Wait a second...
How the hell can you be defending someone when posting something that is a fact?
Evans didn't spit on Cisse...
That is pretty undeniable.
You could say he intended to spit at him...
You could say he spat in his direction...
But saying he didn't spit on him is actually 100% accurate.
Basically what you are accusing United fans of is being accurate about the Evans incident...
I happen to agree
3 match ban just confirmed for Skrtel...
http://www.kicca.com/dwright75/posts/5512b17eaed1d92974669c3d
And he's posted this on his Instagram, looks like he's fishing for more game bans Such a brain dead donkey.
He's just posted that? Why are footballers so fecking dumb?
All their intelligence went to their feet
comment by CoutinhosHappyFeet (U18971)
posted 3 hours, 3 minutes ago
comment by Juan Kerr (U1841)
posted 14 seconds ago
Yep, just read those links. This is the best you've got;
"He doesn't deny spitting at all, he just denied spitting on Cisse."
<epic-fail>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it's not. Even if United fans are claiming he didn't spit on Evans (why are you lot setugglingvwith the words 'on' & 'at'?) that isn't what I said.
I said United fans defended him for spitting at (not on) Evans, and said he shouldn't be banned.
-----------------------
Were United fans defending him for spitting at Cisse? I don't think so. United fans were questioning whether he did actually spit at Cisse. If Evans spat at Cisse then there is no defence. What is in question is whether that was his intention.
It has been spelt out several times for him now in a variety of different ways...
Surely you get it now?!
Evans should be banned fro life and Skrtel deserves to not be punished Was De Gea's fault anyway
comment by CoutinhosHappyFeet (U18971)
posted 3 hours, 22 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by CoutinhosHappyFeet (U18971)
posted 14 hours, 19 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 24 minutes ago
What's the guilty rate? 98% is it? He'll get banned and to be fair it probably is a frivolous appeal. The images speak for themselves and you can see the intent in his eyes/face. Suspect he'll only get 3 games though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He hasn't appealed, he's denied the charge. You appeal when the panel has reached a decision
------------------------------
You know what I meant. Maybe try discussing the actual topic rather than being pedantic around the pointless details.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How can he get done for a frivolous appeal when it's not an appeal?
----------------------------------------
Liverpool defender Martin Skrtel will serve a three-match ban after an independent Football Association disciplinary panel rejected his appeal against a violent conduct charge.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32051599
I think the way it goes is they charge you, then you decide whether to appeal or not.
Then, regardless of whether you appeal or not* a few days later they actually give you the punishment.
*appealing may give you a day or two longer to recieve your punishment...
comment by SAF_The_Legend-FreePalestine(7) (U5768)
posted 1 minute ago
I think the way it goes is they charge you, then you decide whether to appeal or not.
Then, regardless of whether you appeal or not* a few days later they actually give you the punishment.
*appealing may give you a day or two longer to recieve your punishment...
------------------------------
Exactly. The panel reviewed the incident and decided that it was worthy of a red card. Skrtel is then charged, but has a few days to deny/appeal the charge, which is what he did. Now that appeal has been refused and he has received a 3 game ban. So yes, I'd say that it is a frivolous appeal and he should have got longer.
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 32 minutes ago
comment by CoutinhosHappyFeet (U18971)
posted 3 hours, 3 minutes ago
comment by Juan Kerr (U1841)
posted 14 seconds ago
Yep, just read those links. This is the best you've got;
"He doesn't deny spitting at all, he just denied spitting on Cisse."
<epic-fail>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it's not. Even if United fans are claiming he didn't spit on Evans (why are you lot setugglingvwith the words 'on' & 'at'?) that isn't what I said.
I said United fans defended him for spitting at (not on) Evans, and said he shouldn't be banned.
