the current system where the question is a binary onside or offside the call was right.
And Paul's busted thumbYou;ll always have Teignmouth, though. Every cloud
Do people really still think it was onside?
It was off, the argument you should be having is was it off be enough to justify VAR involvement but in the current system where the question is a binary onside or offside the call was right.
Do people really still think it was off?Do people really still think it was onside?
It was off, the argument you should be having is was it off be enough to justify VAR involvement but in the current system where the question is a binary onside or offside the call was right.
Had 5 of my grandsons with me. Hope they all remember it when I have pegged itGot to spend it with my son and my mates, worth more than anything. As he grows up (24 now) City games are mostly what tie us together now
Yes, you can argue that the rules should be changed to give more leeway to the attacking team, but that's a different matter. I confirmed in a series of photos I posted at the time that it was offside under the rules as they stand. I don't get why people are carrying this lifelong burden that we were robbed. Frustrating and incredibly unlucky, but no robbery involved.Do people really still think it was onside?
It was off, the argument you should be having is was it off be enough to justify VAR involvement but in the current system where the question is a binary onside or offside the call was right.
Don't do this to yourselfDo people really still think it was off?
The naivety in thinking that the lines are drawn in the right place at the right time
Not saying it was corrupt but if it had been given the other way no one would have known the difference
Not a very good angle for you to conclude onOne last try on this.
Here's the pictures I posted back in April. At the crucial moment (pics 3 &4), Haji stuck his leg out and under the inflexible rules (that give zero leeway to the attacker) he was offside. If you want to spend the rest of your life disbelieving it, that's up to you.
View attachment 39173
Who confirmed that your lines were exact?Yes, you can argue that the rules should be changed to give more leeway to the attacking team, but that's a different matter. I confirmed in a series of photos I posted at the time that it was offside under the rules as they stand. I don't get why people are carrying this lifelong burden that we were robbed. Frustrating and incredibly unlucky, but no robbery involved.
Stevie WonderWho confirmed that your lines were exact?
It's crystal clear to me, and that makes me comfortable with it. But believe what you want.Not a very good angle for you to conclude on
VARWho confirmed that your lines were exact?
One heck of a memory mind.It wasn't given. Cherish the memories but move on.
Your argument cannot be conclusive without a lot more frames between 2 onside and 3 offside unless you get an offside in advance of o hare touching itOne last try on this.
Here's the pictures I posted back in April. At the crucial moment (pics 3 &4), Haji stuck his leg out and under the inflexible rules (that give zero leeway to the attacker) he was offside. If you want to spend the rest of your life disbelieving it, that's up to you.
View attachment 39173
I remember someone somewhere saying that it was only illustrative and not the actual image used by VAR, though that has never made sense to me. If it's not what the decision is being made on why show it? May as well get one of those court artists in.The line going straight through Wan-Bissaka's boot has never been explained has it?
yes it has, that was a thickened line used only for TV pictures. It's not the line used for the decision.The line going straight through Wan-Bissaka's boot has never been explained has it?
On the pitch yes, onside? Sadly noHe was on
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?