Now you're just being stupid. That falls under violent conduct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
It all falls under direct free kicks.
You really dont know the laws of the game do you?
Violent conduct is the criteria for red and yellow cards its not the criteria for giving free kicks.
You CANNOT give a free kick for violent conduct if its a punch the free kick is for punching or attempting to punch.
You can send off for violent conduct the distinction in the laws of the game is pretty clear
Jesus some people
Well, we can argue all day about the rules, but the sad truth is that the rules are not enforced most of the time. Players persistently get away with arm wrestling, hanging around the neck of an opponent, body checking, shirt tugging, etc etc.
If the rules were strictly enforced, the game as it is currently played would probably last 180 minutes instead of the regulation 90.
That is the current situation in today's game.
Refs do not enforce the rules consistently as they are written. An infraction has to be pretty blatant before a rule is enforced.
Its a pity, because the more talented players get dragged down to the level of the less talented.
And who suffers? We, the fans, do!
comment by grandspurs (U3810)
posted 1 minute ago
Now you're just being stupid. That falls under violent conduct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
It all falls under direct free kicks.
You really dont know the laws of the game do you?
Violent conduct is the criteria for red and yellow cards its not the criteria for giving free kicks.
You CANNOT give a free kick for violent conduct if its a punch the free kick is for punching or attempting to punch.
You can send off for violent conduct the distinction in the laws of the game is pretty clear
Jesus some people
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow.
You clearly haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about, with an obvious ignorance in regards to the rules of the game.
Let's break this down for you. If somebody punches you in the face, he gets sent off for violent conduct and it's a foul.
Being punched in the face puts you at a disadvantage(can't believe I'm having to explain this
Now let's move on to the Kane dive and establish a few points.
Contact is allowed in football.
Contact is not allowed if you haven't played the ball and you contact has put your opponent at a disadvantage.
When contact is made without playing the ball it is the referee's job to establish whether the contact put the player at a disadvantage.
Example when a player is put at a disadvantage: -
The goalkeeper comes out and takes the player down, without playing the ball.
Example when a player is not put at a disavantage: -
The goalkeeper comes out and slightly clips the player who can easily run on to try get to the ball but then dives to try simulate a disadvantage.
Or modifying your failed attempt at explaining: -
The player plays the ball past the goalkeeper who takes out the player but would not have got to the ball before it went out of play anyhow.
Short of drawing nice little pictures for you, that's the best I can do. Apologies.
You really dont know the laws of the game do you?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Out of curiosity how long have you been a qualified referee and how many games have you refereed?
comment by grandspurs (U3810)
posted 3 minutes ago
You really dont know the laws of the game do you?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Out of curiosity how long have you been a qualified referee and how many games have you refereed?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me count, that would be none. I've read the rules though if that counts?
Referees get things wrong just like anybody does in their field. It's difficult for them when players are diving, especially in games like today when there were three dives in the area.
Luckily VAR is coming in next season as the poor guys need help.
Let me count, that would be none. I've read the rules though if that counts?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Thought as much but as you are prepared to argue with pro refs its not a big surprise that you are prepared to argue with a qualified ref that has done 100's of games over the years like myself.
My suggestion to you would be to actually learn from some of the experience on boards like this then you might not look so damned stupid all the time.
Sorry but I am not prepared to argue any longer with somebody who honestly believes a free kick can be given for violent conduct.
Just to enhance your knowledge there are NO rules there are actually "The Laws of the Game" and I dont believe you have read them at all sunshine
As for havign read the
comment by grandspurs (U3810)
posted 1 minute ago
Let me count, that would be none. I've read the rules though if that counts?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Thought as much but as you are prepared to argue with pro refs its not a big surprise that you are prepared to argue with a qualified ref that has done 100's of games over the years like myself.
My suggestion to you would be to actually learn from some of the experience on boards like this then you might not look so damned stupid all the time.
Sorry but I am not prepared to argue any longer with somebody who honestly believes a free kick can be given for violent conduct.
Just to enhance your knowledge there are NO rules there are actually "The Laws of the Game" and I dont believe you have read them at all sunshine
As for havign read the
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's great you're not prepared to argue as I don't really want to enter into an argument with somebody so stupid that he thinks you can walk up to a player and punch him in the face and the player won't get a free kick for it.
The sheer stupidity is astounding.
