“I now understand that it wasn’t aimed at me. What I said was it was a reasonable assumption for me to believe it was aimed at me.”
Well here’s a tip for you. Don’t assume. It’ll save you pages of pointless arguments on here.
“Again I’m left wondering if you can read.”
From the lad that read a comment of mine and automatically assumed it was addressing him
The same lad that thinks the FA ‘taking action’ is referring something to a panel.
The same lad that said I brought up he meaning of ‘retrospective action’ and then ignored numerous posts showing this not to be the case
“Bringing up mental health shows I’ve beaten you. You’re upset and lashing out, and I’m absolutely loving it.”
Thinking you’ve ‘beaten’ someone on a forum is not the behaviour of someone well in the mental health department. Particularly someone who’s main aim of using the forum is to ‘beat’ and ‘destroy’ them.
Does that sound normal, or sane, to you? It sounds like the rambling of a head case to me.
And not to forget this is the directing manager of his own company!
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 17 minutes ago
“Quite clearly I’m talking about it means in terms of how the FA use it as, not the meaning of the actual word.”
Go on then, for a laugh, how do the FA use it?
“You have got the wrong part of the thread and now you’re going to try and save face.”
Erm no, you started going on about me using the meaning of the word ‘retrospective action’ in the same post where you accused me of lying. You’ve now changed it to you were going on about ‘taking action’
Again this is all in black and white and easily provable. You still haven’t provided any proof to the claims you have made.
“Excellent, so Kane didn’t dive. We’ll bookmark that one for a rainy day, very nice indeed.”
Well the above is clearly the words of someone fully incharge of their mental faculties
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not going over th retrospective debate again - you clearly aren’t intelligent to understand why there’s no evidence the FA disagree with me.
I even went to the extent of explaining I agree with the FA’s decision ffs.
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 12 minutes ago
“I now understand that it wasn’t aimed at me. What I said was it was a reasonable assumption for me to believe it was aimed at me.”
Well here’s a tip for you. Don’t assume. It’ll save you pages of pointless arguments on here.
“Again I’m left wondering if you can read.”
From the lad that read a comment of mine and automatically assumed it was addressing him
The same lad that thinks the FA ‘taking action’ is referring something to a panel.
The same lad that said I brought up he meaning of ‘retrospective action’ and then ignored numerous posts showing this not to be the case
“Bringing up mental health shows I’ve beaten you. You’re upset and lashing out, and I’m absolutely loving it.”
Thinking you’ve ‘beaten’ someone on a forum is not the behaviour of someone well in the mental health department. Particularly someone who’s main aim of using the forum is to ‘beat’ and ‘destroy’ them.
Does that sound normal, or sane, to you? It sounds like the rambling of a head case to me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was a perfectly reasonable assumption.
Read that post back. It’s not me who sounds like he has a problem. You’re a complete mess.
I actually feel a little sorry for you.
“I’m not going over th retrospective debate again - you clearly aren’t intelligent to understand why there’s no evidence the FA disagree with me.”
There’s more evidence they disagree with you than agree with you. You’re just too thick to see it.
Facts are;
If the FA agreed that Salah dived they would have given him a retrospective punishment after the independent panel looked at it.
The FA in fact found there was not enough evidence to suggest Salah dived, or tried to deceive the ref.
Oh btw, still waiting for you to recite the FA rules around diving. Shouldn’t be hard for Mr ‘I know the rules of the game’
Choppy chop.
As I said, I agreed that there should be no retrospective action.
So how does that have any relevance to my point?
Even TOOR thinks he dived.
Explain that?
You can’t. You just keep babbling on about something irrelevant to my opinion.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 12 minutes ago
“I now understand that it wasn’t aimed at me. What I said was it was a reasonable assumption for me to believe it was aimed at me.”
Well here’s a tip for you. Don’t assume. It’ll save you pages of pointless arguments on here.
“Again I’m left wondering if you can read.”
From the lad that read a comment of mine and automatically assumed it was addressing him
The same lad that thinks the FA ‘taking action’ is referring something to a panel.
The same lad that said I brought up he meaning of ‘retrospective action’ and then ignored numerous posts showing this not to be the case
“Bringing up mental health shows I’ve beaten you. You’re upset and lashing out, and I’m absolutely loving it.”
