Match report Game 3.
Manchester United 3-2 Nottingham Forest
This film has a very famous ending. The line "Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown" is uttered by Lawrence Walsh (Joe Mantell), the partner of Jack Nicholson's sardonic private eye Jake Gittes, after Jake's love interest Evelyn (Faye Dunaway) gets shot to death by the police. You'll have to watch the film to get the full story, but the thing is, the good get f***ed while the bad get away with all sorts of corruption, and there's absolutely nothing the good people can do about it. Chinatown is the place where corruption is taken for granted, and protests are in vain. Bleak stuff.
For Chinatown, read Old Trafford.
The match itself began with a farcical display of ManU's uselessness in midfield and defence. A bungled passing sequence left Taiwo free to run on goal, pursued by, of all people, Rashford. Rashford bounced off the Forest forward, the ManU goalkeeper fell over, and Taiwo prodded it home. Surprisingly, the goal was allowed to stand, despite the fact that not all the ManU fans had taken their seats.
The second goal was equally comical. A corner from MGW skimmed Worrall's hair before hitting WillyBoly's head and ending up in the back of the net. No ManU player seemed interested in defending the set piece. Surprisingly, the goal was allowed to stand, despite ManU claims that they weren't ready because they didn't feel very well.
Forest were two up inside three minutes. The ManU supporters went sickly quiet. The Forest supporters were boisterously loud. Forest repeatedly threatened with pacy counter-attacks, and had they taken one of the opportunities they created, they would have been singing in heaven. As it was, a different script had been written, probably by the Devil himself.
ManU got one back when Rashford crossed from the left and the partially visible Eriksen brushed it home with the outside of his right foot, the kind of finish you see in a 5-a-side game from somebody with no left foot.
It was at this point that you began to fear for Forest. Not because they were playing badly, because they weren't. Not because ManU were far superior, because they weren't. It was because this was Chinatown. In the film, Jake Gittes says that when he was a police officer in Chinatown, he tried to do as little as possible because everything was so corrupt that he couldn’t tell if he was doing any good. So at Old Trafford, the fear was that, one way or another, whatever Forest did, they were not going to be allowed to win, and there was a bleak inevitability about how this was going to happen.
Early in the second half the butt-faced Casemiro equalised for ManU. If earlier interpretations of the off-side rule had been applied, the goal would not have stood, but at least 2-2 was a fair enough score to take from Old Trafford, until you remembered where we were. As one lad put it, "Now we just wait for the ManU penalty."
He wasn't far wrong. The sending off came first. Fernandes was "hauled" down by Joe Worrall, and the ref's red card was out almost before Fernandes had hit the floor. The fact that WillyBoly was covering was not even considered. It looked like referee Attwell was itching to give the home side an advantage, but that couldn't possibly be true.
Eventually, inevitably, came the penalty. Again, the ref awarded the spot kick, despite his blocked view, almost before the flying Rashford had hit the turf after brushing Danilo's thigh. Martin Keown's view on the penalty was honest and forthright: "I wondered whether it is a moment where you think, Did they actually see it? I cannot believe that the officials have come to that decision and awarded a penalty. I look forward to the day where the officials can communicate their decisions to us, and explain their workings out in the VAR room."
Forget it, Martin. It's Old Trafford.
Cont...
stressandpie.co.uk
Chinatown
posted on 30/8/23
So here’s one last question for you, if the Rashford incident was a penalty, minimal contact, then can you tell me how the Onana incident against Wolves wasn’t a penalty, sure there was more/clearer contact on that occasion. But the ref decided that amount of contact didn’t warrant a penalty, and was ok to play on.
I for one am baffled.
posted on 30/8/23
comment by reddave (U8660)
posted 7 minutes ago
So here’s one last question for you, if the Rashford incident was a penalty, minimal contact, then can you tell me how the Onana incident against Wolves wasn’t a penalty, sure there was more/clearer contact on that occasion. But the ref decided that amount of contact didn’t warrant a penalty, and was ok to play on.
I for one am baffled.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who's saying Onana's wasn't a penalty?
posted on 30/8/23
The ref and VAR, they are the only ones that count.
posted on 30/8/23
comment by reddave (U8660)
posted 1 minute ago
The ref and VAR, they are the only ones that count.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They got Onana's wrong and Rashford's right.
You're concentrating on the wrong thing, the sending off's the debatable one.
posted on 30/8/23
comment by Morninchile (U18154)
posted 1 hour, 46 minutes ago
It’s amazing what years of getting your own way does to the mind.
Everyone in football wrong.
Man United and MoTD right.
“Study the concept of slow motion bias. Explore the relation between time overestimation and increased perceived intentionality.”
Pretty lazy typing in slow-motion bias into google….then quoting the exact first sentence you read.
Unless you are Norman Huttner?
And you have the audacity to call someone else thick, you dumb Manc Count.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And yet you did exactly the same thing. Funny that.
And that still doesnt mean that slow mo bias doesnt actually exist. Unfortunately for you Notts Forest scabs.
posted on 30/8/23
comment by Unitedy (U17162)
posted 4 hours, 41 minutes ago
It's a shame football is played in normal speed according to the laws of physics and not in slow motion. If only football was played in slow motion then refs would have plenty of time to get everything correct. They would probably even be able to predict future pandemics, predict when someone is about to start growing cancers in their bodies, predict when the next asteroid is going to hit Earth. Just a shame the eye can only perceive time as it is, damn evolution!
I'm glad a Nottingham Forest fan said above yes at normal speed it looks like a foul.
Glad we could clear that up after 40 comments lol
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm stunned. I point out that VAR should be reviewing in slow motion to understand what actually happened and you then jump on the "it looked like a pen at normal speed".
VAR are supposed to be able to review and help to clear up the obvious mistakes which none united fans and most pundits have clearly stated it was.
You keep thinking its Forest fans that are wrong. All we are highlighting is that you get the benefit of a very questionable set of decisions (again) and a draw would have been a fair result.
You've ignored the push on Boly in the united box that was also a clear mistake and not reviewed by VAR.
It's not just about the penalty award but throughout the game there were multiple incorrect decisions in favour of united.
Anyway you keep believing that it's my eyesight and everyone else is deluded if that makes you happy.
posted on 30/8/23
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
Unfortunately for you Notts Forest scabs.
---------------------------
I think somebody's a little upset.
posted on 30/8/23
Basically no one outside (I would say Manchester but London is probably more appropriate) thinks it was a penalty.
…..
Is your ar$e sore after pulling that comment out of it.
posted on 30/8/23
Run it at any speed you like, it's still a penalty, unless there's a new rule that if you miss the ball and knock the forward off his feet in the box it's OK because he was running fast.
posted on 30/8/23
You don’t have to knock someone off his feet if he’s already falling over.