comment by TOORSpursFan (U1721)
posted 55 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by TOORSpursFan (U1721)
posted 35 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 hours, 22 minutes ago
Oh but hang on, what happens if Salah dives for something that the referee doesn’t think is a foul?
There appears to be a slight flaw in that plan, TOOR.
And by slight flaw, I mean a gaping fecking hole.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If he hasn't been fouled but dives, he should be booked.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So who decides if Salah is alerting the referee to a foul or cheating?
You?
What happens in a scenario where a player thinks he has been fouled but the referee disagrees? If the player throws himself to the floor, he’s potentially influenced a challenge that the referee didn’t perceive to be a foul, into then believing it’s a foul because the player enhanced the degree of contact involved.
That could have happened with the Salah incident va Newcastle.
This justification of diving is nonsense because it consistently makes challenges look worse than they are, deceiving the referee in the process.
I’d love to know if you have historically defences Ashley Young for the same thing. Something tells me that this is all because it’s a Liverpool player.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The referee decides of course. Have you forgot how football works?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But the referee has been influenced by the cheating player, made to think the challenge was worse than it was.
See the problem?
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 22 seconds ago
comment by TOORSpursFan (U1721)
posted 50 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 1 hour, 16 minutes ago
Winston
“In my opinion he did dive and that’s why the ref gave a pen. I don’t believe it was a foul.”
Of course you do. You’ve also put yourself in the same category as Sandy and BillytheYidd when it comes to being able to objectively view an incident and decide whether it was a dive or not.
See yesterday’s pen incident involving Salah and your view on it as proof
But you’ll ramble on about some ballacks about knowing the rules better than anyone else and drag this out for months because you ‘can accept other people’s opinions’
Even funnier is watching you spend so much time discussing an incident that had nothing to do with you, your club or any of your clubs players. It’s fookin weird
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You brought up the FA, you absolute donut. You claimed the FA disagreed with me, which started the retrospective discussion.
You’re actually incapable of reading aren’t you?
And yes, I’m biased. So how do you explain TOOR agreeing that he dived?
Love the fact that you avoided the Kane question as well. It’s just one error after another with you.
Everything I said was spot on and you’ve tried, and failed, to dismiss an opinion that can’t be dismissed because it’s based on a subjective law.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think people have different interpretations on what a dive is. My interpretation is simple. If you go down when you could have stayed on your feet, you have dived, even when a foul has occurred. Other people don't see going down easily when fouled as a dive.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t care what your interpretation is, I go by the actual laws.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah. What do the laws say a dive is?
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 22 seconds ago
comment by TOORSpursFan (U1721)
posted 50 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 1 hour, 16 minutes ago
Winston
“In my opinion he did dive and that’s why the ref gave a pen. I don’t believe it was a foul.”
Of course you do. You’ve also put yourself in the same category as Sandy and BillytheYidd when it comes to being able to objectively view an incident and decide whether it was a dive or not.
See yesterday’s pen incident involving Salah and your view on it as proof
But you’ll ramble on about some ballacks about knowing the rules better than anyone else and drag this out for months because you ‘can accept other people’s opinions’
Even funnier is watching you spend so much time discussing an incident that had nothing to do with you, your club or any of your clubs players. It’s fookin weird
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You brought up the FA, you absolute donut. You claimed the FA disagreed with me, which started the retrospective discussion.
You’re actually incapable of reading aren’t you?
And yes, I’m biased. So how do you explain TOOR agreeing that he dived?
Love the fact that you avoided the Kane question as well. It’s just one error after another with you.
Everything I said was spot on and you’ve tried, and failed, to dismiss an opinion that can’t be dismissed because it’s based on a subjective law.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think people have different interpretations on what a dive is. My interpretation is simple. If you go down when you could have stayed on your feet, you have dived, even when a foul has occurred. Other people don't see going down easily when fouled as a dive.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t care what your interpretation is, I go by the actual laws.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah. What do the laws say a dive is?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Try looking it up ffs.