Thinking you’ve ‘beaten’ someone on a forum is not the behaviour of someone well in the mental health department. Particularly someone who’s main aim of using the forum is to ‘beat’ and ‘destroy’ them.
Does that sound normal, or sane, to you? It sounds like the rambling of a head case to me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was a perfectly reasonable assumption.
Read that post back. It’s not me who sounds like he has a problem. You’re a complete mess.
I actually feel a little sorry for you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you’re a bit narcissistic and think everything is about you then yeah, it’s a reasonable assumption
Man who claims to have ‘destroyed’ and ‘beaten’ someone in the internet whilst ‘loving it’.
Yeah you don’t sound completely mental
I don’t think everything about me. I thought that question was aimed at me. Perfectly reasonable assumption.
Keep bringing up mental health, it only shows how angry you are. Which I find hilarious.
“As I said, I agreed that there should be no retrospective action.
So how does that have any relevance to my point?”
It contradicts your claim Salah dived, unless you think he dived and shouldn’t be punished. Going off the comments you’ve made about diving in this thread, along with the fact you’re still banging on about an incident from months ago, suggests that’s not the case.
You’d have to ask TOOR why he thinks Salah dived. I don’t speak for him. Because we’re both Liverpool fans you think I should know what his train of thought is?
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
I don’t think everything about me. I thought that question was aimed at me. Perfectly reasonable assumption.
Keep bringing up mental health, it only shows how angry you are. Which I find hilarious.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it wasn’t, and here we are still posting about it. Maybe just don’t assume in future. Save us all the bother of another long drawn out pedantic conversation.
Maybe don’t act like a head case on here and your mental health issues won’t get brought up.
Yes I’m angry, upset, destroyed blah blah blah.......or I’m laughing at you being your usual mental case, again.
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 4 minutes ago
“As I said, I agreed that there should be no retrospective action.
So how does that have any relevance to my point?”
It contradicts your claim Salah dived, unless you think he dived and shouldn’t be punished. Going off the comments you’ve made about diving in this thread, along with the fact you’re still banging on about an incident from months ago, suggests that’s not the case.
You’d have to ask TOOR why he thinks Salah dived. I don’t speak for him. Because we’re both Liverpool fans you think I should know what his train of thought is?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You seriously can’t see why I think it was a dive but I don’t think retrospective action is appropriate?
This is what I mean about reading problems. I’ve explained it to you multiple times but you still don’t get it.
Retrospective action is only for clear errors. There’s contact here and it’s not suitable for retrospective action.
That doesn’t mean the FA disagree with my opinion that he dived. It means there’s not sufficient evidence to make a case for retrospective action.
Read it slowly and let it sink in.
The reason I bring up TOOR is you were questioning my intellect because I think he dived. Not questioning him though, are you? I wonder why.
comment by Hulk's little brother Yoda (U1250)
posted 23 minutes ago
And not to forget this is the directing manager of his own company!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bet yearly appraisals are fun
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
I don’t think everything about me. I thought that question was aimed at me. Perfectly reasonable assumption.
Keep bringing up mental health, it only shows how angry you are. Which I find hilarious.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it wasn’t, and here we are still posting about it. Maybe just don’t assume in future. Save us all the bother of another long drawn out pedantic conversation.
Maybe don’t act like a head case on here and your mental health issues won’t get brought up.
Yes I’m angry, upset, destroyed blah blah blah.......or I’m laughing at you being your usual mental case, again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We’re still posting about it because rather than just tell me, you threw a tantrum and brought mental health into it.
Winston
“Retrospective action is only for clear errors. There’s contact here and it’s not suitable for retrospective action.”
Where does it say this in the laws of the game?
Retrospective action is used for incidents the ref may have missed and is used for numerous incidents not just diving.
Where does it say in the laws of the game about deceiving the ref that contact must not have been made?
I’ll wait for you to cite the specific laws before we continue.
No I question your intellect because you’ve proven yourself to be a thick caant on this and plenty of other threads.
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 15 seconds ago
Winston
“Retrospective action is only for clear errors. There’s contact here and it’s not suitable for retrospective action.”
Where does it say this in the laws of the game?
Retrospective action is used for incidents the ref may have missed and is used for numerous incidents not just diving.
Where does it say in the laws of the game about deceiving the ref that contact must not have been made?
I’ll wait for you to cite the specific laws before we continue.
