I respect him as a manager for what he does with limited resources season after season but his tirade after Saturday's game has marked him down in my estimations, total bad loser.

==

Look forward to seeing your reactions after a poor ref performance denies you a point or three later on in the year.

Except of course, Everton weren't denied a point because of a "poor ref performance".

i don't like managers that set their team out to frustrate and play negatively then complain that they were cheated and blame everybdy in sight

---------------

Like Mancini last season?

I honestly dont know what game you were watching, without doubt that it is one of Webbs better performances as a ref

And how do you know how the decisions he got wrong would have changed the game?

And had these supposed "incorrect" decisions changed the game, who's to say that City still wouldn't have won? You, nor I, can say either way.

Nevertheless, to say Everton only lost the game because of supposed poor referring is incorrect. Did poor refereeing result in Everton conceding a second? Nope, it didn't. Did poor refereeing (or a poor linesman decision) result in City's disallowed goal standing? Nope - they got that decision right. If Everton were awarded a free-kick for Kompany's obstruction (which Everton should have received), then who knows what could have happened then? Everton may well have scored, they may well not have done. No one will ever know.

Meaning we can debate all day that this decision or that decision may have changed the game (and there is certainly weight to be had in being of that opinion), but what no one can say is HOW the game would have panned out had this decision or that decision gone the other way. Meaning it becomes nothing but a futile, hypothetical debate at best.

Did poor refereeing result in Everton conceding a second?

===

Yes for both, we were forced to chase the game and commit more in search of a goal.

Give over, we were more than worthy of three points you lot need to just accept it and stop crying.

You've pretty much just defeated your own argument.

Had City not scored through Balotelli, then the game at that point would be 0-0, and thus Everton would not (in your own words) be "forced to chase the game and commit more in search of a goal". Meaning that City would have remained on the front foot in search of THEIR goal.

The point is, it's just as easy to say that City would have scored and thus Everton come away with nothing as it is to say that City wouldn't have scored and thus Everton would have earned a point. The fact is no one knows. I can say with just as much assurity that City would have scored as you can say that they wouldn't. Hence why it's a futile debate. Either way, what we do know is that when the game was 0-0, there was one side who were creating chances and one side who wasn't.

And it's a debate that is selective. I could quite easily say that that game could have ended up 4-0 as you could say it ending up 0-0. And it's selective because your criticism of the referees fails to take into account the GOOD decision they made in disallowing City's goal for example. Or the GOOD decision not to send Neville off when he cynically brought down Silva (while both players were not in possession). Pick and choose, pick and choose.

But a body check on the edge of the City box was okay? Or do you have to be looking in the opposite direction when you do that for it to be a foul in todays game?

Don't recall ever saying that a body check was okay. In fact, I do recall stating that Everton should have received a free kick for that. I also recall stating that no one, not you, not I, will ever know what the outcome of that free-kick (should it have been awarded) would have been. A case can be made for Everton scoring - yes of course. But then a case can also be made for City defending such a free-kick and then breaking away and creating an attack as a result. Both situations happen in football.

That's the joy (and the downside) of debating such a hypothetical situation. Whichever "hypothetical" one chooses, it has as much validity as the next. That's what I mean by being selective. I'm aware of that. You don't seem to be.

Everton don't have any great right footers when it comes to set pieces. I reckon the free kick attempt would have definitely missed

comment by RipleysCat (U1862)

==

I am still debating the poor decisions made by Webb, not your view on things.

An off the ball body check was punished, however a blatant foul was not even awarded a free kick or yellow card it deserved.

So you have cemented my claim that Webb's performance was sub standard and a little biased towards the home side with reference to the two incidents.

