comment by LQ (U6305)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Bobby Dazzler (U1449)
posted 40 minutes ago
Stamp??
Ffs, get a grip
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why? It was a stamp funny how much the attitudes of united fans have changed in a week about a stamp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't it.
Coutinho's Happy Feet (U18971)
I haven't changed any attitude and have been thoroughly consistent.
Winston
"When they're lying on the floor, it's the same likelihood"
What like the head as well.
"Now, it doesn't take a genius to work out that intent is not the basis for the extra two games, does it?"
So if intent wasn't the reason for the extra 2 games what in your opinion was?
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
Coutinho's Happy Feet (U18971)
I haven't changed any attitude and have been thoroughly consistent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did I refer to you specifically?
Although you did say Rojo didn't stamp earlier,
comment by Coutinho's Happy Feet (U18971)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by LQ (U6305)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Bobby Dazzler (U1449)
posted 40 minutes ago
Stamp??
Ffs, get a grip
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why? It was a stamp funny how much the attitudes of united fans have changed in a week about a stamp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The irony of these comments
Coutinho's Happy Feet (U18971)
Yes but given it was intentional, it's not about likelihood, is it?
I was merely showing the flaw in your point.
I told you what my opinion is - that the fact he aimed for his head is far more dangerous.
But you still can't acknowledge the ridiculousness of what you're saying.
Both players were found to have intended their stamp.
One player got three games, the other got five.
So clearly, intention was not the basis for the extra games.
Do you understand?
Coutinho's Happy Feet (U18971)
I don't think he did stamp - I think his is similar to Skrtel... more of a tread.
Not that it really matters - they're both violent conduct.
Winston
"I told you what my opinion is - that the fact he aimed for his head is far more dangerous"
And stamping on the chest is not more dangerous than stamping on the legs?
How do you feel about elbowing?
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 hours, 46 minutes ago
Neutral Fan (U1250)
Can you show me where someone defended him, please?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Even in this thread man
Coutinho's Happy Feet (U18971)
I don't think what Rojo did is particularly more dangerous than what Skrtel did, no.
Generally in the FA's world there are standard incidents and then extreme incidents - not a scale of severity.
You still can't admit your error regarding intent, can you?
Neutral Fan (U1250)
Where?
Not saying you're wrong, but I can't see it.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
Coutinho's Happy Feet (U18971)
I don't think what Rojo did is particularly more dangerous than what Skrtel did, no.
Generally in the FA's world there are standard incidents and then extreme incidents - not a scale of severity.
You still can't admit your error regarding intent, can you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Really? So stamping on someone's legs is as dangerous than stamping on someone's chest, but not as dangerous as stamping on the head. Interesting logic.
What about intentional elbows to the head? I'd say more dangerous than stamping on someone's leg. But receives the same 3 match ban.
Winston
"You still can't admit your error regarding intent, can you?"
Again I was going off what Bournemouth and Mings said. You are plucking your argument out of thin air.
Coutinho's Happy Feet (U18971)
What they said was irrelevant.
You misinterpreted what they said because you know very little about the law.
That much is clear.
I find it astounding that you don't realise anyone charged with violent conduct is deemed to have intended it.
Coutinho's Happy Feet (U18971)
I'd say that what Rojo did wasn't particularly dangerous.
If he'd stood there and put his full weight through a stamp onto the chest then it would be different, but he didn't.
As I said, the FA will generally categorise most things as standard - elbows, treading on opponents etc.
They obviously classified Mings as more serious.
Makes perfect sense to me and to anyone with common sense, I suspect.
comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 34 minutes ago
comment by Coutinho's Happy Feet (U18971)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by LQ (U6305)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Bobby Dazzler (U1449)
posted 40 minutes ago
Stamp??
Ffs, get a grip
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why? It was a stamp funny how much the attitudes of united fans have changed in a week about a stamp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The irony of these comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why irony pride, I said mings was a stamp and his apeal was frivolous.
Why is it irony?
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
Coutinho's Happy Feet (U18971)
What they said was irrelevant.
You misinterpreted what they said because you know very little about the law.
That much is clear.
I find it astounding that you don't realise anyone charged with violent conduct is deemed to have intended it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Erm no. There's nothing to misinterpret. They felt the length of ban was unjust because what Mings did wasn't intentional. I'd suggest you read their statements again.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
Coutinho's Happy Feet (U18971)
I'd say that what Rojo did wasn't particularly dangerous.