No I question your intellect because you’ve proven yourself to be a thick caant on this and plenty of other threads.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now you’re making things up that I didn’t say.
Read the actual point I’m making.
A lack of retrospective action does not mean the FA disagree with my opinion. It means there’s not sufficient evidence for retrospective action, that’s all.
What don’t you understand?
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
I don’t think everything about me. I thought that question was aimed at me. Perfectly reasonable assumption.
Keep bringing up mental health, it only shows how angry you are. Which I find hilarious.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it wasn’t, and here we are still posting about it. Maybe just don’t assume in future. Save us all the bother of another long drawn out pedantic conversation.
Maybe don’t act like a head case on here and your mental health issues won’t get brought up.
Yes I’m angry, upset, destroyed blah blah blah.......or I’m laughing at you being your usual mental case, again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We’re still posting about it because rather than just tell me, you threw a tantrum and brought mental health into it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I did ‘just tell you’ look;
“That’s because my comment wasn’t in reply to you, or your comment to TOOR.
It was a general observation on two incidents that happened over the weekend. It’s also a good example of why players go down in the box when fouled, even if the contact doesn’t warrant the response.
Refs are not giving pens/fouls for defenders grabbing shirts, pushing, pulling and like Morrison yesterday having your arms around a players neck.”
Where’s this supposed tantrum and bringing mental health into it?
You’ve done it again. Accused me of doing something I haven’t. Yet again I’ve posted proof that you’re talking out of your rse. Yet again you’ll come back with something denying I’ve proven anything. Rinse and repeat.
Definition of insanity
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 15 seconds ago
Winston
“Retrospective action is only for clear errors. There’s contact here and it’s not suitable for retrospective action.”
Where does it say this in the laws of the game?
Retrospective action is used for incidents the ref may have missed and is used for numerous incidents not just diving.
Where does it say in the laws of the game about deceiving the ref that contact must not have been made?
I’ll wait for you to cite the specific laws before we continue.
No I question your intellect because you’ve proven yourself to be a thick caant on this and plenty of other threads.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now you’re making things up that I didn’t say.
Read the actual point I’m making.
A lack of retrospective action does not mean the FA disagree with my opinion. It means there’s not sufficient evidence for retrospective action, that’s all.
What don’t you understand?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I quoted the exact words you used. Nothing was made up.
Why can’t you cite the laws your referring to?
Where does it say;
“Retrospective action is only for clear errors. There’s contact here and it’s not suitable for retrospective action.”
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
I don’t think everything about me. I thought that question was aimed at me. Perfectly reasonable assumption.
Keep bringing up mental health, it only shows how angry you are. Which I find hilarious.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it wasn’t, and here we are still posting about it. Maybe just don’t assume in future. Save us all the bother of another long drawn out pedantic conversation.
Maybe don’t act like a head case on here and your mental health issues won’t get brought up.
Yes I’m angry, upset, destroyed blah blah blah.......or I’m laughing at you being your usual mental case, again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We’re still posting about it because rather than just tell me, you threw a tantrum and brought mental health into it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I did ‘just tell you’ look;
“That’s because my comment wasn’t in reply to you, or your comment to TOOR.
It was a general observation on two incidents that happened over the weekend. It’s also a good example of why players go down in the box when fouled, even if the contact doesn’t warrant the response.
Refs are not giving pens/fouls for defenders grabbing shirts, pushing, pulling and like Morrison yesterday having your arms around a players neck.”
Where’s this supposed tantrum and bringing mental health into it?
You’ve done it again. Accused me of doing something I haven’t. Yet again I’ve posted proof that you’re talking out of your rse. Yet again you’ll come back with something denying I’ve proven anything. Rinse and repeat.
Definition of insanity
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And I explained that I’d reasonably assumed it was aimed at me and explained why.
So why are you still crying about it?
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 18 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
I don’t think everything about me. I thought that question was aimed at me. Perfectly reasonable assumption.
Keep bringing up mental health, it only shows how angry you are. Which I find hilarious.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it wasn’t, and here we are still posting about it. Maybe just don’t assume in future. Save us all the bother of another long drawn out pedantic conversation.
Maybe don’t act like a head case on here and your mental health issues won’t get brought up.
Yes I’m angry, upset, destroyed blah blah blah.......or I’m laughing at you being your usual mental case, again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We’re still posting about it because rather than just tell me, you threw a tantrum and brought mental health into it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I did ‘just tell you’ look;
“That’s because my comment wasn’t in reply to you, or your comment to TOOR.
