comment by TOORPalaceFan (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
I didnt change anything, the quote is there. It's still the same and shall remain the same no matter how hard you try to change it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You did change it.
comment by TOORPalaceFan (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
Yes you did, TOOR.
Your quote included the words ‘he brought his arm towards the ball’, which implied intent.
Today you’ve changed it to ‘the arm moved towards the ball’, which is a different thing entirely.
Did you think I wouldn’t notice?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes my words implied that. I never stated they didn't. I'm not trying to change the meaning of words. You are.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Those two sentences are completely different yet you tried to pass off the second one as you quote when actually it was the first one.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 37 seconds ago
comment by TOORPalaceFan (U1721)
posted 16 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 14 seconds ago
TOOR.
It’s a matter of opinion whether it’s a pen.
You used the hand moving towards the ball as a possible mistake but this ignores the fact that he could have seen the hand moving towards the ball but concluded was not deliberate.
Do you think if you go round in circles enough time your error will disappear?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He could have. I doubt he would have but then there are others things involved too. Distance from the ball, time to move his arm away, making his body bigger, leaning into the ball etc. The precedence set since leaves me in no doubt VAR would have changed the decision, despite you putting a little doubt in my mind regarding clear and obvious error.
You have admitted this, you couldn't not as it has been proven. You're now left with claiming my words mean something else.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not left with anything. This is the debate we had at the time.
So you admit he could have interpreted that way, which means the quote I pulled from that article was wrong.
Here:
“The referee thought he didn't bring his hand to the ball, which was a mistake. It's not about interpretation. Like binary, 1 or 0. Did the player bring his hand towards the ball, it's a 1. Did he not, it's a 0. No interpretation."
You said no interpretation. Now you admit there could have been interpretation.
Again, absolute proof you were wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No interpretation in regards to him moving his ball towards the ball or not.
What is it you don't understand about this? It's really simple.
comment by TOORPalaceFan (U1721)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 37 seconds ago
comment by TOORPalaceFan (U1721)
posted 16 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 14 seconds ago
TOOR.
It’s a matter of opinion whether it’s a pen.
You used the hand moving towards the ball as a possible mistake but this ignores the fact that he could have seen the hand moving towards the ball but concluded was not deliberate.
Do you think if you go round in circles enough time your error will disappear?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He could have. I doubt he would have but then there are others things involved too. Distance from the ball, time to move his arm away, making his body bigger, leaning into the ball etc. The precedence set since leaves me in no doubt VAR would have changed the decision, despite you putting a little doubt in my mind regarding clear and obvious error.
You have admitted this, you couldn't not as it has been proven. You're now left with claiming my words mean something else.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not left with anything. This is the debate we had at the time.
So you admit he could have interpreted that way, which means the quote I pulled from that article was wrong.
Here:
“The referee thought he didn't bring his hand to the ball, which was a mistake. It's not about interpretation. Like binary, 1 or 0. Did the player bring his hand towards the ball, it's a 1. Did he not, it's a 0. No interpretation."
You said no interpretation. Now you admit there could have been interpretation.
Again, absolute proof you were wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No interpretation in regards to him moving his ball towards the ball or not.
What is it you don't understand about this? It's really simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But there is interpretation.
Interpretation as to whether it was a deliberate movement or not.
What are you not understanding?
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 42 seconds ago
comment by TOORPalaceFan (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
Yes you did, TOOR.
Your quote included the words ‘he brought his arm towards the ball’, which implied intent.
Today you’ve changed it to ‘the arm moved towards the ball’, which is a different thing entirely.
Did you think I wouldn’t notice?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes my words implied that. I never stated they didn't. I'm not trying to change the meaning of words. You are.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Those two sentences are completely different yet you tried to pass off the second one as you quote when actually it was the first one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The second one is the part where I spoke about binary when you tried to claim something I didnt say. So I showed you what I actually said. We've been over this.
comment by TOORPalaceFan (U1721)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 42 seconds ago
comment by TOORPalaceFan (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
Yes you did, TOOR.
Your quote included the words ‘he brought his arm towards the ball’, which implied intent.
Today you’ve changed it to ‘the arm moved towards the ball’, which is a different thing entirely.