-----------------------
Were United fans defending him for spitting at Cisse? I don't think so. United fans were questioning whether he did actually spit at Cisse. If Evans spat at Cisse then there is no defence. What is in question is whether that was his intention.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have tried multiple times to explain this to them both but they refuse to understand or maybe choose not to understand
On past dealings neither of them are too bright.
Cout is okay I think, or maybe he just doesn't resort to insults.... Well at the very least his name doesn't trigger my idiot radar...
The articles have been linked here. The context within which one states 'Evans spit on the floor' is a defence in most times within that thread. Either you are in denial or cant read a comment for the context it is made in.
comment by Mamba - Break it down... Ohohohohohohohoh... Now Stop! Mamba time (U1282) (U13041)
posted 1 minute ago
The articles have been linked here. The context within which one states 'Evans spit on the floor' is a defence in most times within that thread. Either you are in denial or cant read a comment for the context it is made in.
--------------------------------
Evans did spit on the floor and I believe that was his intention - to spit on the floor, not on Cisse. The laws of the game state that a player cannot spit AT an opponent. It doesn't say that they can't spit in an opponents direction. It really is that simple.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Didn't do a flying elbow that should say...
Evans was accused of spitting at Cisse. When Mancs respond with 'he spit on the floor'? Its all in the context and even on this thread some are still declaring his innocence ironically. Denying what is clear as day.
How is that denying anything?
He did spit on the floor...
That is a fact, if that fact sounds like a defence then obviously you are the one with the problem. Telling the truth is never a problem, if you think it is a problem...
Then it is you that is the problem!
Did you read my post? I can't believe this guy. United fans just ignore everything when their head is buried in the sand. Do you know the meaning of the word context? Do you know how context can change the meaning of a statement? Are you stupid? what is this telling the truth hogwash? Oh my days.
Some superb generalisation there.
Did Evans spit on the floor? Yes or No?
Yes. He spat on the floor.
Did Evans spit at Cisse or not?
Yes. He spat on the floor.
Did Evans spit at Cisse or not?
He was defended on the United board in the aftermath that much is fact.
This is like banging your head against a brick wall.
1) Evans spat on the floor
2) Utd fans accepted the punishment he received
These are facts, as much as you would like to suggest otherwise.
It is not like we went out and found links on Utd websites or stills of the spit to try and blame Cisse for it like some people did.
For example; Suarez/ Evra.... The handshake
http://www.ja606.co.uk/articles/viewArticle/153473
Suarez/ Evra.... The handshake
by Mamba - Break it down... Ohohohohohohohoh... Now Stop! Mamba time (U1282) (U13041) 17
=========================================
Following on from the article some way below, I've managed to read a few articles that really got me thinking. Why was Suarez blamed for the shake when there was a clear cut prima facie case that the whole hand shake saga was engineered by Evra?
I mean look at the photo on the right of this page!!!!!!
http://www.thisisanfield.com/2012/02/video-evra-refuses-suarez-handshake/
If I can get a good explanation why that photo appears the way it does (with Suarez's hand out for the shake while Evra's is withdrawn) and how comes it is still believed it was Suarez who snubbed Evra, I'll be glad to hear and accept it but as it stands now am just perplexed at this mass delusion where people follow what the media tells them. That photo shows clearly who snubbed who. How can anyone miss it?!?!? Also Evra is looking straight at Suarez's face while Suarez is looking around the hands where the hand shake should have taken place.
Go ahead now to look at the video. Try pausing at 0.15. Not very visible but OMG its so clear to me that it was not Suarez who caused the lack of a handshake!!! WTF???
Well, in the process I noted that not everyone missed it.
http://scouse.forum-gratuiti.com/t6268-evra-refused-to-shake-suarez-hand
http://www.koptalk.co.uk/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=189927
I am amazed that such a clear thing can go unnoticed especially by main stream media who crucified Suarez what with us having all the modern technology like cameras that take photos of the mole on your face all the way from outer space!! Also, I can't understand, in the circumstances why Evra would react the way he did following the 'snub' unless its to make it look real.