It was a general observation on two incidents that happened over the weekend. It’s also a good example of why players go down in the box when fouled, even if the contact doesn’t warrant the response.
Refs are not giving pens/fouls for defenders grabbing shirts, pushing, pulling and like Morrison yesterday having your arms around a players neck.”
Where’s this supposed tantrum and bringing mental health into it?
You’ve done it again. Accused me of doing something I haven’t. Yet again I’ve posted proof that you’re talking out of your rse. Yet again you’ll come back with something denying I’ve proven anything. Rinse and repeat.
Definition of insanity
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And I explained that I’d reasonably assumed it was aimed at me and explained why.
So why are you still crying about it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not, it’s you that keeps bringing it up.
Where was this tantrum and bringing up mental health?
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 15 seconds ago
Winston
“Retrospective action is only for clear errors. There’s contact here and it’s not suitable for retrospective action.”
Where does it say this in the laws of the game?
Retrospective action is used for incidents the ref may have missed and is used for numerous incidents not just diving.
Where does it say in the laws of the game about deceiving the ref that contact must not have been made?
I’ll wait for you to cite the specific laws before we continue.
No I question your intellect because you’ve proven yourself to be a thick caant on this and plenty of other threads.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now you’re making things up that I didn’t say.
Read the actual point I’m making.
A lack of retrospective action does not mean the FA disagree with my opinion. It means there’s not sufficient evidence for retrospective action, that’s all.
What don’t you understand?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I quoted the exact words you used. Nothing was made up.
Why can’t you cite the laws your referring to?
Where does it say;
“Retrospective action is only for clear errors. There’s contact here and it’s not suitable for retrospective action.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because I didn’t say I was citing a law. I also didn’t say contact must have been made. You just made that up.
I’m explaining the point to you and you’re desperately trying to drag it off the point because you know I’m right.
I’ll ask again, what about my explanation don’t you understand?
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 15 seconds ago
Winston
“Retrospective action is only for clear errors. There’s contact here and it’s not suitable for retrospective action.”
Where does it say this in the laws of the game?
Retrospective action is used for incidents the ref may have missed and is used for numerous incidents not just diving.
Where does it say in the laws of the game about deceiving the ref that contact must not have been made?
I’ll wait for you to cite the specific laws before we continue.
No I question your intellect because you’ve proven yourself to be a thick caant on this and plenty of other threads.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now you’re making things up that I didn’t say.
Read the actual point I’m making.
A lack of retrospective action does not mean the FA disagree with my opinion. It means there’s not sufficient evidence for retrospective action, that’s all.
What don’t you understand?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I quoted the exact words you used. Nothing was made up.
Why can’t you cite the laws your referring to?
Where does it say;
“Retrospective action is only for clear errors. There’s contact here and it’s not suitable for retrospective action.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because I didn’t say I was citing a law. I also didn’t say contact must have been made. You just made that up.
I’m explaining the point to you and you’re desperately trying to drag it off the point because you know I’m right.
I’ll ask again, what about my explanation don’t you understand?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re not citing laws of the game. So where did you get this from;
“Retrospective action is only for clear errors. There’s contact here and it’s not suitable for retrospective action.”
Then there’s this gem;
“I also didn’t say contact must have been made.”
Apart from where you say;
“There’s contact here and it’s not suitable for retrospective action.”
Christ
It’s me explaining to you why I don’t THINK it should receive retrospective action.
Again you drag away from the actual point, that I agree with the FA, so how does it show the FA disagree with my opinion?
Good luck with that.
“It’s me explaining to you why I don’t THINK it should receive retrospective action.”
Again what are you basing this on, your opinion?
Winston
Funny seeing you make such a big thing about you ‘knowing the laws of the game’. Yet whenever you’ve been asked to cite a specific law you haven’t been able to.
Surely Mr ‘I know the laws of the game’ wouldn’t rely so much on opinion.
Sign in if you want to comment
Hypocritical media..
Page 11 of 25
12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16
posted on 22/4/19
“I now understand that it wasn’t aimed at me. What I said was it was a reasonable assumption for me to believe it was aimed at me.”
Well here’s a tip for you. Don’t assume. It’ll save you pages of pointless arguments on here.
“Again I’m left wondering if you can read.”
