comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 25 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are so stupid it hurts.
There’s a different level of criteria applied to decide whether an incident warrants retrospective punishment or not.
Things are so simple in your head.
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 21 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it’s my tactic to pull you up when you say something incorrect.
Impeding is different to pulling back.
So you now accept that ‘pulling back’ is not in the laws of the game, therefore what you claimed is wrong.
Excellent.
So now we move into an area of subjectivity, as I said. If it were as simple as you originally claimed then yes, it would be a binary decision.
But it’s not.
Which is quite crucial to this point but no doubt will fly way over your empty head.
TOOR, it’s possible for someone to view that pull on Salah as not a foul.
It comes down to opinion.
Let me know when you catch up. Not expecting that to happen anytime soon.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
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?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say the ref knew. I said it was binary whether you moved your arm towards the ball or not. The context this was used in, was that if there was VAR they would have seen the arm move towards the ball. You're a mess.
Oh and by the way TOOR, you're applying the wrong law to the Salah 'foul'.
Hilarious but do carry on.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 25 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are so stupid it hurts.
There’s a different level of criteria applied to decide whether an incident warrants retrospective punishment or not.
Things are so simple in your head.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh is there? Can you show me? I always thought pulling a player back, stopping him moving forward was a foul. It seems the referee thought so too and the guys who reviewed it. Everybody is wrong. Winston is right. There's a surprise.
Sometimes don't you think to yourself, why is everybody saying one thing and I'm saying another? No? They're all just wrong and you're right? Weirdo.
"I said it was binary whether you moved your arm towards the ball or not. The context this was used in, was that if there was VAR they would have seen the arm move towards the ball. "
Yes, and you were wrong.
It is not as simple to decide whether the hand moved towards the ball because it's possible for the hand to move towards the ball unintentionally.
Melton and I explained this to you at the time.
Amazing how you are so ignorant that you're incapable of learning even the simplest of things.
It is not binary.
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
Who is everybody?
You like to align yourself to 'everbody' a lot, don't you. Does it make you feel better when you take an absolute schooling from me?
Yes, there's a different criteria.
The panel are looking for a clear and obvious reason for punishing a player. They're not interested whether the decision was correct or not.
It is quite possible that the panel didn't believe it was a foul but that there's not clear enough evidence to charge the player retrospectively.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 seconds ago
"I said it was binary whether you moved your arm towards the ball or not. The context this was used in, was that if there was VAR they would have seen the arm move towards the ball. "
Yes, and you were wrong.
It is not as simple to decide whether the hand moved towards the ball because it's possible for the hand to move towards the ball unintentionally.
Melton and I explained this to you at the time.
Amazing how you are so ignorant that you're incapable of learning even the simplest of things.
It is not binary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So they wouldn't have seen the arm move towards the ball, despite having slow motion and the arm moving towards the ball?
How in the world is something which requires a yes or no answer not binary?
Did the arm move towards the ball? What is the third answer, Winston? This should be good.
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
"How in the world is something which requires a yes or no answer not binary?"
Because the referee needs to decide whether the arm moving towards the ball was part of an intentional act to affect the ball.
The arm moving towards the ball is not the only deciding factor.
What don't you understand?
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
Who is everybody?
You like to align yourself to 'everbody' a lot, don't you. Does it make you feel better when you take an absolute schooling from me?
Yes, there's a different criteria.
The panel are looking for a clear and obvious reason for punishing a player. They're not interested whether the decision was correct or not.
It is quite possible that the panel didn't believe it was a foul but that there's not clear enough evidence to charge the player retrospectively.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course they're interested. The whole point is whether the player deceived the referee and gained an advantage. They decided he didn't, as he was fouled. Otherwise he'd have been punished for his clear dive.
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
No, they decided there was not enough evidence that he cheated. Probably because of the contact.
That does not mean that they agree he was fouled.
I can't wait for Ashley Young to throw himself on the floor at the slightest of touches, and for you to tell everyone that is must have been a foul because the FA haven't charged him.
You're utterly clueless.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
"How in the world is something which requires a yes or no answer not binary?"