If he'd stood there and put his full weight through a stamp onto the chest then it would be different, but he didn't.
As I said, the FA will generally categorise most things as standard - elbows, treading on opponents etc.
They obviously classified Mings as more serious.
Makes perfect sense to me and to anyone with common sense, I suspect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah right an intentional stamp to the chest isn't dangerous. You ok then.
Mings didn't put his 'full weight' into the stamp on Ibrahimovic. Also not dangerous then. Skrtel didn't put his 'full weight' onto De Gea, same applies.
You still haven't answered my question about intentional elbows to the head, and how dangerous they are by comparison.
No action to be taken
For once, common sense prevails
Joke decision by The FA. 3rd one he's got away with.
Another pint of bitter sir?
What we do know is;
Winston can calculate psi pressure by sight,
The FA are one hooky organisation,
There will be many smug "agent Gill" references over the coming days
Coutinho's Happy Feet (U18971)
I know what they felt and you're trying to get out of your mistake - I won't let you.
You thought the extra games was related to the fact that the FA thought it was intentional.
That is nonsense because all cases of violent conduct are deemed intentional e.g. Skrtel.
So the extra games must have been based on something else.
Let me know when the penny drops?
"Ah right an intentional stamp to the chest isn't dangerous"
Did I say that?
Fact is that most cases of violent conduct are dealt with by giving a three game ban.
Rojo's offence didn't look particularly serious to anyone with an ounce of common sense (or without an anti United agenda), and a three game ban would have been the norm.
You're only calling for a five game ban because Mings got one, which is somewhat childish and certainly illogical.
Sign in if you want to comment
Was Rojo stamp worse than Tyrone?
Page 5 of 6
6
posted on 14/3/17
comment by LQ (U6305)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Bobby Dazzler (U1449)
posted 40 minutes ago
Stamp??
Ffs, get a grip
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why? It was a stamp funny how much the attitudes of united fans have changed in a week about a stamp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't it.
posted on 14/3/17
Coutinho's Happy Feet (U18971)
I haven't changed any attitude and have been thoroughly consistent.
posted on 14/3/17
Winston
"When they're lying on the floor, it's the same likelihood"
What like the head as well.
"Now, it doesn't take a genius to work out that intent is not the basis for the extra two games, does it?"
So if intent wasn't the reason for the extra 2 games what in your opinion was?
posted on 14/3/17
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
Coutinho's Happy Feet (U18971)
I haven't changed any attitude and have been thoroughly consistent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did I refer to you specifically?
Although you did say Rojo didn't stamp earlier,
posted on 14/3/17
comment by Coutinho's Happy Feet (U18971)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by LQ (U6305)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Bobby Dazzler (U1449)
posted 40 minutes ago
Stamp??
Ffs, get a grip
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why? It was a stamp funny how much the attitudes of united fans have changed in a week about a stamp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The irony of these comments
posted on 14/3/17
Coutinho's Happy Feet (U18971)
Yes but given it was intentional, it's not about likelihood, is it?
I was merely showing the flaw in your point.
I told you what my opinion is - that the fact he aimed for his head is far more dangerous.
But you still can't acknowledge the ridiculousness of what you're saying.
Both players were found to have intended their stamp.
One player got three games, the other got five.
So clearly, intention was not the basis for the extra games.
Do you understand?
posted on 14/3/17
Coutinho's Happy Feet (U18971)
I don't think he did stamp - I think his is similar to Skrtel... more of a tread.
Not that it really matters - they're both violent conduct.
posted on 14/3/17
Winston
"I told you what my opinion is - that the fact he aimed for his head is far more dangerous"
And stamping on the chest is not more dangerous than stamping on the legs?
How do you feel about elbowing?
posted on 14/3/17
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 hours, 46 minutes ago
Neutral Fan (U1250)
Can you show me where someone defended him, please?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Even in this thread man
posted on 14/3/17
Coutinho's Happy Feet (U18971)
I don't think what Rojo did is particularly more dangerous than what Skrtel did, no.
Generally in the FA's world there are standard incidents and then extreme incidents - not a scale of severity.
