comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 36 seconds ago
Problem is TOOR is the referee may not have thought it was a foul (without the dive).
We’ll never know.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I understand that point but like I said before I'd rather the player go down when he has been fouled and let the referee make the decision. The former referee I quote felt it was a foul and he like everybody else would have known Salah went down when he didn't need to.
It's widely accepted in the game, frustrating as it may be, it's accepted as the alternative is being put at a disadvantage and the defender getting rewarded. It's up to the referee to decide, as well as VAR from next season.
There would need to be big changes to how referees referee games to change this, which of course could happen with VAR helping but I doubt they will look at changing it. They will just make judgement on the foul as it is and if not enough contact was made, a foul is not committed, they should, after VAR review decides against the penalty, when the player has went down, book the player.
I just can't see this changing, although you may get less diving without fouls as more players are booked.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 minutes ago
Generous, TOOR. It was barely a touch!
But I do appreciate you now accept its opinion - we’re both entitled to it and neither of us are wrong.
I did ask for your understanding on that point some time ago.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've never said it wasn't opinion. I just fond the opinion that it wasn't a foul wrong and frankly ridiculous. The defender pulled his shoulder back, his whole body changed position, before he even went down, caused by the foul. The dive looked bad because it was a delayed dive, if you watch the slow motion replay but still, it was a foul nonetheless.
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 seconds ago
No, I want you to find the bit where you asked me which law and I told you what I’m basing my opinion on.
I explained that to you last time.
Look at the state of what you’re left with.
Are you any good at throwing shoes over buildings using the laces? We can try that if you like.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you are lying. If you disagree with that then you pop off and prove me wrong. No skin off my nose of you don’t. It just further proves you talk shiite and can’t back it up.
It’s not on me to prove you’re not a liar. That’s on you little man.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh no, you think I’m a liar. How will I cope?
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 minutes ago
Generous, TOOR. It was barely a touch!
But I do appreciate you now accept its opinion - we’re both entitled to it and neither of us are wrong.
I did ask for your understanding on that point some time ago.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've never said it wasn't opinion. I just fond the opinion that it wasn't a foul wrong and frankly ridiculous. The defender pulled his shoulder back, his whole body changed position, before he even went down, caused by the foul. The dive looked bad because it was a delayed dive, if you watch the slow motion replay but still, it was a foul nonetheless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s not ridiculous at all and I do believe at the time you said it was 100% a foul.
Anyway, progress made today.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 26 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 seconds ago
No, I want you to find the bit where you asked me which law and I told you what I’m basing my opinion on.
I explained that to you last time.
Look at the state of what you’re left with.
Are you any good at throwing shoes over buildings using the laces? We can try that if you like.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you are lying. If you disagree with that then you pop off and prove me wrong. No skin off my nose of you don’t. It just further proves you talk shiite and can’t back it up.
It’s not on me to prove you’re not a liar. That’s on you little man.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh no, you think I’m a liar. How will I cope?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah you’re obviously not bothered about it
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 36 seconds ago
Problem is TOOR is the referee may not have thought it was a foul (without the dive).
We’ll never know.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I understand that point but like I said before I'd rather the player go down when he has been fouled and let the referee make the decision. The former referee I quote felt it was a foul and he like everybody else would have known Salah went down when he didn't need to.
It's widely accepted in the game, frustrating as it may be, it's accepted as the alternative is being put at a disadvantage and the defender getting rewarded. It's up to the referee to decide, as well as VAR from next season.
There would need to be big changes to how referees referee games to change this, which of course could happen with VAR helping but I doubt they will look at changing it. They will just make judgement on the foul as it is and if not enough contact was made, a foul is not committed, they should, after VAR review decides against the penalty, when the player has went down, book the player.
I just can't see this changing, although you may get less diving without fouls as more players are booked.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you talking about Dermot Gallagher?
Actually, he seemed to be suggesting the contact might have been enough to send him over, so seems to view it differently.