But oh that’s right, you don’t need to know the laws to know if a foul has taken place do you?
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 22 seconds ago
comment by TOORSpursFan (U1721)
posted 50 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 1 hour, 16 minutes ago
Winston
“In my opinion he did dive and that’s why the ref gave a pen. I don’t believe it was a foul.”
Of course you do. You’ve also put yourself in the same category as Sandy and BillytheYidd when it comes to being able to objectively view an incident and decide whether it was a dive or not.
See yesterday’s pen incident involving Salah and your view on it as proof
But you’ll ramble on about some ballacks about knowing the rules better than anyone else and drag this out for months because you ‘can accept other people’s opinions’
Even funnier is watching you spend so much time discussing an incident that had nothing to do with you, your club or any of your clubs players. It’s fookin weird
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You brought up the FA, you absolute donut. You claimed the FA disagreed with me, which started the retrospective discussion.
You’re actually incapable of reading aren’t you?
And yes, I’m biased. So how do you explain TOOR agreeing that he dived?
Love the fact that you avoided the Kane question as well. It’s just one error after another with you.
Everything I said was spot on and you’ve tried, and failed, to dismiss an opinion that can’t be dismissed because it’s based on a subjective law.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think people have different interpretations on what a dive is. My interpretation is simple. If you go down when you could have stayed on your feet, you have dived, even when a foul has occurred. Other people don't see going down easily when fouled as a dive.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t care what your interpretation is, I go by the actual laws.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah. What do the laws say a dive is?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Try looking it up ffs.
But oh that’s right, you don’t need to know the laws to know if a foul has taken place do you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's just I've never seen anything about diving in the laws.
I have seen 'attempts to deceive the referee e.g. by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled (simulation)'. Since Salah's penalties this season have come after he was fouled, he didn't feign injury or pretend to have been fouled.
I guess that's it all cleared up then and we can move on, Winnie?
Winston
“You brought up the FA, you absolute donut. You claimed the FA disagreed with me, which started the retrospective discussion.
You’re actually incapable of reading aren’t you?”
You really are thick . No one is disputing who brought the FA up. You said this yesterday and accused me of lying;
“Do you think you can lie and no one will notice?
You dragged this onto the meaning of FA action, not me.”
I then proved it was actually you that ‘dragged this onto the meaning of FA action’ with this;
“You seem to be a little confused about what the lack of retrospective action means. Do you need some help?”
You were the one who brought up the meaning of words, ‘restrospective action’, not me
It it’s me who’s incapable of reading
What a knobhead
TOOR
Funniest thing is Winston lumping himself in with such intellectual luminaries such as Sandy and Bitter Billy regarding the incident yesterday
“Ah. What do the laws say a dive is?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Try looking it up ffs.
But oh that’s right, you don’t need to know the laws to know if a foul has taken place do you?”
Surely Mr ‘I know the laws of the game better than you’ would be able to recite the law about diving straight away.
Or you’ll avoid answering by insisting someone else looks it up.
Wonder why?
I think he did pretend to be fouled, TOOR.
Okay, let’s ask you this. You think there’s a problem with fouls not being given where it’s not sent the player to the ground.
Fine.
Don’t you also think there’s a problem with players conning referees into thinking a foul has occurred by throwing themselves onto the floor with the slightest of contact, thereby deceiving the referee into believing the contact was far worse than it was?
Is that a fair comment?
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 2 hours, 5 minutes ago
Winston
“You brought up the FA, you absolute donut. You claimed the FA disagreed with me, which started the retrospective discussion.
You’re actually incapable of reading aren’t you?”
You really are thick. No one is disputing who brought the FA up. You said this yesterday and accused me of lying;
“Do you think you can lie and no one will notice?
You dragged this onto the meaning of FA action, not me.”
I then proved it was actually you that ‘dragged this onto the meaning of FA action’ with this;
“You seem to be a little confused about what the lack of retrospective action means. Do you need some help?”