My suggestion to you is to get a bit of knowledge if the subject at hand before entering into a debate about it. There's nothing worse than somebody who has no knowledge of the subject but wants to share his 'wisdom' anyhow and worse, believes that somebody paraphrasing from the actual rules is in fact less knowledgeable on the subject as he is. For me that's not only ignorance but delusion bordering on some kind of personality disorder.
Did you have a stroke before you finished your last sentence and with your last movement, mustered up all your remaining energy to press send?
It's great you're not prepared to argue as I don't really want to enter into an argument with somebody so stupid that he thinks you can walk up to a player and punch him in the face and the player won't get a free kick for it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just giving you a couple of possible scenarios if you really are stupid enough to think that I dont think a free kick will be award for a punch in the head then you are more stupid than I first thought but it wont be given for violent conduct you imbecile
comment by grandspurs (U3810)
posted 1 minute ago
It's great you're not prepared to argue as I don't really want to enter into an argument with somebody so stupid that he thinks you can walk up to a player and punch him in the face and the player won't get a free kick for it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just giving you a couple of possible scenarios if you really are stupid enough to think that I dont think a free kick will be award for a punch in the head then you are more stupid than I first thought but it wont be given for violent conduct you imbecile
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are guilty of violent conduct the opposition get a free kick, you bloody idiot.
Fouls and misconduct are penalised as follows:
Direct Free Kick
A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
Kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
Trips or attempts to trip an opponent
Jumps at an opponent
Charges an opponent, even with the shoulder
Strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
Pushes an opponent
Tackles an opponent
The FA's own rules, which for some reason I have to post despite it being bloody obvious. Notice the bit about striking an opponent?
Now would you like to get back to telling me how Karius put Kane at a disadvantage with a little clip and why Kane felt the need to dive. I'll answer the second part for you as it's obvious. He dived to simulate a disadvantage.
Oh and it's great you didn't have a stroke. I was worried there.
If you are guilty of violent conduct the opposition get a free kick, you bloody idiot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course you do plank but you dont get a free kick for violent conduct you get it for punching or kicking or attempting.
I am glad you have highlighted ATTEMPTING as earlier you said no contact no free kick goes to show how much you know . Want me to look back and prove you said it and that you are totally stupid?
Liverpool with less than 35% possession at home is ridiculous
comment by grandspurs (U3810)
posted 31 seconds ago
If you are guilty of violent conduct the opposition get a free kick, you bloody idiot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course you do plank but you dont get a free kick for violent conduct you get it for punching or kicking or attempting.
I am glad you have highlighted ATTEMPTING as earlier you said no contact no free kick goes to show how much you know . Want me to look back and prove you said it and that you are totally stupid?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow. Punching is violent conduct. I can't believe I have to tell anybody that.
As for the hissy fit in your second sentence, I didn't say no contact no free kick. I said contact doesn't mean a foul. The contact has to have put your opponent at a disadvantage for it to be a foul.
You really have to let this go. You're just not doing very well.
I'll happily make you look more stupid than you have made yourself already for another few minutes but I really have to do something a bit more meaningful before I hid the hay and get some sleep before work in the morning.
I know, why don't you 'look back and prove you said it and that you are totally stupid'. That should be fun for a few minutes.
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 5 minutes ago
Liverpool with less than 35% possession at home is ridiculous
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah I think Klopp learned from the Wembley game when Spurs done us on the counter and when we got the early goal our aim was to do what Spurs did and not allow Spurs behind us. Unfortunately the official got the call wrong at the end but in terms of how both teams performed a draw was probably the fair result.
Will be interesting to see how you do next season with an actual good midfielder. I still think it’s the system that doesn’t work, not the players. Noteworthy that VVD has made two mistakes already this season.
The system makes it more difficult for defenders. Playing without a defensive midfielder and attacking full backs puts a lot of pressure on them, where some teams are playing with two defensive midfielders and in Chelsea's case they played with three against us.
You have a point there. However we didn't play that system today. At least not after we scored as we sat much deeper trying to hold onto our lead and counter and yet two defenders still make two errors which regardless of the circumstances lead to goals. That's before you get into talking about the goalkeepers.
For me, we should buy a defensive midfielder and use one for certain games. Today for example.
Van Tripe so far, is proving to be what everybody expected, a massive waste of money.
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 17 minutes ago
The system makes it more difficult for defenders. Playing without a defensive midfielder and attacking full backs puts a lot of pressure on them, where some teams are playing with two defensive midfielders and in Chelsea's case they played with three against us.
