ManU's two goals tonight?

[MikeSB]

Their first goal where Rooney was seemingly miles off side and just a yard from the GK and the goal stood because he didn't touch the ball. But how can anyone say he wasn't interfering with play?

The Pen? Camera showed the GK never touched him and Rooney jumped over the GK he stubbed his toe and went to ground as a result. ie no ontact. Was that a Pen?

Just asking what others thought? My own view is the score should be 1-1 not 3-1

[jamesdad]

I thought that Rooney was definitely in the goalkeepers line of site for the first goal and this was an easy decision for the officials to make but they did not disallow the goal .The TV pundits were wrong to say as long as he did not touch the ball it was ok, he was interfering by his position as the keeper made no attempt to stop the ball when he could have got to it, The second goal watching it live I thought was a clear penalty but after seeing the reply it was no contact and a clear dive but the ref only gets one chance so you have to go with it. United very lucky again I feel the manager is under a lot of pressure and is thank full the press are not after him like they were on David Moyers

[Roebuck]

Clear Pen in my eyes. No contact but there doesn't have to be. If the keeper is about to wipe you out and you hurdle him it's a foul.

He probably could have made a better attempt to stay upright when he landed but my view which is probably contentious is that referees are as much to blame for players hitting the deck as players themselves. How many times have we seen it at the Alex. Player clearly impeded but stays on his feet, the ref never gives a free kick. So next time it happens they make sure they hit the deck. Stronger refs needed, but then who would be a ref!!!

[alexbarmy]

Clear Pen in my eyes. No contact but there doesn't have to be. If the keeper is about to wipe you out and you hurdle him it's a foul.

He probably could have made a better attempt to stay upright when he landed but my view which is probably contentious is that referees are as much to blame for players hitting the deck as players themselves. How many times have we seen it at the Alex. Player clearly impeded but stays on his feet, the ref never gives a free kick. So next time it happens they make sure they hit the deck. Stronger refs needed, but then who would be a ref!!!

Totally disagree.

There were 2 actions - 1. Rooney evaded the goalkeeper's reckless challenge.
2. Rooney dived by dragging his feet on the grass. He made no attempt to stay upright. He didn't even have to break his stride to evade the goalkeeper.

Had Rooney needed to jump to avoid collision it would have been a different matter, but he did not.

Blatant che

[Roebuck]

Clear Pen in my eyes. No contact but there doesn't have to be. If the keeper is about to wipe you out and you hurdle him it's a foul.

He probably could have made a better attempt to stay upright when he landed but my view which is probably contentious is that referees are as much to blame for players hitting the deck as players themselves. How many times have we seen it at the Alex. Player clearly impeded but stays on his feet, the ref never gives a free kick. So next time it happens they make sure they hit the deck. Stronger refs needed, but then who would be a ref!!!

Totally disagree.

There were 2 actions - 1. Rooney evaded the goalkeeper's reckless challenge.
2. Rooney dived by dragging his feet on the grass. He made no attempt to stay upright. He didn't even have to break his stride to evade the goalkeeper.

Had Rooney needed to jump to avoid collision it would have been a

[AlexLeicester]

Interesting poser.
The foul had been committed and the ref had made his decision, so Rooney's dive meant nothing apart from a bit of grandstanding, which is not in itself, as it did not affect decisions or play, an offence.

However, based on the first half, I wish we'd been playing either side. It was pretty rubbish.

[Roebuck]

Interesting poser.
The foul had been committed and the ref had made his decision, so Rooney's dive meant nothing apart from a bit of grandstanding, which is not in itself, as it did not affect decisions or play, an offence.

However, based on the first half, I wish we'd been playing either side. It was pretty rubbish.

It is an interesting one as even with the benefit of replies you get different views. As I said, who'd be a ref!