From the lad that read a comment of mine and automatically assumed it was addressing him
The same lad that thinks the FA ‘taking action’ is referring something to a panel.
The same lad that said I brought up he meaning of ‘retrospective action’ and then ignored numerous posts showing this not to be the case
“Bringing up mental health shows I’ve beaten you. You’re upset and lashing out, and I’m absolutely loving it.”
Thinking you’ve ‘beaten’ someone on a forum is not the behaviour of someone well in the mental health department. Particularly someone who’s main aim of using the forum is to ‘beat’ and ‘destroy’ them.
Does that sound normal, or sane, to you? It sounds like the rambling of a head case to me.
posted on 22/4/19
And not to forget this is the directing manager of his own company!
posted on 22/4/19
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 17 minutes ago
“Quite clearly I’m talking about it means in terms of how the FA use it as, not the meaning of the actual word.”
Go on then, for a laugh, how do the FA use it?
“You have got the wrong part of the thread and now you’re going to try and save face.”
Erm no, you started going on about me using the meaning of the word ‘retrospective action’ in the same post where you accused me of lying. You’ve now changed it to you were going on about ‘taking action’
Again this is all in black and white and easily provable. You still haven’t provided any proof to the claims you have made.
“Excellent, so Kane didn’t dive. We’ll bookmark that one for a rainy day, very nice indeed.”
Well the above is clearly the words of someone fully incharge of their mental faculties
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not going over th retrospective debate again - you clearly aren’t intelligent to understand why there’s no evidence the FA disagree with me.
I even went to the extent of explaining I agree with the FA’s decision ffs.
posted on 22/4/19
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 12 minutes ago
“I now understand that it wasn’t aimed at me. What I said was it was a reasonable assumption for me to believe it was aimed at me.”
Well here’s a tip for you. Don’t assume. It’ll save you pages of pointless arguments on here.
“Again I’m left wondering if you can read.”
From the lad that read a comment of mine and automatically assumed it was addressing him
The same lad that thinks the FA ‘taking action’ is referring something to a panel.
The same lad that said I brought up he meaning of ‘retrospective action’ and then ignored numerous posts showing this not to be the case
“Bringing up mental health shows I’ve beaten you. You’re upset and lashing out, and I’m absolutely loving it.”
Thinking you’ve ‘beaten’ someone on a forum is not the behaviour of someone well in the mental health department. Particularly someone who’s main aim of using the forum is to ‘beat’ and ‘destroy’ them.
Does that sound normal, or sane, to you? It sounds like the rambling of a head case to me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was a perfectly reasonable assumption.
Read that post back. It’s not me who sounds like he has a problem. You’re a complete mess.
I actually feel a little sorry for you.
posted on 22/4/19
“I’m not going over th retrospective debate again - you clearly aren’t intelligent to understand why there’s no evidence the FA disagree with me.”
There’s more evidence they disagree with you than agree with you. You’re just too thick to see it.
Facts are;
If the FA agreed that Salah dived they would have given him a retrospective punishment after the independent panel looked at it.
The FA in fact found there was not enough evidence to suggest Salah dived, or tried to deceive the ref.
Oh btw, still waiting for you to recite the FA rules around diving. Shouldn’t be hard for Mr ‘I know the rules of the game’
Choppy chop.
posted on 22/4/19
As I said, I agreed that there should be no retrospective action.
So how does that have any relevance to my point?
Even TOOR thinks he dived.
Explain that?
You can’t. You just keep babbling on about something irrelevant to my opinion.
posted on 22/4/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 12 minutes ago
“I now understand that it wasn’t aimed at me. What I said was it was a reasonable assumption for me to believe it was aimed at me.”
Well here’s a tip for you. Don’t assume. It’ll save you pages of pointless arguments on here.
“Again I’m left wondering if you can read.”
From the lad that read a comment of mine and automatically assumed it was addressing him
The same lad that thinks the FA ‘taking action’ is referring something to a panel.
The same lad that said I brought up he meaning of ‘retrospective action’ and then ignored numerous posts showing this not to be the case
“Bringing up mental health shows I’ve beaten you. You’re upset and lashing out, and I’m absolutely loving it.”
Thinking you’ve ‘beaten’ someone on a forum is not the behaviour of someone well in the mental health department. Particularly someone who’s main aim of using the forum is to ‘beat’ and ‘destroy’ them.
