It looked like he got tripped up by a blade of grass.

Strong gust of wind near the ankles?

Nonsense, they're bent and controlled by the Fergie Association..............

Totally agree, and it makes no sense whatsoever for that to be the logical response to not being awarded fouls. The logical response is to stay on your feet at all times possible in order to maximise your chances of a crack at goal, otherwise you're just handing over possession.

Whilst on about Liverpool, where do people think they have to finish for Rodgers to have done a decent job/keep his job for another season?

I agree with most of what you say.

But the problem is in the huge grey area over fouls. If a defender impedes an attacker just enough to cause his team mate to make a clearance that is still a foul. But good luck finding refs that are strong enough to make that decision. They need the player to go down to force them to actually make a decision.

An honest striker is one that defenders will love. They'll just hang all over him all game, knowing that as long as they don't actually cause him to go to ground they'll be able to foul all the time and get away with it. Just look at the ludicrous situation over free kicks into the penalty area. If an attacker looks at a defender the wrong way the refs will instantly give a free kick against him. At the same time if a defender picks up an attacker and carries him into the stand the referee will fail to see anything wrong.

Then there's the issue of players going into challenges as though they are going to clatter into someone and then pulling out at the last minute. That's a foul according to the rules.

Managers then cause more problems with their mind games. Pulis has been on a roll over diving and bad tackles against his side. Don't think he was too bothered by Crouch's hand ball before he scored against Citeh though, and he's quick to defend his players after they've hospitalised another player.

Then we've got the Shearer's, Lawrensen's and the Gray's who are the main voices on refereeing decisions. While they are all ex pro's, they don't really demonstrate that they have any extended knowledge because they've played the game. Have they gained at all from their years of "analysing" the game, or are they basically spouting the same drivel they talked when they first got their paying gig after stopping playing?

Suarez is an awful diver. He's got a rep for it, we've laughed at the videos. But the fact is that he is still the victim of many more fouls against him than he is of winning free kicks by diving. But somehow a defender deliberately fouling him doesn't get classed as ***CHEATING*** but him diving once after been kicked a few times is the worst kind of cheating imaginable.

I don't think City let Johnson go because of his lifestyle, that was an issue a couple of years ago but not recently. I think they just didn't believe he would make it at the very top and he was no longer willing to be a squad player. In cricket parlance Johnson is a flat track bully. He's great against poor full backs in poor teams, but rarely performs against the better full backs. He probably doesn't have enough pace to make it as an out and out winger. He has good touch, a decent pass and an excellent shot and I could see him developing in a more central role. But he's very unlikely to get the opportunities to make that transition at City. A move to a club like Sunderland was probably in his interests and City got a decent fee for him.

I often think that City have reached the end of the road with Balotelli, most recently when sent off at Arsenal. But then he'll put in the sort of performance he did against Germany and you have to think he's worth persevering with for just a bit longer. I think Mancini doesn't want to be the manager that let him go just before he sorted himself out and realised his potential.

Can't remember which game it was, but earlier this season Torres was through on goal, defender just behind him, but Torres was close enough to goal that he wasn't catching him.

The defender clearly tugged at Torres, causing him to lose balance. Torres, off balance, managed to get enough contact to beat the keeper, but not enough contact to score. The defender who had tugged him carried on his run and cleared the ball just before it crossed the line.

Great defending, said the commentators.

But the clearance was only possible because the defender fouled Torres in the first place. Without that illegal contact then Torres would have been free to finish easily (for this example, let's ignore the fact that Torres ATM is just as likely to have smashed it 20 foot wide as score). A top quality ref would have given the foul because Torres was clearly impeded illegally and the defender gained a clear advantage because of that. But I don't think any referee in the PL would give that in real time. I think at a referee's meeting watching the video, every single ref would agree that the defender should have been penalised for the foul.

Another point on Balotelli. Isn't there also the case that the media exaggerate any issue they can anyway? Balotelli was subbed, took exception to it, as many players do, and slunk off to get dressed. Hardly an open and shut case for getting rid. Fergie would have slapped him around the training ground for slighting him, he might have kicked a few boots at his head, but he wouldn't have been binning him for it if he was scoring enough goals to forgive him.

Citeh getting rid of Balotelli would delight Man United right now. Just as the rest of the PL would be peeing their pants with joy if Chelsea came to the lunatic decision of getting rid of Terry and Cole over the kangaroo court verdict.

'The boy who cried wolf' probably more relevant

I don't see how any of that is at all relevant to my post, did you quote the right one?