Now that I've steeled myself to watch it, does anyone else think it's odd that they dissected our "dodgy" penalty against Wycome and had Ian Holloway stating categorically that it wasn't a pen, yet on Saturday they neither mentioned or even showed the nailed on rugby tackle on Dike against the Wendies? Clear case of selective editorial in my opinion.
One of the most annoying things with highlights is when they don’t show key moments in the games, yet you see shots of them warming up, elongated goal celebrations, managers and coaches on the sidelines
I've read that it was Styles who had a goal disallowed. In the footage it was Sollbauer that back heeled it into the net?
The whistle had gone before the ball went in (from memory). Would he have been offside anyway (assumed it came back off a Barnsley foot after the drop)? Edit: My memory is shocking, nothing like I remember it. Having re-watched, the whistle has gone, but it looks like it's against Mads. Nowhere near offside, lol.
The first one to me was absolutely a penalty to my mind.... but.... one factor I wonder that may have influenced the referee was that Dike fell backwards. Him falling backwards may insinuate he's backing in and he's overpowered the defender. How you miss the arms round him, I'm not actually sure, but it may be a reason for him giving it. I do often wonder if referees have biases against particular players. But he booked 2 wednesday defenders for mugging Dike outside the box first half, then the tackle I missed by Patterson in the 2nd, so it's not like he had selective vision and anything against Dike he ignored. But despite that, he denied him one nailed on penalty and a second that could easily have been given.