Why would Suarez later on say this anyway?
http://article.wn.com/view/2012/07/18/Luis_Suarez_reignites_Patrice_Evra_handshake_row/
Maybe Evra was under pressure himself and doubted Suarez would shake his hand and therefore didn't present it fully?
http://flair.wittysparks.com/article/0fd40Om3HI2Fj/evra-admits-he-was-under-pressure-over-suarez-handshake
I don't know what happened. What i know is that its not so clear cut that Suarez was the guilty party in this one. I also think the subsequent apology by Suarez was more for PR and brand/image protecting than a true apology. He made no direct apology to Evra anyway!
I've seen arguments that both were at fault which could also be the case really.
And to top it off, most convincing to me is this.....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/9130778/Liverpool-reignite-Luis-Suarez-row-as-Glen-Johnson-accuses-Patrice-Evra-of-manufacturing-handshake.html
Glen is black himself and if he doesn't believe a word Evra says i don't see why I should! I think on a balance of probabilities, at least on the hand shake thing Suarez was probably innocent after reading what Glen had to say.
After that Fergie came out saying Liverpool should get rid of Suarez. Hmmmmm......
I've noticed its the trend to laugh at such articles now a days (same as when you bring up Manchester United and the dodgy referee decisions) and calling the OP deluded when it happens but I like to dig up things from the past and bust myths so am sorry if anyone feels that this is exhausting. You can kindly avoid the thread. Am trying to be as unbiased as i can. Hopefully someone can tell me if it is the angle of the cameras that deceives the eye or does anyone agree with me?
================================
A truly spirited defence
Sign in if you want to comment
Frivolous appeal
Page 5 of 21
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 25/3/15
Wait a second...
How the hell can you be defending someone when posting something that is a fact?
Evans didn't spit on Cisse...
That is pretty undeniable.
You could say he intended to spit at him...
You could say he spat in his direction...
But saying he didn't spit on him is actually 100% accurate.
Basically what you are accusing United fans of is being accurate about the Evans incident...
I happen to agree
posted on 25/3/15
3 match ban just confirmed for Skrtel...
posted on 25/3/15
http://www.kicca.com/dwright75/posts/5512b17eaed1d92974669c3d
And he's posted this on his Instagram, looks like he's fishing for more game bans Such a brain dead donkey.
posted on 25/3/15
He's just posted that? Why are footballers so fecking dumb?
posted on 25/3/15
All their intelligence went to their feet
posted on 25/3/15
comment by CoutinhosHappyFeet (U18971)
posted 3 hours, 3 minutes ago
comment by Juan Kerr (U1841)
posted 14 seconds ago
Yep, just read those links. This is the best you've got;
"He doesn't deny spitting at all, he just denied spitting on Cisse."
<epic-fail>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it's not. Even if United fans are claiming he didn't spit on Evans (why are you lot setugglingvwith the words 'on' & 'at'?) that isn't what I said.
I said United fans defended him for spitting at (not on) Evans, and said he shouldn't be banned.
-----------------------
Were United fans defending him for spitting at Cisse? I don't think so. United fans were questioning whether he did actually spit at Cisse. If Evans spat at Cisse then there is no defence. What is in question is whether that was his intention.
posted on 25/3/15
It has been spelt out several times for him now in a variety of different ways...
Surely you get it now?!
posted on 25/3/15
Evans should be banned fro life and Skrtel deserves to not be punished Was De Gea's fault anyway
posted on 25/3/15
comment by CoutinhosHappyFeet (U18971)
posted 3 hours, 22 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by CoutinhosHappyFeet (U18971)
posted 14 hours, 19 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 24 minutes ago
What's the guilty rate? 98% is it? He'll get banned and to be fair it probably is a frivolous appeal. The images speak for themselves and you can see the intent in his eyes/face. Suspect he'll only get 3 games though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He hasn't appealed, he's denied the charge. You appeal when the panel has reached a decision
------------------------------
You know what I meant. Maybe try discussing the actual topic rather than being pedantic around the pointless details.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How can he get done for a frivolous appeal when it's not an appeal?