You have a point there. However we didn't play that system today. At least not after we scored as we sat much deeper trying to hold onto our lead and counter and yet two defenders still make two errors which regardless of the circumstances lead to goals. That's before you get into talking about the goalkeepers.
For me, we should buy a defensive midfielder and use one for certain games. Today for example.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah I guess you did change the system but maybe didn’t have the right personnel to play a defensive game.
comment by grandspurs (U3810)
posted 2 hours, 56 minutes ago
If you are guilty of violent conduct the opposition get a free kick, you bloody idiot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course you do plank but you dont get a free kick for violent conduct you get it for punching or kicking or attempting.
I am glad you have highlighted ATTEMPTING as earlier you said no contact no free kick goes to show how much you know . Want me to look back and prove you said it and that you are totally stupid?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now Grand ..... this has been going on too long, you're old enough to know not to argue with 10 year old kids with a tablet they got for Christmas.
Lighten up
we got a draw out of it!
Here's a bit of advice from Yogi Berra:
"Always go to other people's funerals; otherwise they won't go to yours".
comment by JustCallMeTed (U21528)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by grandspurs (U3810)
posted 2 hours, 56 minutes ago
If you are guilty of violent conduct the opposition get a free kick, you bloody idiot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course you do plank but you dont get a free kick for violent conduct you get it for punching or kicking or attempting.
I am glad you have highlighted ATTEMPTING as earlier you said no contact no free kick goes to show how much you know . Want me to look back and prove you said it and that you are totally stupid?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now Grand ..... this has been going on too long, you're old enough to know not to argue with 10 year old kids with a tablet they got for Christmas.
Lighten up
we got a draw out of it!
Here's a bit of advice from Yogi Berra:
"Always go to other people's funerals; otherwise they won't go to yours".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That would make it even more embrassing for him that a ten year old understands the rules more than he does.
Perhaps instead of being a condescending ass hole, belittling somebody, who was in the right by the way, you could offer your opposition to what I said?
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 5 hours, 43 minutes ago
comment by JustCallMeTed (U21528)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by grandspurs (U3810)
posted 2 hours, 56 minutes ago
If you are guilty of violent conduct the opposition get a free kick, you bloody idiot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course you do plank but you dont get a free kick for violent conduct you get it for punching or kicking or attempting.
I am glad you have highlighted ATTEMPTING as earlier you said no contact no free kick goes to show how much you know . Want me to look back and prove you said it and that you are totally stupid?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now Grand ..... this has been going on too long, you're old enough to know not to argue with 10 year old kids with a tablet they got for Christmas.
Lighten up
we got a draw out of it!
Here's a bit of advice from Yogi Berra:
"Always go to other people's funerals; otherwise they won't go to yours".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That would make it even more embrassing for him that a ten year old understands the rules more than he does.
Perhaps instead of being a condescending ass hole, belittling somebody, who was in the right by the way, you could offer your opposition to what I said?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
you are a twerp, its that simple!
Very much enjoying the debate on yesterday's game and as usual, fans of both teams are being absolute in their views.
I'm not sure why Liverpool fans are so convinced that VAR would have helped them yesterday.
Funny that some are claiming the foul on Lamela would have been overturned because he made the most of it, conveniently forgetting the foul on Salah in the cup match where a touch on his shoulder made his legs buckle.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
Very much enjoying the debate on yesterday's game and as usual, fans of both teams are being absolute in their views.
I'm not sure why Liverpool fans are so convinced that VAR would have helped them yesterday.
Funny that some are claiming the foul on Lamela would have been overturned because he made the most of it, conveniently forgetting the foul on Salah in the cup match where a touch on his shoulder made his legs buckle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would you not be convinced VAR would help when the got a penalty from an offside player, in the dying seconds? You'd have to be stupid to not be convinced that would have helped.
Don't you think?
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
Was it offside?
I've seen an image where both players look pretty much level.
You seem rather wound up by yesterday - why is that? I thought the officials did okay.
Were you arguing about this until 2am?
Apparently Moss himself apologised to Klopp and yet the denial continues.
Shame.
Sign in if you want to comment
VAR unstoppable
Page 5 of 6
6
posted on 4/2/18
Now you're just being stupid. That falls under violent conduct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
It all falls under direct free kicks.
You really dont know the laws of the game do you?
Violent conduct is the criteria for red and yellow cards its not the criteria for giving free kicks.
You CANNOT give a free kick for violent conduct if its a punch the free kick is for punching or attempting to punch.