You were the one who brought up the meaning of words, ‘restrospective action’, not me
It it’s me who’s incapable of reading
What a knobhead
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you forget what you’re debating from one post to the next?
You said the FA disagree with me and claimed a lack of retrospective action is evidence of that.
You were wrong.
Now, which bit specifically are you having problems with?
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 2 hours, 2 minutes ago
“Ah. What do the laws say a dive is?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Try looking it up ffs.
But oh that’s right, you don’t need to know the laws to know if a foul has taken place do you?”
Surely Mr ‘I know the laws of the game better than you’ would be able to recite the law about diving straight away.
Or you’ll avoid answering by insisting someone else looks it up.
Wonder why?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not avoiding anything. I’m just highlighting for everyone that the person debating the specific law around diving doesn’t actually know what it is.
By the way, you haven’t addressed the fact that TOOR also said he dived. Why haven’t you questioned his intellect as well?
And why no answer re: Kane? Did he dive at Anfield last season or not?
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 9 minutes ago
I think he did pretend to be fouled, TOOR.
Okay, let’s ask you this. You think there’s a problem with fouls not being given where it’s not sent the player to the ground.
Fine.
Don’t you also think there’s a problem with players conning referees into thinking a foul has occurred by throwing themselves onto the floor with the slightest of contact, thereby deceiving the referee into believing the contact was far worse than it was?
Is that a fair comment?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes that's definitely a fair comment. I think everybody agrees with that. There is only one way to tackle this issue without attackers being put at a disadvantage when being fouled and not getting the decision. That is to give fouls when players don't go down. Until then I agree with what you hear the professionals, ex players etc say, "he's entitled to go down there".
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 2 hours, 5 minutes ago
Winston
“You brought up the FA, you absolute donut. You claimed the FA disagreed with me, which started the retrospective discussion.
You’re actually incapable of reading aren’t you?”
You really are thick. No one is disputing who brought the FA up. You said this yesterday and accused me of lying;
“Do you think you can lie and no one will notice?
You dragged this onto the meaning of FA action, not me.”
I then proved it was actually you that ‘dragged this onto the meaning of FA action’ with this;
“You seem to be a little confused about what the lack of retrospective action means. Do you need some help?”
You were the one who brought up the meaning of words, ‘restrospective action’, not me
It it’s me who’s incapable of reading
What a knobhead
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you forget what you’re debating from one post to the next?
You said the FA disagree with me and claimed a lack of retrospective action is evidence of that.
You were wrong.
Now, which bit specifically are you having problems with?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No I know what we’re debating.
Did you accuse me of lying and bringing the meaning of the words ‘retrospective action’ into the debate?
Yes or no?
Did I then post the comment showing you bringing the meaning of the words ‘retrospective action’ into the debate?
Yes or no?
You’re the one who’s confused here. Maybe brush up on your reading.
I’ve simplified it enough for you to require yes or no answers from now on. I’ll expect an honest answer. Probably won’t get one though
"By the way, you haven’t addressed the fact that TOOR also said he dived. Why haven’t you questioned his intellect as well?"
This is due to the fact that people interpret diving differently. Some people say it's when you go down when you haven't been fouled. Some, including myself it's when you go down when you could have stayed up.
For me all players dive when they've been fouled, including Salah. When they dive when they haven't been fouled, they should be carded, however most referees let them off with it, as long as there has been contact but not enough for a foul.
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 9 minutes ago
I think he did pretend to be fouled, TOOR.
Okay, let’s ask you this. You think there’s a problem with fouls not being given where it’s not sent the player to the ground.
Fine.
Don’t you also think there’s a problem with players conning referees into thinking a foul has occurred by throwing themselves onto the floor with the slightest of contact, thereby deceiving the referee into believing the contact was far worse than it was?