----------------------------------------
Liverpool defender Martin Skrtel will serve a three-match ban after an independent Football Association disciplinary panel rejected his appeal against a violent conduct charge.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32051599
posted on 25/3/15
I think the way it goes is they charge you, then you decide whether to appeal or not.
Then, regardless of whether you appeal or not* a few days later they actually give you the punishment.
*appealing may give you a day or two longer to recieve your punishment...
posted on 25/3/15
comment by SAF_The_Legend-FreePalestine(7) (U5768)
posted 1 minute ago
I think the way it goes is they charge you, then you decide whether to appeal or not.
Then, regardless of whether you appeal or not* a few days later they actually give you the punishment.
*appealing may give you a day or two longer to recieve your punishment...
------------------------------
Exactly. The panel reviewed the incident and decided that it was worthy of a red card. Skrtel is then charged, but has a few days to deny/appeal the charge, which is what he did. Now that appeal has been refused and he has received a 3 game ban. So yes, I'd say that it is a frivolous appeal and he should have got longer.
posted on 25/3/15
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 32 minutes ago
comment by CoutinhosHappyFeet (U18971)
posted 3 hours, 3 minutes ago
comment by Juan Kerr (U1841)
posted 14 seconds ago
Yep, just read those links. This is the best you've got;
"He doesn't deny spitting at all, he just denied spitting on Cisse."
<epic-fail>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it's not. Even if United fans are claiming he didn't spit on Evans (why are you lot setugglingvwith the words 'on' & 'at'?) that isn't what I said.
I said United fans defended him for spitting at (not on) Evans, and said he shouldn't be banned.
-----------------------
Were United fans defending him for spitting at Cisse? I don't think so. United fans were questioning whether he did actually spit at Cisse. If Evans spat at Cisse then there is no defence. What is in question is whether that was his intention.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have tried multiple times to explain this to them both but they refuse to understand or maybe choose not to understand
posted on 25/3/15
On past dealings neither of them are too bright.
posted on 25/3/15
Cout is okay I think, or maybe he just doesn't resort to insults.... Well at the very least his name doesn't trigger my idiot radar...
posted on 25/3/15
The articles have been linked here. The context within which one states 'Evans spit on the floor' is a defence in most times within that thread. Either you are in denial or cant read a comment for the context it is made in.
posted on 25/3/15
comment by Mamba - Break it down... Ohohohohohohohoh... Now Stop! Mamba time (U1282) (U13041)
posted 1 minute ago
The articles have been linked here. The context within which one states 'Evans spit on the floor' is a defence in most times within that thread. Either you are in denial or cant read a comment for the context it is made in.
--------------------------------
Evans did spit on the floor and I believe that was his intention - to spit on the floor, not on Cisse. The laws of the game state that a player cannot spit AT an opponent. It doesn't say that they can't spit in an opponents direction. It really is that simple.
posted on 25/3/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 25/3/15
Didn't do a flying elbow that should say...
posted on 25/3/15
Evans was accused of spitting at Cisse. When Mancs respond with 'he spit on the floor'? Its all in the context and even on this thread some are still declaring his innocence ironically. Denying what is clear as day.
posted on 25/3/15
How is that denying anything?
He did spit on the floor...
That is a fact, if that fact sounds like a defence then obviously you are the one with the problem. Telling the truth is never a problem, if you think it is a problem...
Then it is you that is the problem!
posted on 26/3/15
Did you read my post? I can't believe this guy. United fans just ignore everything when their head is buried in the sand. Do you know the meaning of the word context? Do you know how context can change the meaning of a statement? Are you stupid? what is this telling the truth hogwash? Oh my days.
posted on 26/3/15
Some superb generalisation there.