We’ll never know what the referee would have dexiddd because Salah cheated.
You think it’s justified, fine, but it’s cheating in terms of the laws and I still question how sympathetic you’d be to Ashley young.
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 26 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 seconds ago
No, I want you to find the bit where you asked me which law and I told you what I’m basing my opinion on.
I explained that to you last time.
Look at the state of what you’re left with.
Are you any good at throwing shoes over buildings using the laces? We can try that if you like.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you are lying. If you disagree with that then you pop off and prove me wrong. No skin off my nose of you don’t. It just further proves you talk shiite and can’t back it up.
It’s not on me to prove you’re not a liar. That’s on you little man.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh no, you think I’m a liar. How will I cope?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah you’re obviously not bothered about it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Crying my eyes out...
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 34 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 26 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 seconds ago
No, I want you to find the bit where you asked me which law and I told you what I’m basing my opinion on.
I explained that to you last time.
Look at the state of what you’re left with.
Are you any good at throwing shoes over buildings using the laces? We can try that if you like.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you are lying. If you disagree with that then you pop off and prove me wrong. No skin off my nose of you don’t. It just further proves you talk shiite and can’t back it up.
It’s not on me to prove you’re not a liar. That’s on you little man.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh no, you think I’m a liar. How will I cope?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah you’re obviously not bothered about it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Crying my eyes out...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Safe to say you can’t take a liar at their word.
So when you say you know the laws of the game safe to say you’re lying. This is backed up by the fact you can’t name the specific law you based your opinion on.
So there we have it. Winston the lying get knows fook all about the laws of the game, fact.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 hours, 41 minutes ago
Any excuse for what?
There’s no reason for me to write down the laws for you.
Facking hell, this is weird
Debate, debate, debate and then randomly ‘write down the laws if you know them. If you don’t then I win’.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Annie never said that he'd win, you wrote that yourself, Winnie and pass it off as something Annie said. Lying again, tsk tsk tsk
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 36 seconds ago
Problem is TOOR is the referee may not have thought it was a foul (without the dive).
We’ll never know.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I understand that point but like I said before I'd rather the player go down when he has been fouled and let the referee make the decision. The former referee I quote felt it was a foul and he like everybody else would have known Salah went down when he didn't need to.
It's widely accepted in the game, frustrating as it may be, it's accepted as the alternative is being put at a disadvantage and the defender getting rewarded. It's up to the referee to decide, as well as VAR from next season.
There would need to be big changes to how referees referee games to change this, which of course could happen with VAR helping but I doubt they will look at changing it. They will just make judgement on the foul as it is and if not enough contact was made, a foul is not committed, they should, after VAR review decides against the penalty, when the player has went down, book the player.
I just can't see this changing, although you may get less diving without fouls as more players are booked.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you talking about Dermot Gallagher?
Actually, he seemed to be suggesting the contact might have been enough to send him over, so seems to view it differently.
We’ll never know what the referee would have dexiddd because Salah cheated.
You think it’s justified, fine, but it’s cheating in terms of the laws and I still question how sympathetic you’d be to Ashley young.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd have the same opinion if it was Ashley Young. I only get annoyed by diving without fouls. Like Salah's one I believe against Palace and one I saw Kane doing earlier in the season. Both thought the foul was incoming and dived, it didnt come and it looked ridiculous. Salah didn't get the penalty but should have been booked. Kane got booked.
Simply referees will only book players when there has been no contact but let it go when they believe the player has went down when he could have stayed up. Perhaps as it's difficult for them to tell if enough contact was made to constitute a foul so they go for the happy medium if they believe there hasn't been. No action. Maybe VAR will change that.
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 34 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 26 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 seconds ago
No, I want you to find the bit where you asked me which law and I told you what I’m basing my opinion on.
I explained that to you last time.
Look at the state of what you’re left with.
Are you any good at throwing shoes over buildings using the laces? We can try that if you like.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you are lying. If you disagree with that then you pop off and prove me wrong. No skin off my nose of you don’t. It just further proves you talk shiite and can’t back it up.
