ooh was it none?

As I have asserted, NOT every foul merits a card.

out of 17 fouls, chances are 1 or 2 may have done but cheating corrupt madeley decided that not one did!

What you assert is clear. But are you saying that you would ref a game with both sides competitive , and allow one side 50 fouls with fifty stoppages, and never conclude that they are taking the piss out of you and everyone there? Whilst in your wisdom you have handed let’s say six cards to the other team, who have committed 25 fouls ?
It’s a little far fetched ,but by your assertion that only a certain type, of foul can fetch a card , it’s a possibility.
Far fetched or otherwise it’s happening all to often, lower numbers, not as stand out as the example, and because of its fairly obvious consequences it has to be viewed as ,what so easily could be an easy way for a ref to show favour to one side and then hide ibehind your assertion.

Edited by Putitout (11 Dec 2023 7.55pm)

Edited by Putitout (11 Dec 2023 8.18pm)

The main problem is that whenever you play the big boys the whole Back 4 are cautioned within an hour. This limits them in defending as they have to think twice whenever they tackle and is a widely underrated disadvantage. You may say that the numerous yellows are the result of ongoing waves of attacks by the superior side where the underdogs couldn't help themselves but by constant fouling. But this was clearly not the case in Sunday's game.

On the subject of refereeing you don't have "sentiments". It's the same "sentiment" all the time, trotted out month after month, season after season. It's a Pavlovian reaction: someone criticises a referee and you will immediately post that referees can err - but never admit that the criticism is justified. And that's why I say your repetition of the same, never-varying words doesn't add anything to the debate and has become simply tedious. If your words were a "load of old codswallop", they would be much more interesting.