Did you think I wouldn’t notice?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes my words implied that. I never stated they didn't. I'm not trying to change the meaning of words. You are.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Those two sentences are completely different yet you tried to pass off the second one as you quote when actually it was the first one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The second one is the part where I spoke about binary when you tried to claim something I didnt say. So I showed you what I actually said. We've been over this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You removed key words to make it sound different.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by TOORPalaceFan (U1721)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 37 seconds ago
comment by TOORPalaceFan (U1721)
posted 16 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 14 seconds ago
TOOR.
It’s a matter of opinion whether it’s a pen.
You used the hand moving towards the ball as a possible mistake but this ignores the fact that he could have seen the hand moving towards the ball but concluded was not deliberate.
Do you think if you go round in circles enough time your error will disappear?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He could have. I doubt he would have but then there are others things involved too. Distance from the ball, time to move his arm away, making his body bigger, leaning into the ball etc. The precedence set since leaves me in no doubt VAR would have changed the decision, despite you putting a little doubt in my mind regarding clear and obvious error.
You have admitted this, you couldn't not as it has been proven. You're now left with claiming my words mean something else.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not left with anything. This is the debate we had at the time.
So you admit he could have interpreted that way, which means the quote I pulled from that article was wrong.
Here:
“The referee thought he didn't bring his hand to the ball, which was a mistake. It's not about interpretation. Like binary, 1 or 0. Did the player bring his hand towards the ball, it's a 1. Did he not, it's a 0. No interpretation."
You said no interpretation. Now you admit there could have been interpretation.
Again, absolute proof you were wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No interpretation in regards to him moving his ball towards the ball or not.
What is it you don't understand about this? It's really simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But there is interpretation.
Interpretation as to whether it was a deliberate movement or not.
What are you not understanding?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I know that. I never said differently. You're saying I said differently, I am not and the quote is there. I'm not sure how you think you're going to achieve making the quote mean what you want. It isn't possible.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 58 seconds ago
comment by TOORPalaceFan (U1721)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 42 seconds ago
comment by TOORPalaceFan (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
Yes you did, TOOR.
Your quote included the words ‘he brought his arm towards the ball’, which implied intent.
Today you’ve changed it to ‘the arm moved towards the ball’, which is a different thing entirely.
Did you think I wouldn’t notice?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes my words implied that. I never stated they didn't. I'm not trying to change the meaning of words. You are.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Those two sentences are completely different yet you tried to pass off the second one as you quote when actually it was the first one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The second one is the part where I spoke about binary when you tried to claim something I didnt say. So I showed you what I actually said. We've been over this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You removed key words to make it sound different.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No I didn't. I included the full quote in regards to the binary comment you tried to claim said something else.
TOOR, you said this:
“The referee thought he didn't bring his hand to the ball, which was a mistake. It's not about interpretation”
How do you know what the referee thought?
If you’re genuine and you always knew he could have interpreted it as not deliberate, why say this?
It makes no sense, because you’re lying.
comment by TOORPalaceFan (U1721)
posted 42 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 58 seconds ago
comment by TOORPalaceFan (U1721)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 42 seconds ago
comment by TOORPalaceFan (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
Yes you did, TOOR.
Your quote included the words ‘he brought his arm towards the ball’, which implied intent.
Today you’ve changed it to ‘the arm moved towards the ball’, which is a different thing entirely.
Did you think I wouldn’t notice?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes my words implied that. I never stated they didn't. I'm not trying to change the meaning of words. You are.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Those two sentences are completely different yet you tried to pass off the second one as you quote when actually it was the first one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The second one is the part where I spoke about binary when you tried to claim something I didnt say. So I showed you what I actually said. We've been over this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You removed key words to make it sound different.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No I didn't. I included the full quote in regards to the binary comment you tried to claim said something else.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes you did. The quote is above. You left out the prt about the player bringing his hand towards the ball.
TOOR, have you ever admitted you were wrong on this forum?
Right, you're going to keep claiming the quote said something it didnt and I'm going to keep showing the actual quote which shows what it actually says, so it will keep going around it circles.
I'll just leave this knowing I was correct and you admitted you were wrong. If you want to keep trying to claim my quote means something else other than what it actually says then fine, work away. I'm out.
comment by TOORPalaceFan (U1721)
posted 10 seconds ago
Right, you're going to keep claiming the quote said something it didnt and I'm going to keep showing the actual quote which shows what it actually says, so it will keep going around it circles.