Is that a fair comment?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes that's definitely a fair comment. I think everybody agrees with that. There is only one way to tackle this issue without attackers being put at a disadvantage when being fouled and not getting the decision. That is to give fouls when players don't go down. Until then I agree with what you hear the professionals, ex players etc say, "he's entitled to go down there".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, glad you agree.
Now how about this - do you agree that with your solution, there will be cases where a player thinks he’s had enough contact to be fouled and so dives, but the referee wasn’t in agreement and only gave the foul because of the dive i.e. he’s been conned.
Fair comment?
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 11 seconds ago
"By the way, you haven’t addressed the fact that TOOR also said he dived. Why haven’t you questioned his intellect as well?"
This is due to the fact that people interpret diving differently. Some people say it's when you go down when you haven't been fouled. Some, including myself it's when you go down when you could have stayed up.
For me all players dive when they've been fouled, including Salah. When they dive when they haven't been fouled, they should be carded, however most referees let them off with it, as long as there has been contact but not enough for a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The point is though we both agree he threw himself to the floor, the challenge didn’t knock him over.
He’s using that as something to insult me for, yet you agree with me.
“I’m not avoiding anything. I’m just highlighting for everyone that the person debating the specific law around diving doesn’t actually know what it is.”
So go on then Mr ‘I know the laws of the game’. Enlighten us. What is the specific law in the game regarding diving.
No Googling now as that’s just cheating.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 32 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 9 minutes ago
I think he did pretend to be fouled, TOOR.
Okay, let’s ask you this. You think there’s a problem with fouls not being given where it’s not sent the player to the ground.
Fine.
Don’t you also think there’s a problem with players conning referees into thinking a foul has occurred by throwing themselves onto the floor with the slightest of contact, thereby deceiving the referee into believing the contact was far worse than it was?
Is that a fair comment?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes that's definitely a fair comment. I think everybody agrees with that. There is only one way to tackle this issue without attackers being put at a disadvantage when being fouled and not getting the decision. That is to give fouls when players don't go down. Until then I agree with what you hear the professionals, ex players etc say, "he's entitled to go down there".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, glad you agree.
Now how about this - do you agree that with your solution, there will be cases where a player thinks he’s had enough contact to be fouled and so dives, but the referee wasn’t in agreement and only gave the foul because of the dive i.e. he’s been conned.
Fair comment?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I would also agree with that.
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 2 hours, 5 minutes ago
Winston
“You brought up the FA, you absolute donut. You claimed the FA disagreed with me, which started the retrospective discussion.
You’re actually incapable of reading aren’t you?”
You really are thick. No one is disputing who brought the FA up. You said this yesterday and accused me of lying;
“Do you think you can lie and no one will notice?
You dragged this onto the meaning of FA action, not me.”
I then proved it was actually you that ‘dragged this onto the meaning of FA action’ with this;
“You seem to be a little confused about what the lack of retrospective action means. Do you need some help?”
You were the one who brought up the meaning of words, ‘restrospective action’, not me
It it’s me who’s incapable of reading
What a knobhead
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you forget what you’re debating from one post to the next?
You said the FA disagree with me and claimed a lack of retrospective action is evidence of that.
You were wrong.
Now, which bit specifically are you having problems with?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No I know what we’re debating.
Did you accuse me of lying and bringing the meaning of the words ‘retrospective action’ into the debate?
Yes or no?
Did I then post the comment showing you bringing the meaning of the words ‘retrospective action’ into the debate?
Yes or no?
You’re the one who’s confused here. Maybe brush up on your reading.
I’ve simplified it enough for you to require yes or no answers from now on. I’ll expect an honest answer. Probably won’t get one though
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You were lying and you are the one who wanted to move the goalposts onto something about the meaning of words.
I wanted to discuss your incorrect comment that the FA disagree with my view.
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 51 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 32 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 9 minutes ago
I think he did pretend to be fouled, TOOR.
Okay, let’s ask you this. You think there’s a problem with fouls not being given where it’s not sent the player to the ground.
Fine.