It’s not on me to prove you’re not a liar. That’s on you little man.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh no, you think I’m a liar. How will I cope?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah you’re obviously not bothered about it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Crying my eyes out...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Safe to say you can’t take a liar at their word.
So when you say you know the laws of the game safe to say you’re lying. This is backed up by the fact you can’t name the specific law you based your opinion on.
So there we have it. Winston the lying get knows fook all about the laws of the game, fact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I say I know the laws of the game because I do.
Hope this helps.
TOOR, players will continue to throw themselves on the floor even when VAR comes in.
Personally, I hope some comment sense is used and the exaggeration will be punished. I fear not, though.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
TOOR, players will continue to throw themselves on the floor even when VAR comes in.
Personally, I hope some comment sense is used and the exaggeration will be punished. I fear not, though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There will be more bookings I'm sure. Which may stop some of the dives. All of them won't be stopped until fouls are given without needing to go down.
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
TOOR, players will continue to throw themselves on the floor even when VAR comes in.
Personally, I hope some comment sense is used and the exaggeration will be punished. I fear not, though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There will be more bookings I'm sure. Which may stop some of the dives. All of them won't be stopped until fouls are given without needing to go down.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’ll be the same issue as there is with retrospective action.
That being that unless it’s clear deception (noncontact and the like) then they’ll leave it alone.
It could end up being a right old mess, but I hope now.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 34 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 26 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 seconds ago
No, I want you to find the bit where you asked me which law and I told you what I’m basing my opinion on.
I explained that to you last time.
Look at the state of what you’re left with.
Are you any good at throwing shoes over buildings using the laces? We can try that if you like.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you are lying. If you disagree with that then you pop off and prove me wrong. No skin off my nose of you don’t. It just further proves you talk shiite and can’t back it up.
It’s not on me to prove you’re not a liar. That’s on you little man.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh no, you think I’m a liar. How will I cope?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah you’re obviously not bothered about it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Crying my eyes out...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Safe to say you can’t take a liar at their word.
So when you say you know the laws of the game safe to say you’re lying. This is backed up by the fact you can’t name the specific law you based your opinion on.
So there we have it. Winston the lying get knows fook all about the laws of the game, fact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I say I know the laws of the game because I do.
Hope this helps.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah it’s not like you are lying about it or anything to win an argument on the internet.
You’ve not given any proof to show you know the laws of the game. All you’ve done is repeatedly said ‘my opinion is based on the laws of the game’.
Not a good idea to make such a bold claim, not back it up and end up resorting to lying.
I often reference the laws as part of the debate on here and I’ve done so today.
I know the laws well.
Thanks for your continued interest in me.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
TOOR, players will continue to throw themselves on the floor even when VAR comes in.
Personally, I hope some comment sense is used and the exaggeration will be punished. I fear not, though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There will be more bookings I'm sure. Which may stop some of the dives. All of them won't be stopped until fouls are given without needing to go down.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’ll be the same issue as there is with retrospective action.
That being that unless it’s clear deception (noncontact and the like) then they’ll leave it alone.
It could end up being a right old mess, but I hope now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes there will be the same issues but referees can be more clear on whether and player has dived without contact.
Mata's one recently is a perfect example. From the angle the referee was standing it absolutely looked like the player came through the back of him. From another angle you could see that not only was it outside the box but it wasn't even a foul, however it would have been enough to feel that it didn't warrant a yellow card for Mata, despite going to ground when he could have stayed up.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
I often reference the laws as part of the debate on here and I’ve done so today.
I know the laws well.
Thanks for your continued interest in me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
More lies
Winston talking shiite for a change
You maybe right TOOR, but personally I think replays are more misleading than they are helpful.
Things look so different when slowed down.
Time will tell but I think common sense is important in football and it’s something that will be lost - mainly because the people running the game don’t have any.
I suppose I’m old school now though, so it’ll just sound like a whinge in the years to come.