Because the referee needs to decide whether the arm moving towards the ball was part of an intentional act to affect the ball.
The arm moving towards the ball is not the only deciding factor.
What don't you understand?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say that wasn't the case. I said it was binary whether he moved his arms towards the ball or not. I said that due to the distance and the fact he moved his arm towards the ball, VAR would have decided on a penalty. I said that the referee due to being so far away and the speed in which it happened may have missed the fact that he moved his arm towards the ball and that would have had a massive impact on his decision. VAR wouldn't have missed it.
Also I remember in regards to this you said that VAR wouldn't have got involved. I told you that you were wrong and we'll see in the World Cup. You were proved wrong. I even created an article for you to own up and admit that you were wrong.
https://www.ja606.co.uk/articles/viewArticle/391983
You still argued the officials were wrong and you were right. You're weird.
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
You did, actually.
You said it's a binary decision. 'Did he move his arm towards the ball, yes or no'.
You're now lying.
It's not a binary decision. You said it was.
Keep squirming - I've got you on the hook now and it's absolutely hilarious.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
No, they decided there was not enough evidence that he cheated. Probably because of the contact.
That does not mean that they agree he was fouled.
I can't wait for Ashley Young to throw himself on the floor at the slightest of touches, and for you to tell everyone that is must have been a foul because the FA haven't charged him.
You're utterly clueless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So based on the evidence they decided he was fouled. Thanks.
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
I responded in full regarding the VAR, actually giving you some credit. But seeing as you fail to read and digest anything that is written to you, you've ignored it.
But yes, there were occasions where the VAR officials were wrong in my view. And in others (like Melton).
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
No, they decided there was not enough evidence that he cheated. Probably because of the contact.
That does not mean that they agree he was fouled.
I can't wait for Ashley Young to throw himself on the floor at the slightest of touches, and for you to tell everyone that is must have been a foul because the FA haven't charged him.
You're utterly clueless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So based on the evidence they decided he was fouled. Thanks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, based on evidence they decided there was not enough evidence to conclude that he should be charged. Two entirely different things but your narrow mind cannot understand it.
You're so thick it's bizarre.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
You did, actually.
You said it's a binary decision. 'Did he move his arm towards the ball, yes or no'.
You're now lying.
It's not a binary decision. You said it was.
Keep squirming - I've got you on the hook now and it's absolutely hilarious.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it is binary whether he moved his arm towards the ball or not. I'm not sure why you're struggling with this.
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
But it's not a binary decision, which is what you claimed.
Whether he moved his arm towards the ball is one part of a series of criteria that the referee should apply.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
No, they decided there was not enough evidence that he cheated. Probably because of the contact.
That does not mean that they agree he was fouled.
I can't wait for Ashley Young to throw himself on the floor at the slightest of touches, and for you to tell everyone that is must have been a foul because the FA haven't charged him.
You're utterly clueless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So based on the evidence they decided he was fouled. Thanks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, based on evidence they decided there was not enough evidence to conclude that he should be charged. Two entirely different things but your narrow mind cannot understand it.
You're so thick it's bizarre.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So they decided the evidence suggested he was fouled. Otherwise what other evidence are they using? He clearly dived, that's why they reviewed it. So what evidence was it that made them decide not to punish him? The foul of course. There is no other evidence.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Anyway, I need another beak from you. You give me a headache with your nonsense. Enjoy!
"So they decided the evidence suggested he was fouled."
No, they decided there wasn't evidence to charge him with cheating.
Two different things.
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
Anyway, I need another beak from you. You give me a headache with your nonsense. Enjoy!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You always stop when you realise you're being destroyed.
And I love the way you feel the need to announce it.
Sign in if you want to comment
Reeks of cover up and helping the old boys!
Page 13 of 15
11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15
posted on 29/12/18
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 25 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are so stupid it hurts.
There’s a different level of criteria applied to decide whether an incident warrants retrospective punishment or not.
Things are so simple in your head.
posted on 29/12/18
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 21 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it’s my tactic to pull you up when you say something incorrect.