I'll just leave this knowing I was correct and you admitted you were wrong. If you want to keep trying to claim my quote means something else other than what it actually says then fine, work away. I'm out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The quote is above for everyone to see.
As is your contradiction.
You were wrong and you don’t have the maturity to admit it, even when two contradictory quotes are laid bare.
It’s embarrassing, it really is.
TOOR runs away when he’s asked a question he can’t answer. Standard.
Some absolute whoppers from TOOR yesterday to try and escape his errors about the handball law.
But still none of them trump the idea that you can know whether something is a foul without knowing the laws.
Incredible ignorance from my favourite sparring partner on this forum.
Winston
Why on earth are you bothering to argue with an absolute idiot?
He comes on here for a reaction and you give it to him, just treat him with the contempt he deserves.
comment by TOORPalaceFan (U1721)
"I wouldn't even say that - I think UEFA have issued guidance that contradicts the law because they don't understand it."
UEFA don't understand their own law but Winston does.
=========
VAR wins again. Shame the PL is gonna be a year or two behind the others who have had the practise with it but it can only be good in the long run. People like Winston will gradually come around and understand the laws, guidance and how the decisions are made.
VAR
Thing is .... VAR is right!!
Aguero was offside.
Saved by the VAR!!
comment by TOORSpursFan (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
VAR wins again. Shame the PL is gonna be a year or two behind the others who have had the practise with it but it can only be good in the long run. People like Winston will gradually come around and understand the laws, guidance and how the decisions are made.
VAR
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought you don’t need to understand the laws to know if there’s been a foul?
comment by Don_tottenham (U3372)
posted 6 days, 20 hours ago
I love VAR
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just like I said you would
Sign in if you want to comment
VAR - loads of s***
Page 11 of 11
7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11
posted on 11/4/19
comment by TOORPalaceFan (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
I didnt change anything, the quote is there. It's still the same and shall remain the same no matter how hard you try to change it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You did change it.
posted on 11/4/19
comment by TOORPalaceFan (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
Yes you did, TOOR.
Your quote included the words ‘he brought his arm towards the ball’, which implied intent.
Today you’ve changed it to ‘the arm moved towards the ball’, which is a different thing entirely.
Did you think I wouldn’t notice?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes my words implied that. I never stated they didn't. I'm not trying to change the meaning of words. You are.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Those two sentences are completely different yet you tried to pass off the second one as you quote when actually it was the first one.
posted on 11/4/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 37 seconds ago
comment by TOORPalaceFan (U1721)
posted 16 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 14 seconds ago
TOOR.
It’s a matter of opinion whether it’s a pen.
You used the hand moving towards the ball as a possible mistake but this ignores the fact that he could have seen the hand moving towards the ball but concluded was not deliberate.
Do you think if you go round in circles enough time your error will disappear?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He could have. I doubt he would have but then there are others things involved too. Distance from the ball, time to move his arm away, making his body bigger, leaning into the ball etc. The precedence set since leaves me in no doubt VAR would have changed the decision, despite you putting a little doubt in my mind regarding clear and obvious error.
You have admitted this, you couldn't not as it has been proven. You're now left with claiming my words mean something else.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not left with anything. This is the debate we had at the time.
So you admit he could have interpreted that way, which means the quote I pulled from that article was wrong.
Here:
“The referee thought he didn't bring his hand to the ball, which was a mistake. It's not about interpretation. Like binary, 1 or 0. Did the player bring his hand towards the ball, it's a 1. Did he not, it's a 0. No interpretation."
You said no interpretation. Now you admit there could have been interpretation.
Again, absolute proof you were wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No interpretation in regards to him moving his ball towards the ball or not.
What is it you don't understand about this? It's really simple.
posted on 11/4/19
comment by TOORPalaceFan (U1721)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 37 seconds ago
comment by TOORPalaceFan (U1721)
posted 16 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 14 seconds ago
TOOR.
It’s a matter of opinion whether it’s a pen.
You used the hand moving towards the ball as a possible mistake but this ignores the fact that he could have seen the hand moving towards the ball but concluded was not deliberate.