Does that sound normal, or sane, to you? It sounds like the rambling of a head case to me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was a perfectly reasonable assumption.
Read that post back. It’s not me who sounds like he has a problem. You’re a complete mess.
I actually feel a little sorry for you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you’re a bit narcissistic and think everything is about you then yeah, it’s a reasonable assumption
Man who claims to have ‘destroyed’ and ‘beaten’ someone in the internet whilst ‘loving it’.
Yeah you don’t sound completely mental
posted on 22/4/19
I don’t think everything about me. I thought that question was aimed at me. Perfectly reasonable assumption.
Keep bringing up mental health, it only shows how angry you are. Which I find hilarious.
posted on 22/4/19
“As I said, I agreed that there should be no retrospective action.
So how does that have any relevance to my point?”
It contradicts your claim Salah dived, unless you think he dived and shouldn’t be punished. Going off the comments you’ve made about diving in this thread, along with the fact you’re still banging on about an incident from months ago, suggests that’s not the case.
You’d have to ask TOOR why he thinks Salah dived. I don’t speak for him. Because we’re both Liverpool fans you think I should know what his train of thought is?
posted on 22/4/19
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 22/4/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
I don’t think everything about me. I thought that question was aimed at me. Perfectly reasonable assumption.
Keep bringing up mental health, it only shows how angry you are. Which I find hilarious.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it wasn’t, and here we are still posting about it. Maybe just don’t assume in future. Save us all the bother of another long drawn out pedantic conversation.
Maybe don’t act like a head case on here and your mental health issues won’t get brought up.
Yes I’m angry, upset, destroyed blah blah blah.......or I’m laughing at you being your usual mental case, again.
posted on 22/4/19
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 4 minutes ago
“As I said, I agreed that there should be no retrospective action.
So how does that have any relevance to my point?”
It contradicts your claim Salah dived, unless you think he dived and shouldn’t be punished. Going off the comments you’ve made about diving in this thread, along with the fact you’re still banging on about an incident from months ago, suggests that’s not the case.
You’d have to ask TOOR why he thinks Salah dived. I don’t speak for him. Because we’re both Liverpool fans you think I should know what his train of thought is?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You seriously can’t see why I think it was a dive but I don’t think retrospective action is appropriate?
This is what I mean about reading problems. I’ve explained it to you multiple times but you still don’t get it.
Retrospective action is only for clear errors. There’s contact here and it’s not suitable for retrospective action.
That doesn’t mean the FA disagree with my opinion that he dived. It means there’s not sufficient evidence to make a case for retrospective action.
Read it slowly and let it sink in.
The reason I bring up TOOR is you were questioning my intellect because I think he dived. Not questioning him though, are you? I wonder why.
posted on 22/4/19
comment by Hulk's little brother Yoda (U1250)
posted 23 minutes ago
And not to forget this is the directing manager of his own company!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bet yearly appraisals are fun
posted on 22/4/19
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
I don’t think everything about me. I thought that question was aimed at me. Perfectly reasonable assumption.
Keep bringing up mental health, it only shows how angry you are. Which I find hilarious.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it wasn’t, and here we are still posting about it. Maybe just don’t assume in future. Save us all the bother of another long drawn out pedantic conversation.
Maybe don’t act like a head case on here and your mental health issues won’t get brought up.
Yes I’m angry, upset, destroyed blah blah blah.......or I’m laughing at you being your usual mental case, again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We’re still posting about it because rather than just tell me, you threw a tantrum and brought mental health into it.
posted on 22/4/19
Winston
“Retrospective action is only for clear errors. There’s contact here and it’s not suitable for retrospective action.”
Where does it say this in the laws of the game?
Retrospective action is used for incidents the ref may have missed and is used for numerous incidents not just diving.
Where does it say in the laws of the game about deceiving the ref that contact must not have been made?
I’ll wait for you to cite the specific laws before we continue.
No I question your intellect because you’ve proven yourself to be a thick caant on this and plenty of other threads.
posted on 22/4/19
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 15 seconds ago
Winston
“Retrospective action is only for clear errors. There’s contact here and it’s not suitable for retrospective action.”
Where does it say this in the laws of the game?
Retrospective action is used for incidents the ref may have missed and is used for numerous incidents not just diving.
Where does it say in the laws of the game about deceiving the ref that contact must not have been made?