Impeding is different to pulling back.
So you now accept that ‘pulling back’ is not in the laws of the game, therefore what you claimed is wrong.
Excellent.
So now we move into an area of subjectivity, as I said. If it were as simple as you originally claimed then yes, it would be a binary decision.
But it’s not.
Which is quite crucial to this point but no doubt will fly way over your empty head.
posted on 29/12/18
TOOR, it’s possible for someone to view that pull on Salah as not a foul.
It comes down to opinion.
Let me know when you catch up. Not expecting that to happen anytime soon.
posted on 29/12/18
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
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?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say the ref knew. I said it was binary whether you moved your arm towards the ball or not. The context this was used in, was that if there was VAR they would have seen the arm move towards the ball. You're a mess.
posted on 29/12/18
Oh and by the way TOOR, you're applying the wrong law to the Salah 'foul'.
Hilarious but do carry on.
posted on 29/12/18
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 25 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are so stupid it hurts.
There’s a different level of criteria applied to decide whether an incident warrants retrospective punishment or not.
Things are so simple in your head.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh is there? Can you show me? I always thought pulling a player back, stopping him moving forward was a foul. It seems the referee thought so too and the guys who reviewed it. Everybody is wrong. Winston is right. There's a surprise.
Sometimes don't you think to yourself, why is everybody saying one thing and I'm saying another? No? They're all just wrong and you're right? Weirdo.
posted on 29/12/18
"I said it was binary whether you moved your arm towards the ball or not. The context this was used in, was that if there was VAR they would have seen the arm move towards the ball. "
Yes, and you were wrong.
It is not as simple to decide whether the hand moved towards the ball because it's possible for the hand to move towards the ball unintentionally.
Melton and I explained this to you at the time.
Amazing how you are so ignorant that you're incapable of learning even the simplest of things.
It is not binary.
posted on 29/12/18
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
Who is everybody?
You like to align yourself to 'everbody' a lot, don't you. Does it make you feel better when you take an absolute schooling from me?
Yes, there's a different criteria.
The panel are looking for a clear and obvious reason for punishing a player. They're not interested whether the decision was correct or not.
It is quite possible that the panel didn't believe it was a foul but that there's not clear enough evidence to charge the player retrospectively.
posted on 29/12/18
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 seconds ago
"I said it was binary whether you moved your arm towards the ball or not. The context this was used in, was that if there was VAR they would have seen the arm move towards the ball. "
Yes, and you were wrong.
It is not as simple to decide whether the hand moved towards the ball because it's possible for the hand to move towards the ball unintentionally.
Melton and I explained this to you at the time.
Amazing how you are so ignorant that you're incapable of learning even the simplest of things.
It is not binary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So they wouldn't have seen the arm move towards the ball, despite having slow motion and the arm moving towards the ball?
How in the world is something which requires a yes or no answer not binary?
Did the arm move towards the ball? What is the third answer, Winston? This should be good.
posted on 29/12/18
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
"How in the world is something which requires a yes or no answer not binary?"
Because the referee needs to decide whether the arm moving towards the ball was part of an intentional act to affect the ball.
The arm moving towards the ball is not the only deciding factor.
What don't you understand?
posted on 29/12/18
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
Who is everybody?
You like to align yourself to 'everbody' a lot, don't you. Does it make you feel better when you take an absolute schooling from me?
Yes, there's a different criteria.
The panel are looking for a clear and obvious reason for punishing a player. They're not interested whether the decision was correct or not.
It is quite possible that the panel didn't believe it was a foul but that there's not clear enough evidence to charge the player retrospectively.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course they're interested. The whole point is whether the player deceived the referee and gained an advantage. They decided he didn't, as he was fouled. Otherwise he'd have been punished for his clear dive.
posted on 29/12/18
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
No, they decided there was not enough evidence that he cheated. Probably because of the contact.
That does not mean that they agree he was fouled.
I can't wait for Ashley Young to throw himself on the floor at the slightest of touches, and for you to tell everyone that is must have been a foul because the FA haven't charged him.