Do you think if you go round in circles enough time your error will disappear?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He could have. I doubt he would have but then there are others things involved too. Distance from the ball, time to move his arm away, making his body bigger, leaning into the ball etc. The precedence set since leaves me in no doubt VAR would have changed the decision, despite you putting a little doubt in my mind regarding clear and obvious error.
You have admitted this, you couldn't not as it has been proven. You're now left with claiming my words mean something else.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not left with anything. This is the debate we had at the time.
So you admit he could have interpreted that way, which means the quote I pulled from that article was wrong.
Here:
“The referee thought he didn't bring his hand to the ball, which was a mistake. It's not about interpretation. Like binary, 1 or 0. Did the player bring his hand towards the ball, it's a 1. Did he not, it's a 0. No interpretation."
You said no interpretation. Now you admit there could have been interpretation.
Again, absolute proof you were wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No interpretation in regards to him moving his ball towards the ball or not.
What is it you don't understand about this? It's really simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But there is interpretation.
Interpretation as to whether it was a deliberate movement or not.
What are you not understanding?
posted on 11/4/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 42 seconds ago
comment by TOORPalaceFan (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
Yes you did, TOOR.
Your quote included the words ‘he brought his arm towards the ball’, which implied intent.
Today you’ve changed it to ‘the arm moved towards the ball’, which is a different thing entirely.
Did you think I wouldn’t notice?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes my words implied that. I never stated they didn't. I'm not trying to change the meaning of words. You are.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Those two sentences are completely different yet you tried to pass off the second one as you quote when actually it was the first one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The second one is the part where I spoke about binary when you tried to claim something I didnt say. So I showed you what I actually said. We've been over this.
posted on 11/4/19
comment by TOORPalaceFan (U1721)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 42 seconds ago
comment by TOORPalaceFan (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
Yes you did, TOOR.
Your quote included the words ‘he brought his arm towards the ball’, which implied intent.
Today you’ve changed it to ‘the arm moved towards the ball’, which is a different thing entirely.
Did you think I wouldn’t notice?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes my words implied that. I never stated they didn't. I'm not trying to change the meaning of words. You are.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Those two sentences are completely different yet you tried to pass off the second one as you quote when actually it was the first one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The second one is the part where I spoke about binary when you tried to claim something I didnt say. So I showed you what I actually said. We've been over this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You removed key words to make it sound different.
posted on 11/4/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by TOORPalaceFan (U1721)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 37 seconds ago
comment by TOORPalaceFan (U1721)
posted 16 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 14 seconds ago
TOOR.
It’s a matter of opinion whether it’s a pen.
You used the hand moving towards the ball as a possible mistake but this ignores the fact that he could have seen the hand moving towards the ball but concluded was not deliberate.
Do you think if you go round in circles enough time your error will disappear?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He could have. I doubt he would have but then there are others things involved too. Distance from the ball, time to move his arm away, making his body bigger, leaning into the ball etc. The precedence set since leaves me in no doubt VAR would have changed the decision, despite you putting a little doubt in my mind regarding clear and obvious error.
You have admitted this, you couldn't not as it has been proven. You're now left with claiming my words mean something else.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not left with anything. This is the debate we had at the time.
So you admit he could have interpreted that way, which means the quote I pulled from that article was wrong.
Here:
“The referee thought he didn't bring his hand to the ball, which was a mistake. It's not about interpretation. Like binary, 1 or 0. Did the player bring his hand towards the ball, it's a 1. Did he not, it's a 0. No interpretation."
You said no interpretation. Now you admit there could have been interpretation.
Again, absolute proof you were wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No interpretation in regards to him moving his ball towards the ball or not.
What is it you don't understand about this? It's really simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But there is interpretation.
Interpretation as to whether it was a deliberate movement or not.
What are you not understanding?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I know that. I never said differently. You're saying I said differently, I am not and the quote is there. I'm not sure how you think you're going to achieve making the quote mean what you want. It isn't possible.
posted on 11/4/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 58 seconds ago
comment by TOORPalaceFan (U1721)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 42 seconds ago
comment by TOORPalaceFan (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
Yes you did, TOOR.
Your quote included the words ‘he brought his arm towards the ball’, which implied intent.
Today you’ve changed it to ‘the arm moved towards the ball’, which is a different thing entirely.