I’ll wait for you to cite the specific laws before we continue.
No I question your intellect because you’ve proven yourself to be a thick caant on this and plenty of other threads.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now you’re making things up that I didn’t say.
Read the actual point I’m making.
A lack of retrospective action does not mean the FA disagree with my opinion. It means there’s not sufficient evidence for retrospective action, that’s all.
What don’t you understand?
posted on 22/4/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
I don’t think everything about me. I thought that question was aimed at me. Perfectly reasonable assumption.
Keep bringing up mental health, it only shows how angry you are. Which I find hilarious.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it wasn’t, and here we are still posting about it. Maybe just don’t assume in future. Save us all the bother of another long drawn out pedantic conversation.
Maybe don’t act like a head case on here and your mental health issues won’t get brought up.
Yes I’m angry, upset, destroyed blah blah blah.......or I’m laughing at you being your usual mental case, again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We’re still posting about it because rather than just tell me, you threw a tantrum and brought mental health into it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I did ‘just tell you’ look;
“That’s because my comment wasn’t in reply to you, or your comment to TOOR.
It was a general observation on two incidents that happened over the weekend. It’s also a good example of why players go down in the box when fouled, even if the contact doesn’t warrant the response.
Refs are not giving pens/fouls for defenders grabbing shirts, pushing, pulling and like Morrison yesterday having your arms around a players neck.”
Where’s this supposed tantrum and bringing mental health into it?
You’ve done it again. Accused me of doing something I haven’t. Yet again I’ve posted proof that you’re talking out of your rse. Yet again you’ll come back with something denying I’ve proven anything. Rinse and repeat.
Definition of insanity
posted on 22/4/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 15 seconds ago
Winston
“Retrospective action is only for clear errors. There’s contact here and it’s not suitable for retrospective action.”
Where does it say this in the laws of the game?
Retrospective action is used for incidents the ref may have missed and is used for numerous incidents not just diving.
Where does it say in the laws of the game about deceiving the ref that contact must not have been made?
I’ll wait for you to cite the specific laws before we continue.
No I question your intellect because you’ve proven yourself to be a thick caant on this and plenty of other threads.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now you’re making things up that I didn’t say.
Read the actual point I’m making.
A lack of retrospective action does not mean the FA disagree with my opinion. It means there’s not sufficient evidence for retrospective action, that’s all.
What don’t you understand?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I quoted the exact words you used. Nothing was made up.
Why can’t you cite the laws your referring to?
Where does it say;
“Retrospective action is only for clear errors. There’s contact here and it’s not suitable for retrospective action.”
posted on 22/4/19
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
I don’t think everything about me. I thought that question was aimed at me. Perfectly reasonable assumption.
Keep bringing up mental health, it only shows how angry you are. Which I find hilarious.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it wasn’t, and here we are still posting about it. Maybe just don’t assume in future. Save us all the bother of another long drawn out pedantic conversation.
Maybe don’t act like a head case on here and your mental health issues won’t get brought up.
Yes I’m angry, upset, destroyed blah blah blah.......or I’m laughing at you being your usual mental case, again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We’re still posting about it because rather than just tell me, you threw a tantrum and brought mental health into it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I did ‘just tell you’ look;
“That’s because my comment wasn’t in reply to you, or your comment to TOOR.
It was a general observation on two incidents that happened over the weekend. It’s also a good example of why players go down in the box when fouled, even if the contact doesn’t warrant the response.
Refs are not giving pens/fouls for defenders grabbing shirts, pushing, pulling and like Morrison yesterday having your arms around a players neck.”
Where’s this supposed tantrum and bringing mental health into it?
You’ve done it again. Accused me of doing something I haven’t. Yet again I’ve posted proof that you’re talking out of your rse. Yet again you’ll come back with something denying I’ve proven anything. Rinse and repeat.
Definition of insanity
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And I explained that I’d reasonably assumed it was aimed at me and explained why.
So why are you still crying about it?
posted on 22/4/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 18 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
I don’t think everything about me. I thought that question was aimed at me. Perfectly reasonable assumption.
Keep bringing up mental health, it only shows how angry you are. Which I find hilarious.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it wasn’t, and here we are still posting about it. Maybe just don’t assume in future. Save us all the bother of another long drawn out pedantic conversation.
Maybe don’t act like a head case on here and your mental health issues won’t get brought up.