You can send off for violent conduct the distinction in the laws of the game is pretty clear
Jesus some people
posted on 4/2/18
Well, we can argue all day about the rules, but the sad truth is that the rules are not enforced most of the time. Players persistently get away with arm wrestling, hanging around the neck of an opponent, body checking, shirt tugging, etc etc.
If the rules were strictly enforced, the game as it is currently played would probably last 180 minutes instead of the regulation 90.
That is the current situation in today's game.
Refs do not enforce the rules consistently as they are written. An infraction has to be pretty blatant before a rule is enforced.
Its a pity, because the more talented players get dragged down to the level of the less talented.
And who suffers? We, the fans, do!
posted on 4/2/18
comment by grandspurs (U3810)
posted 1 minute ago
Now you're just being stupid. That falls under violent conduct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
It all falls under direct free kicks.
You really dont know the laws of the game do you?
Violent conduct is the criteria for red and yellow cards its not the criteria for giving free kicks.
You CANNOT give a free kick for violent conduct if its a punch the free kick is for punching or attempting to punch.
You can send off for violent conduct the distinction in the laws of the game is pretty clear
Jesus some people
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow.
You clearly haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about, with an obvious ignorance in regards to the rules of the game.
Let's break this down for you. If somebody punches you in the face, he gets sent off for violent conduct and it's a foul.
Being punched in the face puts you at a disadvantage(can't believe I'm having to explain this
Now let's move on to the Kane dive and establish a few points.
Contact is allowed in football.
Contact is not allowed if you haven't played the ball and you contact has put your opponent at a disadvantage.
When contact is made without playing the ball it is the referee's job to establish whether the contact put the player at a disadvantage.
Example when a player is put at a disadvantage: -
The goalkeeper comes out and takes the player down, without playing the ball.
Example when a player is not put at a disavantage: -
The goalkeeper comes out and slightly clips the player who can easily run on to try get to the ball but then dives to try simulate a disadvantage.
Or modifying your failed attempt at explaining: -
The player plays the ball past the goalkeeper who takes out the player but would not have got to the ball before it went out of play anyhow.
Short of drawing nice little pictures for you, that's the best I can do. Apologies.
posted on 4/2/18
You really dont know the laws of the game do you?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Out of curiosity how long have you been a qualified referee and how many games have you refereed?
posted on 4/2/18
comment by grandspurs (U3810)
posted 3 minutes ago
You really dont know the laws of the game do you?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Out of curiosity how long have you been a qualified referee and how many games have you refereed?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me count, that would be none. I've read the rules though if that counts?
Referees get things wrong just like anybody does in their field. It's difficult for them when players are diving, especially in games like today when there were three dives in the area.
Luckily VAR is coming in next season as the poor guys need help.
posted on 4/2/18
Let me count, that would be none. I've read the rules though if that counts?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Thought as much but as you are prepared to argue with pro refs its not a big surprise that you are prepared to argue with a qualified ref that has done 100's of games over the years like myself.
My suggestion to you would be to actually learn from some of the experience on boards like this then you might not look so damned stupid all the time.
Sorry but I am not prepared to argue any longer with somebody who honestly believes a free kick can be given for violent conduct.
Just to enhance your knowledge there are NO rules there are actually "The Laws of the Game" and I dont believe you have read them at all sunshine
As for havign read the
posted on 4/2/18
comment by grandspurs (U3810)
posted 1 minute ago
Let me count, that would be none. I've read the rules though if that counts?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Thought as much but as you are prepared to argue with pro refs its not a big surprise that you are prepared to argue with a qualified ref that has done 100's of games over the years like myself.
My suggestion to you would be to actually learn from some of the experience on boards like this then you might not look so damned stupid all the time.
Sorry but I am not prepared to argue any longer with somebody who honestly believes a free kick can be given for violent conduct.
Just to enhance your knowledge there are NO rules there are actually "The Laws of the Game" and I dont believe you have read them at all sunshine
As for havign read the
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's great you're not prepared to argue as I don't really want to enter into an argument with somebody so stupid that he thinks you can walk up to a player and punch him in the face and the player won't get a free kick for it.
The sheer stupidity is astounding.
My suggestion to you is to get a bit of knowledge if the subject at hand before entering into a debate about it. There's nothing worse than somebody who has no knowledge of the subject but wants to share his 'wisdom' anyhow and worse, believes that somebody paraphrasing from the actual rules is in fact less knowledgeable on the subject as he is. For me that's not only ignorance but delusion bordering on some kind of personality disorder.