Don’t you also think there’s a problem with players conning referees into thinking a foul has occurred by throwing themselves onto the floor with the slightest of contact, thereby deceiving the referee into believing the contact was far worse than it was?
Is that a fair comment?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes that's definitely a fair comment. I think everybody agrees with that. There is only one way to tackle this issue without attackers being put at a disadvantage when being fouled and not getting the decision. That is to give fouls when players don't go down. Until then I agree with what you hear the professionals, ex players etc say, "he's entitled to go down there".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, glad you agree.
Now how about this - do you agree that with your solution, there will be cases where a player thinks he’s had enough contact to be fouled and so dives, but the referee wasn’t in agreement and only gave the foul because of the dive i.e. he’s been conned.
Fair comment?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I would also agree with that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Great, so surely you see the issue?
Saying players are entitled to go down means you are creating situations where referees are conned and players feel it’s acceptable to decide whether they’ve been fouled themselves.
How can that be a good thing?
“You were lying and you are the one who wanted to move the goalposts onto something about the meaning of words.”
And yet I’ve posted proof it was you that moved on to the meaning of words, weird. You can’t do the same for me.
The very first comment mentioning the meaning of the words ‘retrospective action’ was made by you, followed by the obligatory ‘let me know of you need help’.
It is there in black and white you thick caant. Yet you’re still denying it and calling me a liar
It’s been 5 minutes and Winston is desperately Googling the laws of the game about diving.
Still nothing
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 36 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 51 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 32 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 9 minutes ago
I think he did pretend to be fouled, TOOR.
Okay, let’s ask you this. You think there’s a problem with fouls not being given where it’s not sent the player to the ground.
Fine.
Don’t you also think there’s a problem with players conning referees into thinking a foul has occurred by throwing themselves onto the floor with the slightest of contact, thereby deceiving the referee into believing the contact was far worse than it was?
Is that a fair comment?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes that's definitely a fair comment. I think everybody agrees with that. There is only one way to tackle this issue without attackers being put at a disadvantage when being fouled and not getting the decision. That is to give fouls when players don't go down. Until then I agree with what you hear the professionals, ex players etc say, "he's entitled to go down there".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, glad you agree.
Now how about this - do you agree that with your solution, there will be cases where a player thinks he’s had enough contact to be fouled and so dives, but the referee wasn’t in agreement and only gave the foul because of the dive i.e. he’s been conned.
Fair comment?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I would also agree with that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Great, so surely you see the issue?
Saying players are entitled to go down means you are creating situations where referees are conned and players feel it’s acceptable to decide whether they’ve been fouled themselves.
How can that be a good thing?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I see the issue. However the alternative is that the attackers don't go down and defenders foul players in the box, with attackers put at a disadvantage. Considering the team I support spend most of the time attacking, I'm more in favour of going down when fouled than staying up and hoping the referee gives the penalty, despite all the evidence suggesting he won't, if you stay up.
It's the lesser of two evils for me and it's up to the referee and especially VAR next season to get the decision correct.
I was a defender and often I would put the attacker at a disadvantage illegally and hope the referee didn't see it. If the attacker was going down when I touched him, I stopped and tried to defend legally. Defenders should not be able to pull and hold attackers and claim it as fair contact because the attacker didn't go down. This is why it is accepted in the game.
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 16 seconds ago
I was a defender and often I would put the attacker at a disadvantage illegally and hope the referee didn't see it. If the attacker was going down when I touched him, I stopped and tried to defend legally. Defenders should not be able to pull and hold attackers and claim it as fair contact because the attacker didn't go down. This is why it is accepted in the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely agree with this.
Why should Morrison get away with grabbing hold of Salah yesterday? If Salah doesn’t go down the ref doesn’t give the pen.
Simple enough, you’d think.
I understand your point TOOR but firmly believe you’re overstating the issue, whereas for me, players seeking to deceive the referee is a massive issue.
The biggest problem though is that we just don’t know what referees would decide without the diving.