Did Evans spit on the floor? Yes or No?
posted on 26/3/15
Yes. He spat on the floor.
Did Evans spit at Cisse or not?
posted on 26/3/15
Yes. He spat on the floor.
Did Evans spit at Cisse or not?
He was defended on the United board in the aftermath that much is fact.
posted on 26/3/15
This is like banging your head against a brick wall.
1) Evans spat on the floor
2) Utd fans accepted the punishment he received
These are facts, as much as you would like to suggest otherwise.
It is not like we went out and found links on Utd websites or stills of the spit to try and blame Cisse for it like some people did.
For example; Suarez/ Evra.... The handshake
http://www.ja606.co.uk/articles/viewArticle/153473
Suarez/ Evra.... The handshake
by Mamba - Break it down... Ohohohohohohohoh... Now Stop! Mamba time (U1282) (U13041) 17
=========================================
Following on from the article some way below, I've managed to read a few articles that really got me thinking. Why was Suarez blamed for the shake when there was a clear cut prima facie case that the whole hand shake saga was engineered by Evra?
I mean look at the photo on the right of this page!!!!!!
http://www.thisisanfield.com/2012/02/video-evra-refuses-suarez-handshake/
If I can get a good explanation why that photo appears the way it does (with Suarez's hand out for the shake while Evra's is withdrawn) and how comes it is still believed it was Suarez who snubbed Evra, I'll be glad to hear and accept it but as it stands now am just perplexed at this mass delusion where people follow what the media tells them. That photo shows clearly who snubbed who. How can anyone miss it?!?!? Also Evra is looking straight at Suarez's face while Suarez is looking around the hands where the hand shake should have taken place.
Go ahead now to look at the video. Try pausing at 0.15. Not very visible but OMG its so clear to me that it was not Suarez who caused the lack of a handshake!!! WTF???
Well, in the process I noted that not everyone missed it.
http://scouse.forum-gratuiti.com/t6268-evra-refused-to-shake-suarez-hand
http://www.koptalk.co.uk/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=189927
I am amazed that such a clear thing can go unnoticed especially by main stream media who crucified Suarez what with us having all the modern technology like cameras that take photos of the mole on your face all the way from outer space!! Also, I can't understand, in the circumstances why Evra would react the way he did following the 'snub' unless its to make it look real.
Why would Suarez later on say this anyway?
http://article.wn.com/view/2012/07/18/Luis_Suarez_reignites_Patrice_Evra_handshake_row/
Maybe Evra was under pressure himself and doubted Suarez would shake his hand and therefore didn't present it fully?
http://flair.wittysparks.com/article/0fd40Om3HI2Fj/evra-admits-he-was-under-pressure-over-suarez-handshake
I don't know what happened. What i know is that its not so clear cut that Suarez was the guilty party in this one. I also think the subsequent apology by Suarez was more for PR and brand/image protecting than a true apology. He made no direct apology to Evra anyway!
I've seen arguments that both were at fault which could also be the case really.
And to top it off, most convincing to me is this.....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/9130778/Liverpool-reignite-Luis-Suarez-row-as-Glen-Johnson-accuses-Patrice-Evra-of-manufacturing-handshake.html
Glen is black himself and if he doesn't believe a word Evra says i don't see why I should! I think on a balance of probabilities, at least on the hand shake thing Suarez was probably innocent after reading what Glen had to say.
After that Fergie came out saying Liverpool should get rid of Suarez. Hmmmmm......
I've noticed its the trend to laugh at such articles now a days (same as when you bring up Manchester United and the dodgy referee decisions) and calling the OP deluded when it happens but I like to dig up things from the past and bust myths so am sorry if anyone feels that this is exhausting. You can kindly avoid the thread. Am trying to be as unbiased as i can. Hopefully someone can tell me if it is the angle of the cameras that deceives the eye or does anyone agree with me?
================================
A truly spirited defence
Page 5 of 21
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10