Did you have a stroke before you finished your last sentence and with your last movement, mustered up all your remaining energy to press send?
posted on 4/2/18
It's great you're not prepared to argue as I don't really want to enter into an argument with somebody so stupid that he thinks you can walk up to a player and punch him in the face and the player won't get a free kick for it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just giving you a couple of possible scenarios if you really are stupid enough to think that I dont think a free kick will be award for a punch in the head then you are more stupid than I first thought but it wont be given for violent conduct you imbecile
posted on 4/2/18
comment by grandspurs (U3810)
posted 1 minute ago
It's great you're not prepared to argue as I don't really want to enter into an argument with somebody so stupid that he thinks you can walk up to a player and punch him in the face and the player won't get a free kick for it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just giving you a couple of possible scenarios if you really are stupid enough to think that I dont think a free kick will be award for a punch in the head then you are more stupid than I first thought but it wont be given for violent conduct you imbecile
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are guilty of violent conduct the opposition get a free kick, you bloody idiot.
Fouls and misconduct are penalised as follows:
Direct Free Kick
A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
Kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
Trips or attempts to trip an opponent
Jumps at an opponent
Charges an opponent, even with the shoulder
Strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
Pushes an opponent
Tackles an opponent
The FA's own rules, which for some reason I have to post despite it being bloody obvious. Notice the bit about striking an opponent?
Now would you like to get back to telling me how Karius put Kane at a disadvantage with a little clip and why Kane felt the need to dive. I'll answer the second part for you as it's obvious. He dived to simulate a disadvantage.
posted on 4/2/18
Oh and it's great you didn't have a stroke. I was worried there.
posted on 4/2/18
If you are guilty of violent conduct the opposition get a free kick, you bloody idiot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course you do plank but you dont get a free kick for violent conduct you get it for punching or kicking or attempting.
I am glad you have highlighted ATTEMPTING as earlier you said no contact no free kick goes to show how much you know . Want me to look back and prove you said it and that you are totally stupid?
posted on 4/2/18
Liverpool with less than 35% possession at home is ridiculous
posted on 4/2/18
comment by grandspurs (U3810)
posted 31 seconds ago
If you are guilty of violent conduct the opposition get a free kick, you bloody idiot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course you do plank but you dont get a free kick for violent conduct you get it for punching or kicking or attempting.
I am glad you have highlighted ATTEMPTING as earlier you said no contact no free kick goes to show how much you know . Want me to look back and prove you said it and that you are totally stupid?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow. Punching is violent conduct. I can't believe I have to tell anybody that.
As for the hissy fit in your second sentence, I didn't say no contact no free kick. I said contact doesn't mean a foul. The contact has to have put your opponent at a disadvantage for it to be a foul.
You really have to let this go. You're just not doing very well.
I'll happily make you look more stupid than you have made yourself already for another few minutes but I really have to do something a bit more meaningful before I hid the hay and get some sleep before work in the morning.
I know, why don't you 'look back and prove you said it and that you are totally stupid'. That should be fun for a few minutes.
posted on 4/2/18
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 5 minutes ago
Liverpool with less than 35% possession at home is ridiculous
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah I think Klopp learned from the Wembley game when Spurs done us on the counter and when we got the early goal our aim was to do what Spurs did and not allow Spurs behind us. Unfortunately the official got the call wrong at the end but in terms of how both teams performed a draw was probably the fair result.
posted on 4/2/18
Will be interesting to see how you do next season with an actual good midfielder. I still think it’s the system that doesn’t work, not the players. Noteworthy that VVD has made two mistakes already this season.
posted on 4/2/18
The system makes it more difficult for defenders. Playing without a defensive midfielder and attacking full backs puts a lot of pressure on them, where some teams are playing with two defensive midfielders and in Chelsea's case they played with three against us.
You have a point there. However we didn't play that system today. At least not after we scored as we sat much deeper trying to hold onto our lead and counter and yet two defenders still make two errors which regardless of the circumstances lead to goals. That's before you get into talking about the goalkeepers.
For me, we should buy a defensive midfielder and use one for certain games. Today for example.
posted on 4/2/18
Van Tripe so far, is proving to be what everybody expected, a massive waste of money.
posted on 4/2/18
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 17 minutes ago
The system makes it more difficult for defenders. Playing without a defensive midfielder and attacking full backs puts a lot of pressure on them, where some teams are playing with two defensive midfielders and in Chelsea's case they played with three against us.