Yes I’m angry, upset, destroyed blah blah blah.......or I’m laughing at you being your usual mental case, again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We’re still posting about it because rather than just tell me, you threw a tantrum and brought mental health into it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I did ‘just tell you’ look;
“That’s because my comment wasn’t in reply to you, or your comment to TOOR.
It was a general observation on two incidents that happened over the weekend. It’s also a good example of why players go down in the box when fouled, even if the contact doesn’t warrant the response.
Refs are not giving pens/fouls for defenders grabbing shirts, pushing, pulling and like Morrison yesterday having your arms around a players neck.”
Where’s this supposed tantrum and bringing mental health into it?
You’ve done it again. Accused me of doing something I haven’t. Yet again I’ve posted proof that you’re talking out of your rse. Yet again you’ll come back with something denying I’ve proven anything. Rinse and repeat.
Definition of insanity
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And I explained that I’d reasonably assumed it was aimed at me and explained why.
So why are you still crying about it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not, it’s you that keeps bringing it up.
Where was this tantrum and bringing up mental health?
posted on 22/4/19
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 15 seconds ago
Winston
“Retrospective action is only for clear errors. There’s contact here and it’s not suitable for retrospective action.”
Where does it say this in the laws of the game?
Retrospective action is used for incidents the ref may have missed and is used for numerous incidents not just diving.
Where does it say in the laws of the game about deceiving the ref that contact must not have been made?
I’ll wait for you to cite the specific laws before we continue.
No I question your intellect because you’ve proven yourself to be a thick caant on this and plenty of other threads.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now you’re making things up that I didn’t say.
Read the actual point I’m making.
A lack of retrospective action does not mean the FA disagree with my opinion. It means there’s not sufficient evidence for retrospective action, that’s all.
What don’t you understand?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I quoted the exact words you used. Nothing was made up.
Why can’t you cite the laws your referring to?
Where does it say;
“Retrospective action is only for clear errors. There’s contact here and it’s not suitable for retrospective action.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because I didn’t say I was citing a law. I also didn’t say contact must have been made. You just made that up.
I’m explaining the point to you and you’re desperately trying to drag it off the point because you know I’m right.
I’ll ask again, what about my explanation don’t you understand?
posted on 22/4/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 15 seconds ago
Winston
“Retrospective action is only for clear errors. There’s contact here and it’s not suitable for retrospective action.”
Where does it say this in the laws of the game?
Retrospective action is used for incidents the ref may have missed and is used for numerous incidents not just diving.
Where does it say in the laws of the game about deceiving the ref that contact must not have been made?
I’ll wait for you to cite the specific laws before we continue.
No I question your intellect because you’ve proven yourself to be a thick caant on this and plenty of other threads.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now you’re making things up that I didn’t say.
Read the actual point I’m making.
A lack of retrospective action does not mean the FA disagree with my opinion. It means there’s not sufficient evidence for retrospective action, that’s all.
What don’t you understand?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I quoted the exact words you used. Nothing was made up.
Why can’t you cite the laws your referring to?
Where does it say;
“Retrospective action is only for clear errors. There’s contact here and it’s not suitable for retrospective action.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because I didn’t say I was citing a law. I also didn’t say contact must have been made. You just made that up.
I’m explaining the point to you and you’re desperately trying to drag it off the point because you know I’m right.
I’ll ask again, what about my explanation don’t you understand?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re not citing laws of the game. So where did you get this from;
“Retrospective action is only for clear errors. There’s contact here and it’s not suitable for retrospective action.”
Then there’s this gem;
“I also didn’t say contact must have been made.”
Apart from where you say;
“There’s contact here and it’s not suitable for retrospective action.”
Christ
posted on 22/4/19
It’s me explaining to you why I don’t THINK it should receive retrospective action.
Again you drag away from the actual point, that I agree with the FA, so how does it show the FA disagree with my opinion?
Good luck with that.
posted on 22/4/19
“It’s me explaining to you why I don’t THINK it should receive retrospective action.”
Again what are you basing this on, your opinion?
posted on 22/4/19
Winston
Funny seeing you make such a big thing about you ‘knowing the laws of the game’. Yet whenever you’ve been asked to cite a specific law you haven’t been able to.
Surely Mr ‘I know the laws of the game’ wouldn’t rely so much on opinion.
Page 11 of 25
12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16