Sketchy throw in decisions are usually given to the defending side, so Webb's call on that was in line with 99.9% of all such decisions

On the contrary Phil, my "view on things" has been deliberately hypothetical. Yours on the other hand have not been. It is you who is trying to formulate an argument that states "had such and such not happened, then Everton would not have lost the game". My point is rather to say that no matter how we judge a ref's actual performance (and a ref's performance can always be criticised, indeed much more often than not is criticised), it is impossible to state what the outcome of any game would be had a different decision been made. It's for that reason that no one can say had such a decision been given (or not been given), then team x would (or would not) have won the game.

And I've cememted no claim of yours that Webb's performance was sub-standard. Sub-standard by who's standards? Yours? For every decision you feel he got wrong, I can point to another in which you'll agree he got right. For every decision that you felt went against Everton, I can point to one that I felt went against City. Again, that's what I mean about you (about fans in general) being selective.

And for that reason alone, it becomes immaterial whether any key moment occurred because of a particular decision. Simply because, it only ever becomes a "key moment" in hindsight. Had City not scored from the throw-in, then it wouldn't even enter your consciousness to debate it. After all, do you recall that other moment in the game when Everton did get a contentious throw-in (when it could have gone in City's favour) and nothing significant occured as a result of that? No, you don't, because we don't remember such moments (of which there are plenty (in any game)). Hindsight - it's a wonderful thing isn't it?

"so Webb's call on that was in line with 99.9% of all such decisions"

And again you've just defeated your own argument. Earlier in your post you label Webb's performance sub-standard. Here you have just set the standard. "Sketchy throw in decisions are usually given etc etc etc...". You've just said, to all intents and purposes, that such decisions are the norm, or in other words, the standard.

Have Everton ever had a key moment in a game in which a "contentious" decision went their way and they profitted from it? I would say, without doubt, that they have. In such an instance (if you're able to recall any), have you put any subsequent Everton victory down to a "poor ref performance"? I doubt that you have. Especially so if it was in a game that Everton had dominated overall and, on the balance of play, had been the better team and thus deserved their victory.

Well that was the case on Saturday. City were the better team. By far.

I can point to one that I felt went against City. Again, that's what I mean about you (about fans in general) being selective.

====

So one against many then?

Also I feel we have been on the right side of a poor ref decision at Blackburn.

"So one against many then?"

Not quite what I mean. I should have been clearer, just to avoid the possibility of the pedant in you picking up on it:- "For one decision that you feel went against Everton, I can point to one decision that I feel went against City."

"Also I feel we have been on the right side of a poor ref decision at Blackburn"

It's a lot easier to say that in a game that you won. Now try one in a game in which you lost. Have you the capability to point to any moment in the City-Everton game in which a decision went in your favour? I'll give you a clue - there was one (rather obvious) incident of this. It'll be interesting to see if you are able (or willing) to cite it...

Bad refereeing decisions aginst us contributed to Mark Hughes getting the sack and cost us about 12 points a season alone. The FA owes us big.

Very biased comment there Inky, but I expect nothing less.

Ripleys cat is make a fair point Sweatband. As a neutral watching the game (even though I have a soft spot for Everton), no way did any of Webbs errors, of which there was few, did affect the game. The only two decisions that went against Everton was Rodwell getting wrongly booked and the afore mentioned body check. I though Webb did a good job, and not often do I say that!

By owe us big I mean that these things even themselves out. I can immediately think of 4 games over the last 3 seasons when we've been blatently robbed because of bad officals (Clattenburg, Lawton and Atkinson) but I'll admit we were lucky against Newcastle last season when we got a pen we shouldn't have had and they were denied a nail on penalty.

Every team in the team in the league can make these calls, even Utd!

However every team in the top 6 gets a referee bias for towards there teams, admittedly some teams more than others. However we really shouldnt be complaining as we are not that hard done by!

Can't disagree with that. The higher we've finished up the league, the more times we've been getting the rub of the green.

Definitely one of the best thing about being a Spurs fan these days

In years past we would never get a lucky decision our way against the likes of Liverpool. However last game of last season we got awarded a penalty that was a non penalty

Absolutely class

Maybe the City fans are right, these bad decisions do even out over time