‘Back in my day...’
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
I often reference the laws as part of the debate on here and I’ve done so today.
I know the laws well.
Thanks for your continued interest in me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
More lies
Winston talking shiite for a change
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No lies, all factual.
Look at you - started off debating the decision and now this? Wow. You are a mess.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
I often reference the laws as part of the debate on here and I’ve done so today.
I know the laws well.
Thanks for your continued interest in me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
More lies
Winston talking shiite for a change
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No lies, all factual.
Look at you - started off debating the decision and now this? Wow. You are a mess.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not like I’ve resorted to saying ‘I’ve destroyed you’ or anything cringy like that.
You’ve been proven to be lying, you can’t name the law you based your opinion on. Fact.
Maybe stop with the ‘I know the laws of the game’ if you can’t back it up.
There’s no proof of me lying because I haven’t lied.
Hope this helps.
Imagine making such a mess of debating a decision that you end up shouting ‘you’re a liar’ over and over again, about something completely unrelated.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
There’s no proof of me lying because I haven’t lied.
Hope this helps.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
“‘If you don’t write out the law in full right now then you don’t know it and I win.”
Where didn’t i say this?
You lied about me saying I’d brought up retrospective action
You lied that you’d posted the specific law you were on about.
You lied about this:
“Debate, debate, debate and then randomly ‘write down the laws if you know them. If you don’t then I win”
You are talking shiite and passing it off as the truth, and some pretend knowledge of the laws of the game to win an argument, that’s dragged on for months.
So yeah I’m going to call you out on it. Problem with that?
I love how you take those things literally.
Calm down you muppet.
Sign in if you want to comment
Hypocritical media..
Page 17 of 25
18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22
posted on 22/4/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 36 seconds ago
Problem is TOOR is the referee may not have thought it was a foul (without the dive).
We’ll never know.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I understand that point but like I said before I'd rather the player go down when he has been fouled and let the referee make the decision. The former referee I quote felt it was a foul and he like everybody else would have known Salah went down when he didn't need to.
It's widely accepted in the game, frustrating as it may be, it's accepted as the alternative is being put at a disadvantage and the defender getting rewarded. It's up to the referee to decide, as well as VAR from next season.
There would need to be big changes to how referees referee games to change this, which of course could happen with VAR helping but I doubt they will look at changing it. They will just make judgement on the foul as it is and if not enough contact was made, a foul is not committed, they should, after VAR review decides against the penalty, when the player has went down, book the player.
I just can't see this changing, although you may get less diving without fouls as more players are booked.
posted on 22/4/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 minutes ago
Generous, TOOR. It was barely a touch!
But I do appreciate you now accept its opinion - we’re both entitled to it and neither of us are wrong.
I did ask for your understanding on that point some time ago.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've never said it wasn't opinion. I just fond the opinion that it wasn't a foul wrong and frankly ridiculous. The defender pulled his shoulder back, his whole body changed position, before he even went down, caused by the foul. The dive looked bad because it was a delayed dive, if you watch the slow motion replay but still, it was a foul nonetheless.
posted on 22/4/19
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 seconds ago
No, I want you to find the bit where you asked me which law and I told you what I’m basing my opinion on.
I explained that to you last time.
Look at the state of what you’re left with.
Are you any good at throwing shoes over buildings using the laces? We can try that if you like.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you are lying. If you disagree with that then you pop off and prove me wrong. No skin off my nose of you don’t. It just further proves you talk shiite and can’t back it up.
It’s not on me to prove you’re not a liar. That’s on you little man.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh no, you think I’m a liar. How will I cope?
posted on 22/4/19
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 minutes ago
Generous, TOOR. It was barely a touch!
But I do appreciate you now accept its opinion - we’re both entitled to it and neither of us are wrong.