Did you think I wouldn’t notice?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes my words implied that. I never stated they didn't. I'm not trying to change the meaning of words. You are.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Those two sentences are completely different yet you tried to pass off the second one as you quote when actually it was the first one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The second one is the part where I spoke about binary when you tried to claim something I didnt say. So I showed you what I actually said. We've been over this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You removed key words to make it sound different.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No I didn't. I included the full quote in regards to the binary comment you tried to claim said something else.
posted on 11/4/19
TOOR, you said this:
“The referee thought he didn't bring his hand to the ball, which was a mistake. It's not about interpretation”
How do you know what the referee thought?
If you’re genuine and you always knew he could have interpreted it as not deliberate, why say this?
It makes no sense, because you’re lying.
posted on 11/4/19
comment by TOORPalaceFan (U1721)
posted 42 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 58 seconds ago
comment by TOORPalaceFan (U1721)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 42 seconds ago
comment by TOORPalaceFan (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
Yes you did, TOOR.
Your quote included the words ‘he brought his arm towards the ball’, which implied intent.
Today you’ve changed it to ‘the arm moved towards the ball’, which is a different thing entirely.
Did you think I wouldn’t notice?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes my words implied that. I never stated they didn't. I'm not trying to change the meaning of words. You are.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Those two sentences are completely different yet you tried to pass off the second one as you quote when actually it was the first one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The second one is the part where I spoke about binary when you tried to claim something I didnt say. So I showed you what I actually said. We've been over this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You removed key words to make it sound different.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No I didn't. I included the full quote in regards to the binary comment you tried to claim said something else.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes you did. The quote is above. You left out the prt about the player bringing his hand towards the ball.
posted on 11/4/19
TOOR, have you ever admitted you were wrong on this forum?
posted on 11/4/19
Right, you're going to keep claiming the quote said something it didnt and I'm going to keep showing the actual quote which shows what it actually says, so it will keep going around it circles.
I'll just leave this knowing I was correct and you admitted you were wrong. If you want to keep trying to claim my quote means something else other than what it actually says then fine, work away. I'm out.
posted on 11/4/19
comment by TOORPalaceFan (U1721)
posted 10 seconds ago
Right, you're going to keep claiming the quote said something it didnt and I'm going to keep showing the actual quote which shows what it actually says, so it will keep going around it circles.
I'll just leave this knowing I was correct and you admitted you were wrong. If you want to keep trying to claim my quote means something else other than what it actually says then fine, work away. I'm out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The quote is above for everyone to see.
As is your contradiction.
You were wrong and you don’t have the maturity to admit it, even when two contradictory quotes are laid bare.
It’s embarrassing, it really is.
posted on 11/4/19
TOOR runs away when he’s asked a question he can’t answer. Standard.
posted on 12/4/19
Some absolute whoppers from TOOR yesterday to try and escape his errors about the handball law.
But still none of them trump the idea that you can know whether something is a foul without knowing the laws.
Incredible ignorance from my favourite sparring partner on this forum.
posted on 12/4/19
I love you too Winnie.
posted on 12/4/19
Winston
Why on earth are you bothering to argue with an absolute idiot?
He comes on here for a reaction and you give it to him, just treat him with the contempt he deserves.
posted on 13/4/19
comment by TOORPalaceFan (U1721)
"I wouldn't even say that - I think UEFA have issued guidance that contradicts the law because they don't understand it."
UEFA don't understand their own law but Winston does.
=========
posted on 17/4/19
I love VAR
posted on 17/4/19
VAR wins again. Shame the PL is gonna be a year or two behind the others who have had the practise with it but it can only be good in the long run. People like Winston will gradually come around and understand the laws, guidance and how the decisions are made.
VAR
posted on 17/4/19
Thing is .... VAR is right!!
Aguero was offside.
Saved by the VAR!!
posted on 17/4/19
comment by TOORSpursFan (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
VAR wins again. Shame the PL is gonna be a year or two behind the others who have had the practise with it but it can only be good in the long run. People like Winston will gradually come around and understand the laws, guidance and how the decisions are made.
VAR
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought you don’t need to understand the laws to know if there’s been a foul?
posted on 24/4/19
comment by Don_tottenham (U3372)
posted 6 days, 20 hours ago
I love VAR
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just like I said you would
Page 11 of 11
7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11