You're utterly clueless.
posted on 29/12/18
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
"How in the world is something which requires a yes or no answer not binary?"
Because the referee needs to decide whether the arm moving towards the ball was part of an intentional act to affect the ball.
The arm moving towards the ball is not the only deciding factor.
What don't you understand?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say that wasn't the case. I said it was binary whether he moved his arms towards the ball or not. I said that due to the distance and the fact he moved his arm towards the ball, VAR would have decided on a penalty. I said that the referee due to being so far away and the speed in which it happened may have missed the fact that he moved his arm towards the ball and that would have had a massive impact on his decision. VAR wouldn't have missed it.
posted on 29/12/18
Also I remember in regards to this you said that VAR wouldn't have got involved. I told you that you were wrong and we'll see in the World Cup. You were proved wrong. I even created an article for you to own up and admit that you were wrong.
https://www.ja606.co.uk/articles/viewArticle/391983
You still argued the officials were wrong and you were right. You're weird.
posted on 29/12/18
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
You did, actually.
You said it's a binary decision. 'Did he move his arm towards the ball, yes or no'.
You're now lying.
It's not a binary decision. You said it was.
Keep squirming - I've got you on the hook now and it's absolutely hilarious.
posted on 29/12/18
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
No, they decided there was not enough evidence that he cheated. Probably because of the contact.
That does not mean that they agree he was fouled.
I can't wait for Ashley Young to throw himself on the floor at the slightest of touches, and for you to tell everyone that is must have been a foul because the FA haven't charged him.
You're utterly clueless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So based on the evidence they decided he was fouled. Thanks.
posted on 29/12/18
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
I responded in full regarding the VAR, actually giving you some credit. But seeing as you fail to read and digest anything that is written to you, you've ignored it.
But yes, there were occasions where the VAR officials were wrong in my view. And in others (like Melton).
posted on 29/12/18
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
No, they decided there was not enough evidence that he cheated. Probably because of the contact.
That does not mean that they agree he was fouled.
I can't wait for Ashley Young to throw himself on the floor at the slightest of touches, and for you to tell everyone that is must have been a foul because the FA haven't charged him.
You're utterly clueless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So based on the evidence they decided he was fouled. Thanks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, based on evidence they decided there was not enough evidence to conclude that he should be charged. Two entirely different things but your narrow mind cannot understand it.
You're so thick it's bizarre.
posted on 29/12/18
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
You did, actually.
You said it's a binary decision. 'Did he move his arm towards the ball, yes or no'.
You're now lying.
It's not a binary decision. You said it was.
Keep squirming - I've got you on the hook now and it's absolutely hilarious.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it is binary whether he moved his arm towards the ball or not. I'm not sure why you're struggling with this.
posted on 29/12/18
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
But it's not a binary decision, which is what you claimed.
Whether he moved his arm towards the ball is one part of a series of criteria that the referee should apply.
posted on 29/12/18
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
No, they decided there was not enough evidence that he cheated. Probably because of the contact.
That does not mean that they agree he was fouled.
I can't wait for Ashley Young to throw himself on the floor at the slightest of touches, and for you to tell everyone that is must have been a foul because the FA haven't charged him.
You're utterly clueless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So based on the evidence they decided he was fouled. Thanks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, based on evidence they decided there was not enough evidence to conclude that he should be charged. Two entirely different things but your narrow mind cannot understand it.
You're so thick it's bizarre.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So they decided the evidence suggested he was fouled. Otherwise what other evidence are they using? He clearly dived, that's why they reviewed it. So what evidence was it that made them decide not to punish him? The foul of course. There is no other evidence.
posted on 29/12/18
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 29/12/18
Anyway, I need another beak from you. You give me a headache with your nonsense. Enjoy!
posted on 29/12/18
"So they decided the evidence suggested he was fouled."
No, they decided there wasn't evidence to charge him with cheating.
Two different things.
posted on 29/12/18
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
Anyway, I need another beak from you. You give me a headache with your nonsense. Enjoy!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You always stop when you realise you're being destroyed.
And I love the way you feel the need to announce it.
Page 13 of 15
11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15