The Salah incident is a case in point. You think it was a foul, I don’t. Neither of us know what the referee would have decided because Salah cheated. It wasn’t his decision to make.
So you look at that and believe he helped the referee reach the correct decision but I look at it and think the opposite.
I do understand your point and yesterday is a good example of the problem you describe but really don’t think it’s a big issue and unless players stop throwing themselves on the floor we’ll never know the extent of it.
Sign in if you want to comment
Hypocritical media..
Page 9 of 25
10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14
posted on 22/4/19
comment by TOORSpursFan (U1721)
posted 55 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by TOORSpursFan (U1721)
posted 35 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 hours, 22 minutes ago
Oh but hang on, what happens if Salah dives for something that the referee doesn’t think is a foul?
There appears to be a slight flaw in that plan, TOOR.
And by slight flaw, I mean a gaping fecking hole.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If he hasn't been fouled but dives, he should be booked.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So who decides if Salah is alerting the referee to a foul or cheating?
You?
What happens in a scenario where a player thinks he has been fouled but the referee disagrees? If the player throws himself to the floor, he’s potentially influenced a challenge that the referee didn’t perceive to be a foul, into then believing it’s a foul because the player enhanced the degree of contact involved.
That could have happened with the Salah incident va Newcastle.
This justification of diving is nonsense because it consistently makes challenges look worse than they are, deceiving the referee in the process.
I’d love to know if you have historically defences Ashley Young for the same thing. Something tells me that this is all because it’s a Liverpool player.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The referee decides of course. Have you forgot how football works?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But the referee has been influenced by the cheating player, made to think the challenge was worse than it was.
See the problem?
posted on 22/4/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 22 seconds ago
comment by TOORSpursFan (U1721)
posted 50 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 1 hour, 16 minutes ago
Winston
“In my opinion he did dive and that’s why the ref gave a pen. I don’t believe it was a foul.”
Of course you do. You’ve also put yourself in the same category as Sandy and BillytheYidd when it comes to being able to objectively view an incident and decide whether it was a dive or not.
See yesterday’s pen incident involving Salah and your view on it as proof
But you’ll ramble on about some ballacks about knowing the rules better than anyone else and drag this out for months because you ‘can accept other people’s opinions’
Even funnier is watching you spend so much time discussing an incident that had nothing to do with you, your club or any of your clubs players. It’s fookin weird
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You brought up the FA, you absolute donut. You claimed the FA disagreed with me, which started the retrospective discussion.
You’re actually incapable of reading aren’t you?
And yes, I’m biased. So how do you explain TOOR agreeing that he dived?
Love the fact that you avoided the Kane question as well. It’s just one error after another with you.
Everything I said was spot on and you’ve tried, and failed, to dismiss an opinion that can’t be dismissed because it’s based on a subjective law.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think people have different interpretations on what a dive is. My interpretation is simple. If you go down when you could have stayed on your feet, you have dived, even when a foul has occurred. Other people don't see going down easily when fouled as a dive.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t care what your interpretation is, I go by the actual laws.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah. What do the laws say a dive is?
posted on 22/4/19
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 22 seconds ago
comment by TOORSpursFan (U1721)
posted 50 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 1 hour, 16 minutes ago
Winston
“In my opinion he did dive and that’s why the ref gave a pen. I don’t believe it was a foul.”
Of course you do. You’ve also put yourself in the same category as Sandy and BillytheYidd when it comes to being able to objectively view an incident and decide whether it was a dive or not.
See yesterday’s pen incident involving Salah and your view on it as proof
But you’ll ramble on about some ballacks about knowing the rules better than anyone else and drag this out for months because you ‘can accept other people’s opinions’
Even funnier is watching you spend so much time discussing an incident that had nothing to do with you, your club or any of your clubs players. It’s fookin weird
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You brought up the FA, you absolute donut. You claimed the FA disagreed with me, which started the retrospective discussion.
You’re actually incapable of reading aren’t you?