I did ask for your understanding on that point some time ago.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've never said it wasn't opinion. I just fond the opinion that it wasn't a foul wrong and frankly ridiculous. The defender pulled his shoulder back, his whole body changed position, before he even went down, caused by the foul. The dive looked bad because it was a delayed dive, if you watch the slow motion replay but still, it was a foul nonetheless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s not ridiculous at all and I do believe at the time you said it was 100% a foul.
Anyway, progress made today.
posted on 22/4/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 26 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 seconds ago
No, I want you to find the bit where you asked me which law and I told you what I’m basing my opinion on.
I explained that to you last time.
Look at the state of what you’re left with.
Are you any good at throwing shoes over buildings using the laces? We can try that if you like.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you are lying. If you disagree with that then you pop off and prove me wrong. No skin off my nose of you don’t. It just further proves you talk shiite and can’t back it up.
It’s not on me to prove you’re not a liar. That’s on you little man.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh no, you think I’m a liar. How will I cope?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah you’re obviously not bothered about it
posted on 22/4/19
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 36 seconds ago
Problem is TOOR is the referee may not have thought it was a foul (without the dive).
We’ll never know.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I understand that point but like I said before I'd rather the player go down when he has been fouled and let the referee make the decision. The former referee I quote felt it was a foul and he like everybody else would have known Salah went down when he didn't need to.
It's widely accepted in the game, frustrating as it may be, it's accepted as the alternative is being put at a disadvantage and the defender getting rewarded. It's up to the referee to decide, as well as VAR from next season.
There would need to be big changes to how referees referee games to change this, which of course could happen with VAR helping but I doubt they will look at changing it. They will just make judgement on the foul as it is and if not enough contact was made, a foul is not committed, they should, after VAR review decides against the penalty, when the player has went down, book the player.
I just can't see this changing, although you may get less diving without fouls as more players are booked.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you talking about Dermot Gallagher?
Actually, he seemed to be suggesting the contact might have been enough to send him over, so seems to view it differently.
We’ll never know what the referee would have dexiddd because Salah cheated.
You think it’s justified, fine, but it’s cheating in terms of the laws and I still question how sympathetic you’d be to Ashley young.
posted on 22/4/19
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 26 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 seconds ago
No, I want you to find the bit where you asked me which law and I told you what I’m basing my opinion on.
I explained that to you last time.
Look at the state of what you’re left with.
Are you any good at throwing shoes over buildings using the laces? We can try that if you like.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you are lying. If you disagree with that then you pop off and prove me wrong. No skin off my nose of you don’t. It just further proves you talk shiite and can’t back it up.
It’s not on me to prove you’re not a liar. That’s on you little man.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh no, you think I’m a liar. How will I cope?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah you’re obviously not bothered about it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Crying my eyes out...
posted on 22/4/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 34 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 26 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 seconds ago
No, I want you to find the bit where you asked me which law and I told you what I’m basing my opinion on.
I explained that to you last time.
Look at the state of what you’re left with.
Are you any good at throwing shoes over buildings using the laces? We can try that if you like.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you are lying. If you disagree with that then you pop off and prove me wrong. No skin off my nose of you don’t. It just further proves you talk shiite and can’t back it up.
It’s not on me to prove you’re not a liar. That’s on you little man.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh no, you think I’m a liar. How will I cope?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah you’re obviously not bothered about it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Crying my eyes out...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Safe to say you can’t take a liar at their word.
So when you say you know the laws of the game safe to say you’re lying. This is backed up by the fact you can’t name the specific law you based your opinion on.
So there we have it. Winston the lying get knows fook all about the laws of the game, fact.
posted on 22/4/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 hours, 41 minutes ago
Any excuse for what?
There’s no reason for me to write down the laws for you.
Facking hell, this is weird
Debate, debate, debate and then randomly ‘write down the laws if you know them. If you don’t then I win’.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Annie never said that he'd win, you wrote that yourself, Winnie and pass it off as something Annie said. Lying again, tsk tsk tsk
posted on 22/4/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 36 seconds ago
Problem is TOOR is the referee may not have thought it was a foul (without the dive).
