No you confuse people thinking it was a dive for people thinking it wasn't a foul because you're not very clever.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 minutes ago
No TOOR, I don’t think it was a foul.

And judging by much of what I’ve read online, nor do many people outside the deluded Liverpool fraternity.

Most people are laughing at the decision from what I can tell.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Some people. Those people are biased. The video was reviewed and it was decided Salah wouldn't be punished. If they thought he dives without a foul, he'd have been punished. I guess it's all one big conspiracy and you're right.

comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 2 hours, 47 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 31 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 8 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
‘A player knows he has been fouled’

What if the referee disagrees?

Does TOOR have the deciding vote?


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then he doesn't get the foul. Obviously. In this case he did, they reviewed it and judged it was a foul and therefore no punishment for Salah. And yet here you are arguing it. Typical Winston.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

That’s not how the retrospective panel works actually.

So if the referee disagrees then how can Salah ‘know’ he has been fouled?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A foul is a foul whether the referee gets it right or not. Wow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Incorrect.

A foul is a subjective decision and therefore often it comes down to a matter of opinion.

You’ve struggled with this point before so it’s no surprise to see you stumped again.

Two people can watch the same incident, disagree, yet neither be wrong.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 55 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 2 hours, 47 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 31 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 8 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
‘A player knows he has been fouled’

What if the referee disagrees?

Does TOOR have the deciding vote?


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then he doesn't get the foul. Obviously. In this case he did, they reviewed it and judged it was a foul and therefore no punishment for Salah. And yet here you are arguing it. Typical Winston.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

That’s not how the retrospective panel works actually.

So if the referee disagrees then how can Salah ‘know’ he has been fouled?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A foul is a foul whether the referee gets it right or not. Wow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Incorrect.

A foul is a subjective decision and therefore often it comes down to a matter of opinion.

You’ve struggled with this point before so it’s no surprise to see you stumped again.

Two people can watch the same incident, disagree, yet neither be wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Being pulled back is not objective, in real time you may have a point, however it was viewed retrospectively. They obviously thought a foul occurred or Salah would have been punished for his dive. Being pulled is not subjective, you were either pulled or you weren't, since he was, it was a foul. You can't be this stupid.

comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 minutes ago
No TOOR, I don’t think it was a foul.

And judging by much of what I’ve read online, nor do many people outside the deluded Liverpool fraternity.

Most people are laughing at the decision from what I can tell.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Some people. Those people are biased. The video was reviewed and it was decided Salah wouldn't be punished. If they thought he dives without a foul, he'd have been punished. I guess it's all one big conspiracy and you're right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for proving your lack of knowledge.

The retrospective panel is to decide whether there’s conclusive evidence of deceiving a match official, not whether they agree with whether it was a foul.

We both know that many, many dives go unpunished so it’s hardly relevant anyway.

My opinion that it was not a foul is just as valid as your opinion that it was.

And until you understand that, you’ll forever be struggling.

comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 55 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 2 hours, 47 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 31 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 8 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
‘A player knows he has been fouled’

What if the referee disagrees?

Does TOOR have the deciding vote?


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then he doesn't get the foul. Obviously. In this case he did, they reviewed it and judged it was a foul and therefore no punishment for Salah. And yet here you are arguing it. Typical Winston.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

That’s not how the retrospective panel works actually.

So if the referee disagrees then how can Salah ‘know’ he has been fouled?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A foul is a foul whether the referee gets it right or not. Wow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Incorrect.

A foul is a subjective decision and therefore often it comes down to a matter of opinion.

You’ve struggled with this point before so it’s no surprise to see you stumped again.

Two people can watch the same incident, disagree, yet neither be wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Being pulled back is not objective, in real time you may have a point, however it was viewed retrospectively. They obviously thought a foul occurred or Salah would have been punished for his dive. Being pulled is not subjective, you were either pulled or you weren't, since he was, it was a foul. You can't be this stupid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

So does ‘being pulled back’ feature in the laws of the game?

Also if two people disagree on whether it was a foul, one of them is wrong, obviously, since a pull was alleged. Since the pull can be seen, anybody saying it's not a foul is wrong, like you, for example. Weirdo.

comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 15 seconds ago
Also if two people disagree on whether it was a foul, one of them is wrong, obviously, since a pull was alleged. Since the pull can be seen, anybody saying it's not a foul is wrong, like you, for example. Weirdo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Wrong.

The laws are written in such a way that a referee decides upon the extent of contact as to whether it is deemed a foul.

The actual action of ‘pulling’ is not an automatic free kick.

So here we go again... can you admit you’re wrong?

TOOR, do you remember when you told me and Melton that ‘ball to hand’ is binary?



It amazes me that you learnt nothing from that conversation.