You have a point there. However we didn't play that system today. At least not after we scored as we sat much deeper trying to hold onto our lead and counter and yet two defenders still make two errors which regardless of the circumstances lead to goals. That's before you get into talking about the goalkeepers.
For me, we should buy a defensive midfielder and use one for certain games. Today for example.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah I guess you did change the system but maybe didn’t have the right personnel to play a defensive game.
posted on 5/2/18
comment by grandspurs (U3810)
posted 2 hours, 56 minutes ago
If you are guilty of violent conduct the opposition get a free kick, you bloody idiot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course you do plank but you dont get a free kick for violent conduct you get it for punching or kicking or attempting.
I am glad you have highlighted ATTEMPTING as earlier you said no contact no free kick goes to show how much you know . Want me to look back and prove you said it and that you are totally stupid?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now Grand ..... this has been going on too long, you're old enough to know not to argue with 10 year old kids with a tablet they got for Christmas.
Lighten up
we got a draw out of it!
Here's a bit of advice from Yogi Berra:
"Always go to other people's funerals; otherwise they won't go to yours".
posted on 5/2/18
comment by JustCallMeTed (U21528)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by grandspurs (U3810)
posted 2 hours, 56 minutes ago
If you are guilty of violent conduct the opposition get a free kick, you bloody idiot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course you do plank but you dont get a free kick for violent conduct you get it for punching or kicking or attempting.
I am glad you have highlighted ATTEMPTING as earlier you said no contact no free kick goes to show how much you know . Want me to look back and prove you said it and that you are totally stupid?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now Grand ..... this has been going on too long, you're old enough to know not to argue with 10 year old kids with a tablet they got for Christmas.
Lighten up
we got a draw out of it!
Here's a bit of advice from Yogi Berra:
"Always go to other people's funerals; otherwise they won't go to yours".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That would make it even more embrassing for him that a ten year old understands the rules more than he does.
Perhaps instead of being a condescending ass hole, belittling somebody, who was in the right by the way, you could offer your opposition to what I said?
posted on 5/2/18
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 5 hours, 43 minutes ago
comment by JustCallMeTed (U21528)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by grandspurs (U3810)
posted 2 hours, 56 minutes ago
If you are guilty of violent conduct the opposition get a free kick, you bloody idiot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course you do plank but you dont get a free kick for violent conduct you get it for punching or kicking or attempting.
I am glad you have highlighted ATTEMPTING as earlier you said no contact no free kick goes to show how much you know . Want me to look back and prove you said it and that you are totally stupid?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now Grand ..... this has been going on too long, you're old enough to know not to argue with 10 year old kids with a tablet they got for Christmas.
Lighten up
we got a draw out of it!
Here's a bit of advice from Yogi Berra:
"Always go to other people's funerals; otherwise they won't go to yours".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That would make it even more embrassing for him that a ten year old understands the rules more than he does.
Perhaps instead of being a condescending ass hole, belittling somebody, who was in the right by the way, you could offer your opposition to what I said?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
you are a twerp, its that simple!
posted on 5/2/18
Very much enjoying the debate on yesterday's game and as usual, fans of both teams are being absolute in their views.
I'm not sure why Liverpool fans are so convinced that VAR would have helped them yesterday.
Funny that some are claiming the foul on Lamela would have been overturned because he made the most of it, conveniently forgetting the foul on Salah in the cup match where a touch on his shoulder made his legs buckle.
posted on 5/2/18
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
Very much enjoying the debate on yesterday's game and as usual, fans of both teams are being absolute in their views.
I'm not sure why Liverpool fans are so convinced that VAR would have helped them yesterday.
Funny that some are claiming the foul on Lamela would have been overturned because he made the most of it, conveniently forgetting the foul on Salah in the cup match where a touch on his shoulder made his legs buckle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would you not be convinced VAR would help when the got a penalty from an offside player, in the dying seconds? You'd have to be stupid to not be convinced that would have helped.
Don't you think?
posted on 5/2/18
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
Was it offside?
I've seen an image where both players look pretty much level.
You seem rather wound up by yesterday - why is that? I thought the officials did okay.
Were you arguing about this until 2am?
posted on 6/2/18
Apparently Moss himself apologised to Klopp and yet the denial continues.
Shame.
Page 5 of 6
6