You still can't admit your error regarding intent, can you?
posted on 14/3/17
Neutral Fan (U1250)
Where?
Not saying you're wrong, but I can't see it.
posted on 14/3/17
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
Coutinho's Happy Feet (U18971)
I don't think what Rojo did is particularly more dangerous than what Skrtel did, no.
Generally in the FA's world there are standard incidents and then extreme incidents - not a scale of severity.
You still can't admit your error regarding intent, can you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Really? So stamping on someone's legs is as dangerous than stamping on someone's chest, but not as dangerous as stamping on the head. Interesting logic.
What about intentional elbows to the head? I'd say more dangerous than stamping on someone's leg. But receives the same 3 match ban.
posted on 14/3/17
Winston
"You still can't admit your error regarding intent, can you?"
Again I was going off what Bournemouth and Mings said. You are plucking your argument out of thin air.
posted on 14/3/17
Coutinho's Happy Feet (U18971)
What they said was irrelevant.
You misinterpreted what they said because you know very little about the law.
That much is clear.
I find it astounding that you don't realise anyone charged with violent conduct is deemed to have intended it.
posted on 14/3/17
Coutinho's Happy Feet (U18971)
I'd say that what Rojo did wasn't particularly dangerous.
If he'd stood there and put his full weight through a stamp onto the chest then it would be different, but he didn't.
As I said, the FA will generally categorise most things as standard - elbows, treading on opponents etc.
They obviously classified Mings as more serious.
Makes perfect sense to me and to anyone with common sense, I suspect.
posted on 14/3/17
comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 34 minutes ago
comment by Coutinho's Happy Feet (U18971)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by LQ (U6305)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Bobby Dazzler (U1449)
posted 40 minutes ago
Stamp??
Ffs, get a grip
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why? It was a stamp funny how much the attitudes of united fans have changed in a week about a stamp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The irony of these comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why irony pride, I said mings was a stamp and his apeal was frivolous.
Why is it irony?
posted on 14/3/17
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
Coutinho's Happy Feet (U18971)
What they said was irrelevant.
You misinterpreted what they said because you know very little about the law.
That much is clear.
I find it astounding that you don't realise anyone charged with violent conduct is deemed to have intended it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Erm no. There's nothing to misinterpret. They felt the length of ban was unjust because what Mings did wasn't intentional. I'd suggest you read their statements again.
posted on 14/3/17
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
Coutinho's Happy Feet (U18971)
I'd say that what Rojo did wasn't particularly dangerous.
If he'd stood there and put his full weight through a stamp onto the chest then it would be different, but he didn't.
As I said, the FA will generally categorise most things as standard - elbows, treading on opponents etc.
They obviously classified Mings as more serious.
Makes perfect sense to me and to anyone with common sense, I suspect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah right an intentional stamp to the chest isn't dangerous. You ok then.
Mings didn't put his 'full weight' into the stamp on Ibrahimovic. Also not dangerous then. Skrtel didn't put his 'full weight' onto De Gea, same applies.
You still haven't answered my question about intentional elbows to the head, and how dangerous they are by comparison.
posted on 14/3/17
No action to be taken
For once, common sense prevails
posted on 14/3/17
Joke decision by The FA. 3rd one he's got away with.
posted on 14/3/17
Another pint of bitter sir?
posted on 14/3/17
Not surprised
posted on 14/3/17
What we do know is;
Winston can calculate psi pressure by sight,
The FA are one hooky organisation,
There will be many smug "agent Gill" references over the coming days
posted on 15/3/17
Coutinho's Happy Feet (U18971)
I know what they felt and you're trying to get out of your mistake - I won't let you.
You thought the extra games was related to the fact that the FA thought it was intentional.
That is nonsense because all cases of violent conduct are deemed intentional e.g. Skrtel.
So the extra games must have been based on something else.
Let me know when the penny drops?
posted on 15/3/17
"Ah right an intentional stamp to the chest isn't dangerous"
Did I say that?
Fact is that most cases of violent conduct are dealt with by giving a three game ban.
Rojo's offence didn't look particularly serious to anyone with an ounce of common sense (or without an anti United agenda), and a three game ban would have been the norm.
You're only calling for a five game ban because Mings got one, which is somewhat childish and certainly illogical.
Page 5 of 6
6