Incorrect.
A foul is a subjective decision and therefore often it comes down to a matter of opinion.
======
Wrong again.

Some fouls are a subjective decision and therefore often it comes down to a matter of opinion.

Other fouls are clear as day and not a subjective decision and therefore doesn't often come down to a matter of opinion.

You're welcome.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 50 minutes ago
TOOR, do you remember when you told me and Melton that ‘ball to hand’ is binary?



It amazes me that you learnt nothing from that conversation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that is not what I said is it? I think you'll find I said hand to ball, as in the players arm moving towards the ball. It was there in black and white also. But of course that doesn't stop you. Always trying to argue points people didn't make. A typical Winston tactic. If arguing black is white doesn't work, attempt to create an argument by arguing against something nobody said. You're just weird.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 hours ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 minutes ago
No TOOR, I don’t think it was a foul.

And judging by much of what I’ve read online, nor do many people outside the deluded Liverpool fraternity.

Most people are laughing at the decision from what I can tell.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Some people. Those people are biased. The video was reviewed and it was decided Salah wouldn't be punished. If they thought he dives without a foul, he'd have been punished. I guess it's all one big conspiracy and you're right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for proving your lack of knowledge.

The retrospective panel is to decide whether there’s conclusive evidence of deceiving a match official, not whether they agree with whether it was a foul.

We both know that many, many dives go unpunished so it’s hardly relevant anyway.

My opinion that it was not a foul is just as valid as your opinion that it was.

And until you understand that, you’ll forever be struggling.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What are you blabbering on about now? If they didn't deem it a foul, considering he dived, then they would have punished him. Thick as two short planks.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 hours, 11 minutes ago
comment by Firmino's Brightest Tooth (U1217)
posted 29 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 56 seconds ago
comment by Firmino's Brightest Tooth (U1217)
posted 2 minutes ago
Jesus wept.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Good day out then?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Great so far thanks, just had a break for food and will now resume.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Checking a forum while on a day out drinking.

Each to their own.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well as I said I was on a food break. I was at Subway at the time.

And at the fact this is still going.

comment by Firmino's Brightest Tooth (U1217)
posted 1 hour ago
Andat the fact this is still going.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You haven't met Winston have you? This will go on for days. Tomorrow he'll come back with the same points, arguing black is white and creating arguments by arguing against something nobody said. He'll call everybody stupid and repeat ad nauseum. Everybody will else will get fed up, he'll claim victory.

He's a weird fellow.

You haven't met Winston have you? This will go on for days. Tomorrow he'll come back with the same points, arguing black is white and creating arguments by arguing against something nobody said. He'll call everybody stupid and repeat ad nauseum. Everybody will else will get fed up, he'll claim victory.

He's a weird fellow.
======
I wonder what imaginary topic he'll be arguing against today.

Over 50% of his posts here are categorically bullsheet and that's not an exaggeration.

He's filtered me and can't see my posts (obviously he logs out to read them in the end)

comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 7 hours, 32 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 50 minutes ago
TOOR, do you remember when you told me and Melton that ‘ball to hand’ is binary?



It amazes me that you learnt nothing from that conversation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that is not what I said is it? I think you'll find I said hand to ball, as in the players arm moving towards the ball. It was there in black and white also. But of course that doesn't stop you. Always trying to argue points people didn't make. A typical Winston tactic. If arguing black is white doesn't work, attempt to create an argument by arguing against something nobody said. You're just weird.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

That’s what I meant - ball to hand / hand to ball... you said it’s binary.

Hilarious that you’re doing it again. You just don’t understand how a decision like that is a matter of opinion.

And yet you accuse me of looking at things in back and white?

comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 7 hours, 32 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 hours ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 minutes ago
No TOOR, I don’t think it was a foul.

And judging by much of what I’ve read online, nor do many people outside the deluded Liverpool fraternity.

Most people are laughing at the decision from what I can tell.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Some people. Those people are biased. The video was reviewed and it was decided Salah wouldn't be punished. If they thought he dives without a foul, he'd have been punished. I guess it's all one big conspiracy and you're right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for proving your lack of knowledge.

The retrospective panel is to decide whether there’s conclusive evidence of deceiving a match official, not whether they agree with whether it was a foul.

We both know that many, many dives go unpunished so it’s hardly relevant anyway.

My opinion that it was not a foul is just as valid as your opinion that it was.

And until you understand that, you’ll forever be struggling.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What are you blabbering on about now? If they didn't deem it a foul, considering he dived, then they would have punished him. Thick as two short planks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

You really are stupid!

There’s a difference between whether it was a clear dive worthy of punishment and whether the panel think it’s a foul.

They do not offer any view on the actual decision and it’s perfectly feasible that they believe it wasn’t the correct decision but that there’s not enough evidence to charge him with diving.

