You might notice that we haven't included a single mail about teams in pubs, because most of them were terrible. Instead we have a disgruntled Fulham fan and Scouse maths...
If we were Alan Pardew, we'd feel a whole lot better if Rafa Benitez took a job far away from the Premier League. He looks the most vulnerable to a Spanish coup...
When I watched Mike Dean overrule the assistant who flagged for offside against Papiss Cisse as Jonny Evans sliced into his own net on Boxing Day, I wasn't sold on his decision. Mr Dean is one of our very best referees, in my opinion, but I instinctively felt he had got it wrong. I thought Cisse was in a position that certainly warranted a flag going up and the goal not being allowed. Mr Dean felt differently.
I think I can back up my judgement by using the written words of the Laws of the Game. Cisse was unmistakably in an offside position, but the key to this rests on the wording of what constitutes 'interfering with an opponent'. I would argue that common sense dictates that a centre-forward, with the ball coming to him, stood in the centre of the goal, in the six-yard box, is forcing a defender to make a block, and therefore is interfering with the defender. However, we're not dealing with common sense, are we? We're dealing with FIFA.
The laws state that: 'Interfering with an opponent means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision or movements or making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts and opponent.'
I would argue that, as stated, a player making a movement into the six-yard box is distracting a defender and the last line backs me up in thinking it should be given as offside. I would say Cisse made a movement that distracted Evans, and the evidence is that Evans and Cisse were actually in contact with one another. However, referees in the top flight will occasionally detail an FIFA directive that essentially says that a player in this sort of position, provided he doesn't block the goalkeeper's view, isn't offside until he plays the ball.
The frustration to me is that this isn't common knowledge. If this is the way things are to be, everyone needs to be aware. I am fine with the words 'in the opinion of the referee' involved in legislature, because that's a major part of officiating, but if Mike Dean's interpretation is accepted to be the correct one - and directives have to be issued to clarify matters - don't you think the Law should be better worded in the first place?
It needs also to be noted that any of the above does not excuse Sir Alex Ferguson's outburst. It sends a message out to all managers that you can react as badly as you wish, since Sir Alex received no punishment whatsoever. Whether you are right or wrong, there are civilised ways of protesting. Additionally, perhaps, Ferguson claimed that Cisse had pulled Evans too. I didn't see anything that would suggest this type of infringement occurred.
Interestingly, the furore surrounding this goal has shifted a little focus away from the fact that Manchester United very possibly could have had a penalty at 3-3, before they got their winner. Javier Hernandez's shot was very definitely handled by Fabricio Coloccini, with Mr Dean in a terrific position to see it. Surprisingly, nothing was given.
They may have been a question as whether Coloccini was inside the area or not, which would have been an additional talking point depending on whether a free-kick or penalty had been awarded. But it certainly merited something.
The other Manchester club also felt hard done by, as before Adam Johnson scored the only goal of the game, Man City felt Pablo Zabaleta was upended by Craig Gardner. To be fair, they had a point, but I feel for the referee in this instance, because in real time the tackle looked fair. The referee had a different angle to the main TV camera, and the ball went in a direction that certainly indicated that Gardner had fairly won the ball.
I think the decision was ultimately a wrong one, but I'm not too scathing of the official for the - in my mind, understandable - call.
I think the worst decision of the day was at Loftus Road, where I felt extremely sorry for Rob Green and Queens Park Rangers, because Marc-Antoine Fortune clearly fouled the Rs goalkeeper for West Bromwich Albion's second goal.
There is a difference between standing your ground and backing in, and Fortune was doing the latter. Standing your ground involves standing upright and being strong, not edging backwards and pushing into the goalkeeper, hindering his jump.
Asserting that 'goalkeepers get too much protection' is not only an empty quote said by people without the capacity to think for themselves, it is entirely irrelevant in analysing an individual incident. It's either a foul or it isn't, and in my opinion, this was a foul. I thought Chris Foy was poorly positioned to see it, and got it very wrong.
It got worse for QPR, who deserved a penalty when Liam Ridgewell, jumping oddly and unnaturally with his left arm raised, struck the ball with his forearm inside the area. I don't, in this case, blame Mr Foy for missing it because it occurred at an awkward angle for his run, but his assistant was in a great spot and missed it.
Liverpool got their first penalty of the season at Stoke on Wednesday, and they totally deserved it. This was a case of the wording of the law being very helpful in explaining to those frustrated by the fact that Shawcross' pull on Suarez began outside the area, but a penalty was still awarded when the Uruguayan went down in the 18-yard box.
'If a defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area and continues holding him inside the penalty area, the referee must award a penalty kick.' Howard Webb was spot on.
However, I thought Suarez's challenge on Stoke goalkeeper Asmir Begovic later in the game was a horrible one, and that he was very lucky Mr Webb only showed him a yellow card. I thought Suarez had a glance at the oncoming goalkeeper and made a challenge which was very high, dangerous and committed with excessive force.
I don't quite subscribe to what seems to be the accepted view that Wigan most definitely should have had a penalty at Everton. I won't deny for a second that Leon Osman's challenge on Shaun Maloney might have caught the Latics man, but after multiple, painstaking views at slow-motion replays, I cannot be sure that there was contact. I'm not denying there was, but I just don't think it's conclusive. If there was, then I feel awful for Wigan, who are having a bad run, but I don't feel able to castigate Lee Mason at all, since I see no proof that he was incorrect.
Lastly, I want to end on a couple of positives. Well done to Mike Jones (again) for spotting Adam Le Fondre's handball, trying to nick a goal and a win for beleaguered Reading by handling the ball home. Jones rightly cautioned Le Fondre, who possessed a ludicrous 'what did I do?' look on his face.
Also, great call by Phil Dowd, catching the fact that Chris Baird handled in area, awarding Southampton a penalty that got them a point.
Rob McNichol (he's on Twitter, you know)