Not that I give a ****

[IsleworthRanger]

Those two penalty claims by Stoke against Barton were both 100% cast iron stone wall

[MattyRangers]

I know mate, that one in the 88th min was so obvious, Barton was about 18inches away from any part of the ball, faarrkk knows how that wasnt given! But hey, makes up for the one Villa got against us

[Ginger Ninja]

Agree. 2 blatant pens. Which makes beating those knuckle draggers all the sweeter!

[Rebel R's]

Those two penalty claims by Stoke against Barton were both 100% cast iron stone wall

Second one with minutes to go was very clear cut,if it happened to us we would be furious

[Yousef]

Whatever. We got the 3 points.

[KASPARS BOOTS]

Don't think first one was as pennant clearly intended to go over. Second one yes but in fairness to ref (ha ha) he was unsighted due to amount of bodies. My view having watched Stoke's anti football and bullying tactics (which didnt work) when you continually whinge moan cheat etc and have a manager who appeals for even the most obvious things when he clearly is in wrong, then you can have no complaints when the odd thing goes against you !! I thoroughly enjoyed saturday a victory for football.

[QPR_NW10]

Whatever. We got the 3 points.

done and dusted.

[Ric-Roc]

Agree with Kaspars. When I saw the replay the first one Pennant clearly left a trailing leg knowing their would be SOME contact & the ref saw that.

The second one... Well all I can say is PHEW!!!

Swings & roundabouts...

[stainrodisalegend]

Even the second one the Stoke striker just crouched there as if he were taking a dump - he was so clearly looking for the penalty - maybe that's why the ref didn't give it?

[willis1980]

i think pennant turning his head and glancing at the ref didnt help his case, had he not have done this he might have got the pen by doing so he clearly made it look like he intended to con the ref!

[dodge-stoke-r]

Don't think first one was as pennant clearly intended to go over. Second one yes but in fairness to ref (ha ha) he was unsighted due to amount of bodies. My view having watched Stoke's anti football and bullying tactics (which didnt work) when you continually whinge moan cheat etc and have a manager who appeals for even the most obvious things when he clearly is in wrong, then you can have no complaints when the odd thing goes against you !! I thoroughly enjoyed saturday a victory for football.

[themodfather]

just adds relish to it, doesn't it?
seeing pulis going apoplectic is a joy!

i felt motd were angry at qpr...that's the impression i got, it's up to the ref to give em and he didn't, he was on the spot for both and imo deserves the WENGER OBSERVER AWARD!

[PedalR]

Two thoughts..... Had Huth actually touched/played/controlled the ball at any point? He seemed to be backing into Barton and co and not making any effort to get the ball himself; he was simply obstructing our players and it was a "6 of one...." type of situation.
More generally, the way they just bombard the box with a frenetic series of hooves up field and with 16 or more players charging around the box how's the ref meant to spot anything??? It's like pinball at 100mph. I'm sure it's easy to look at loads of slo-mo from muliti angles afterwards and spot infrigements galore but in real-time I'm not surprised they didn't get anything from the ref (who'd have to be 100% certain of exactly what happened amidst the carnage and mayhem).

[rangerforevereastcote]

the ay i looked at it the first was a player looking to go over the second one youve got huth whos what 6 ft 4 standing going under froma small challenge . do me a favour never a pen. he could and shlda stayed on his feet
also they were claiming for everything think the ref had had enough,

[Del]

Agree with Kaspars. When I saw the replay the first one Pennant clearly left a trailing leg knowing their would be SOME contact & the ref saw that.

The second one... Well all I can say is PHEW!!!

Swings & roundabouts...

Spot on. The first was never a pen. It was a more subtle version of the thing Pires did all them years ago, ie, rather than just leave a led in there, he actually moved it to Barton's to make sure there was contact and went over. Never in a million years.

The second was a foul yes, but their "gameplan" as a team is an embarrassment..... lump it, play for scraps, lump it again, play for scraps, lump it play for scraps.....

I think with Huth he acted as a blocker for their goal, blocking Hill blatently to give Crouch a free run. someone did anyway. That is a clear training ground ploy and when the pen situation came with the ball dropping in a crowd he didn't know what to do with it. As said above, rather than make a conscious effort to gather the ball turn and shoot, he was more inclined to block off and back into Barton a bit, which made the contact appear worse.

At the end of the day they didn't deserve anything and got what they deserved.

What was priceless was the fact they dared to moan at timewasting when Hill was deliberately drying the ball with a towell just becasue they do it every single throw...

Awful awful football they play and i pity their ST holders who have to endure that over and over again.