You’re actually not very bright, are you?

comment by Firmino's Brightest Tooth (U1217)
posted 7 hours, 27 minutes ago
Andat the fact this is still going.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I don’t check forums when I’m out on the lash with my mates. Each to their own.

comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 6 hours, 23 minutes ago
comment by Firmino's Brightest Tooth (U1217)
posted 1 hour ago
Andat the fact this is still going.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You haven't met Winston have you? This will go on for days. Tomorrow he'll come back with the same points, arguing black is white and creating arguments by arguing against something nobody said. He'll call everybody stupid and repeat ad nauseum. Everybody will else will get fed up, he'll claim victory.

He's a weird fellow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Always makes me laugh, this.

You realise you’re doing exactly what you describe here?

Takes two to have an argument.

You really are a mess TOOR.

Oh and TOOR, I asked you where ‘being pulled back’ features in the laws of the game.

Why haven’t you answered?

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 hours, 23 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 7 hours, 32 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 50 minutes ago
TOOR, do you remember when you told me and Melton that ‘ball to hand’ is binary?



It amazes me that you learnt nothing from that conversation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that is not what I said is it? I think you'll find I said hand to ball, as in the players arm moving towards the ball. It was there in black and white also. But of course that doesn't stop you. Always trying to argue points people didn't make. A typical Winston tactic. If arguing black is white doesn't work, attempt to create an argument by arguing against something nobody said. You're just weird.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

That’s what I meant - ball to hand / hand to ball... you said it’s binary.

Hilarious that you’re doing it again. You just don’t understand how a decision like that is a matter of opinion.

And yet you accuse me of looking at things in back and white?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it's binary. Either you move your arm towards the ball or you didn't. There's no in between.

Wow, just wow.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 hours, 22 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 7 hours, 32 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 hours ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 minutes ago
No TOOR, I don’t think it was a foul.

And judging by much of what I’ve read online, nor do many people outside the deluded Liverpool fraternity.

Most people are laughing at the decision from what I can tell.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Some people. Those people are biased. The video was reviewed and it was decided Salah wouldn't be punished. If they thought he dives without a foul, he'd have been punished. I guess it's all one big conspiracy and you're right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for proving your lack of knowledge.

The retrospective panel is to decide whether there’s conclusive evidence of deceiving a match official, not whether they agree with whether it was a foul.

We both know that many, many dives go unpunished so it’s hardly relevant anyway.

My opinion that it was not a foul is just as valid as your opinion that it was.

And until you understand that, you’ll forever be struggling.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What are you blabbering on about now? If they didn't deem it a foul, considering he dived, then they would have punished him. Thick as two short planks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

You really are stupid!

There’s a difference between whether it was a clear dive worthy of punishment and whether the panel think it’s a foul.

They do not offer any view on the actual decision and it’s perfectly feasible that they believe it wasn’t the correct decision but that there’s not enough evidence to charge him with diving.

You’re actually not very bright, are you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
More nonsense. Considering Salah dived, he would have been punished, after review, had he not been fouled. Dimwit.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 59 minutes ago
Oh and TOOR, I asked you where ‘being pulled back’ features in the laws of the game.

Why haven’t you answered?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah here's the other tactic Winston employs. We're gonna argue the meaning of words now, great. So it's allowed to pull an opponent? It's a wonder you get freekicks and penalties for it. Stupid refs.

Anyhow the law is something about impeding an opponent. Now to save you from arguing the meaning of the word, we have 'delay' in Google. So if you pull somebody back, are you delaying their progress? Of course you are, hence the penalty and hence them not punishing Salah, despite his dive, on review.

You're fighting a losing battle here.

comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 hours, 23 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 7 hours, 32 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 50 minutes ago
TOOR, do you remember when you told me and Melton that ‘ball to hand’ is binary?



It amazes me that you learnt nothing from that conversation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that is not what I said is it? I think you'll find I said hand to ball, as in the players arm moving towards the ball. It was there in black and white also. But of course that doesn't stop you. Always trying to argue points people didn't make. A typical Winston tactic. If arguing black is white doesn't work, attempt to create an argument by arguing against something nobody said. You're just weird.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

That’s what I meant - ball to hand / hand to ball... you said it’s binary.

Hilarious that you’re doing it again. You just don’t understand how a decision like that is a matter of opinion.

And yet you accuse me of looking at things in back and white?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it's binary. Either you move your arm towards the ball or you didn't. There's no in between.

Wow, just wow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

He’s at it again.

No it’s not binary as a decision because the referee does not know for a fact whether it’s intentional.

If an arm moves towards the ball, the referee must decide whether that is part of an intentional act to affect the ball.

Same as the referee must decide if the ‘pull’ is to such an extent that it has impeded/held an opponent and is deemed to be a foul.

You really don’t understand how subjectivity works, so you?