We’ll never know.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I understand that point but like I said before I'd rather the player go down when he has been fouled and let the referee make the decision. The former referee I quote felt it was a foul and he like everybody else would have known Salah went down when he didn't need to.
It's widely accepted in the game, frustrating as it may be, it's accepted as the alternative is being put at a disadvantage and the defender getting rewarded. It's up to the referee to decide, as well as VAR from next season.
There would need to be big changes to how referees referee games to change this, which of course could happen with VAR helping but I doubt they will look at changing it. They will just make judgement on the foul as it is and if not enough contact was made, a foul is not committed, they should, after VAR review decides against the penalty, when the player has went down, book the player.
I just can't see this changing, although you may get less diving without fouls as more players are booked.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you talking about Dermot Gallagher?
Actually, he seemed to be suggesting the contact might have been enough to send him over, so seems to view it differently.
We’ll never know what the referee would have dexiddd because Salah cheated.
You think it’s justified, fine, but it’s cheating in terms of the laws and I still question how sympathetic you’d be to Ashley young.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd have the same opinion if it was Ashley Young. I only get annoyed by diving without fouls. Like Salah's one I believe against Palace and one I saw Kane doing earlier in the season. Both thought the foul was incoming and dived, it didnt come and it looked ridiculous. Salah didn't get the penalty but should have been booked. Kane got booked.
Simply referees will only book players when there has been no contact but let it go when they believe the player has went down when he could have stayed up. Perhaps as it's difficult for them to tell if enough contact was made to constitute a foul so they go for the happy medium if they believe there hasn't been. No action. Maybe VAR will change that.
posted on 22/4/19
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 34 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 26 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 seconds ago
No, I want you to find the bit where you asked me which law and I told you what I’m basing my opinion on.
I explained that to you last time.
Look at the state of what you’re left with.
Are you any good at throwing shoes over buildings using the laces? We can try that if you like.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you are lying. If you disagree with that then you pop off and prove me wrong. No skin off my nose of you don’t. It just further proves you talk shiite and can’t back it up.
It’s not on me to prove you’re not a liar. That’s on you little man.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh no, you think I’m a liar. How will I cope?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah you’re obviously not bothered about it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Crying my eyes out...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Safe to say you can’t take a liar at their word.
So when you say you know the laws of the game safe to say you’re lying. This is backed up by the fact you can’t name the specific law you based your opinion on.
So there we have it. Winston the lying get knows fook all about the laws of the game, fact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I say I know the laws of the game because I do.
Hope this helps.
posted on 22/4/19
TOOR, players will continue to throw themselves on the floor even when VAR comes in.
Personally, I hope some comment sense is used and the exaggeration will be punished. I fear not, though.
posted on 22/4/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
TOOR, players will continue to throw themselves on the floor even when VAR comes in.
Personally, I hope some comment sense is used and the exaggeration will be punished. I fear not, though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There will be more bookings I'm sure. Which may stop some of the dives. All of them won't be stopped until fouls are given without needing to go down.
posted on 22/4/19
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
TOOR, players will continue to throw themselves on the floor even when VAR comes in.
Personally, I hope some comment sense is used and the exaggeration will be punished. I fear not, though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There will be more bookings I'm sure. Which may stop some of the dives. All of them won't be stopped until fouls are given without needing to go down.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’ll be the same issue as there is with retrospective action.
That being that unless it’s clear deception (noncontact and the like) then they’ll leave it alone.
It could end up being a right old mess, but I hope now.
posted on 22/4/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 34 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 26 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 seconds ago
No, I want you to find the bit where you asked me which law and I told you what I’m basing my opinion on.
I explained that to you last time.
Look at the state of what you’re left with.
Are you any good at throwing shoes over buildings using the laces? We can try that if you like.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you are lying. If you disagree with that then you pop off and prove me wrong. No skin off my nose of you don’t. It just further proves you talk shiite and can’t back it up.
It’s not on me to prove you’re not a liar. That’s on you little man.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh no, you think I’m a liar. How will I cope?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah you’re obviously not bothered about it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Crying my eyes out...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Safe to say you can’t take a liar at their word.
So when you say you know the laws of the game safe to say you’re lying. This is backed up by the fact you can’t name the specific law you based your opinion on.
So there we have it. Winston the lying get knows fook all about the laws of the game, fact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I say I know the laws of the game because I do.
Hope this helps.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah it’s not like you are lying about it or anything to win an argument on the internet.
You’ve not given any proof to show you know the laws of the game. All you’ve done is repeatedly said ‘my opinion is based on the laws of the game’.
Not a good idea to make such a bold claim, not back it up and end up resorting to lying.
posted on 22/4/19
I often reference the laws as part of the debate on here and I’ve done so today.
I know the laws well.
Thanks for your continued interest in me.
posted on 22/4/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
TOOR, players will continue to throw themselves on the floor even when VAR comes in.
Personally, I hope some comment sense is used and the exaggeration will be punished. I fear not, though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There will be more bookings I'm sure. Which may stop some of the dives. All of them won't be stopped until fouls are given without needing to go down.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’ll be the same issue as there is with retrospective action.
That being that unless it’s clear deception (noncontact and the like) then they’ll leave it alone.
It could end up being a right old mess, but I hope now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes there will be the same issues but referees can be more clear on whether and player has dived without contact.
Mata's one recently is a perfect example. From the angle the referee was standing it absolutely looked like the player came through the back of him. From another angle you could see that not only was it outside the box but it wasn't even a foul, however it would have been enough to feel that it didn't warrant a yellow card for Mata, despite going to ground when he could have stayed up.
posted on 22/4/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
I often reference the laws as part of the debate on here and I’ve done so today.
I know the laws well.
Thanks for your continued interest in me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
More lies
Winston talking shiite for a change
posted on 22/4/19
You maybe right TOOR, but personally I think replays are more misleading than they are helpful.
Things look so different when slowed down.
Time will tell but I think common sense is important in football and it’s something that will be lost - mainly because the people running the game don’t have any.
I suppose I’m old school now though, so it’ll just sound like a whinge in the years to come.
‘Back in my day...’
posted on 22/4/19
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
I often reference the laws as part of the debate on here and I’ve done so today.
I know the laws well.
Thanks for your continued interest in me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
More lies
Winston talking shiite for a change
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No lies, all factual.
Look at you - started off debating the decision and now this? Wow. You are a mess.
posted on 22/4/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
I often reference the laws as part of the debate on here and I’ve done so today.
I know the laws well.
Thanks for your continued interest in me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
More lies
Winston talking shiite for a change
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No lies, all factual.
Look at you - started off debating the decision and now this? Wow. You are a mess.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not like I’ve resorted to saying ‘I’ve destroyed you’ or anything cringy like that.
You’ve been proven to be lying, you can’t name the law you based your opinion on. Fact.
Maybe stop with the ‘I know the laws of the game’ if you can’t back it up.
posted on 22/4/19
There’s no proof of me lying because I haven’t lied.
Hope this helps.
posted on 22/4/19
Imagine making such a mess of debating a decision that you end up shouting ‘you’re a liar’ over and over again, about something completely unrelated.
posted on 22/4/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
There’s no proof of me lying because I haven’t lied.
Hope this helps.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
“‘If you don’t write out the law in full right now then you don’t know it and I win.”
Where didn’t i say this?
You lied about me saying I’d brought up retrospective action
You lied that you’d posted the specific law you were on about.
You lied about this:
“Debate, debate, debate and then randomly ‘write down the laws if you know them. If you don’t then I win”
You are talking shiite and passing it off as the truth, and some pretend knowledge of the laws of the game to win an argument, that’s dragged on for months.
So yeah I’m going to call you out on it. Problem with that?
posted on 22/4/19
I love how you take those things literally.
Calm down you muppet.
Page 17 of 25
18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22