And yes, I’m biased. So how do you explain TOOR agreeing that he dived?
Love the fact that you avoided the Kane question as well. It’s just one error after another with you.
Everything I said was spot on and you’ve tried, and failed, to dismiss an opinion that can’t be dismissed because it’s based on a subjective law.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think people have different interpretations on what a dive is. My interpretation is simple. If you go down when you could have stayed on your feet, you have dived, even when a foul has occurred. Other people don't see going down easily when fouled as a dive.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t care what your interpretation is, I go by the actual laws.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah. What do the laws say a dive is?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Try looking it up ffs.
But oh that’s right, you don’t need to know the laws to know if a foul has taken place do you?
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 22 seconds ago
comment by TOORSpursFan (U1721)
posted 50 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 1 hour, 16 minutes ago
Winston
“In my opinion he did dive and that’s why the ref gave a pen. I don’t believe it was a foul.”
Of course you do. You’ve also put yourself in the same category as Sandy and BillytheYidd when it comes to being able to objectively view an incident and decide whether it was a dive or not.
See yesterday’s pen incident involving Salah and your view on it as proof
But you’ll ramble on about some ballacks about knowing the rules better than anyone else and drag this out for months because you ‘can accept other people’s opinions’
Even funnier is watching you spend so much time discussing an incident that had nothing to do with you, your club or any of your clubs players. It’s fookin weird
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You brought up the FA, you absolute donut. You claimed the FA disagreed with me, which started the retrospective discussion.
You’re actually incapable of reading aren’t you?
And yes, I’m biased. So how do you explain TOOR agreeing that he dived?
Love the fact that you avoided the Kane question as well. It’s just one error after another with you.
Everything I said was spot on and you’ve tried, and failed, to dismiss an opinion that can’t be dismissed because it’s based on a subjective law.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think people have different interpretations on what a dive is. My interpretation is simple. If you go down when you could have stayed on your feet, you have dived, even when a foul has occurred. Other people don't see going down easily when fouled as a dive.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t care what your interpretation is, I go by the actual laws.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah. What do the laws say a dive is?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Try looking it up ffs.
But oh that’s right, you don’t need to know the laws to know if a foul has taken place do you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's just I've never seen anything about diving in the laws.
I have seen 'attempts to deceive the referee e.g. by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled (simulation)'. Since Salah's penalties this season have come after he was fouled, he didn't feign injury or pretend to have been fouled.
I guess that's it all cleared up then and we can move on, Winnie?
posted on 22/4/19
Winston
“You brought up the FA, you absolute donut. You claimed the FA disagreed with me, which started the retrospective discussion.
You’re actually incapable of reading aren’t you?”
You really are thick . No one is disputing who brought the FA up. You said this yesterday and accused me of lying;
“Do you think you can lie and no one will notice?
You dragged this onto the meaning of FA action, not me.”
I then proved it was actually you that ‘dragged this onto the meaning of FA action’ with this;
“You seem to be a little confused about what the lack of retrospective action means. Do you need some help?”
You were the one who brought up the meaning of words, ‘restrospective action’, not me
It it’s me who’s incapable of reading
What a knobhead
posted on 22/4/19
TOOR
Funniest thing is Winston lumping himself in with such intellectual luminaries such as Sandy and Bitter Billy regarding the incident yesterday
posted on 22/4/19
“Ah. What do the laws say a dive is?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Try looking it up ffs.
But oh that’s right, you don’t need to know the laws to know if a foul has taken place do you?”
Surely Mr ‘I know the laws of the game better than you’ would be able to recite the law about diving straight away.
Or you’ll avoid answering by insisting someone else looks it up.
Wonder why?
posted on 22/4/19
I think he did pretend to be fouled, TOOR.
Okay, let’s ask you this. You think there’s a problem with fouls not being given where it’s not sent the player to the ground.
Fine.
Don’t you also think there’s a problem with players conning referees into thinking a foul has occurred by throwing themselves onto the floor with the slightest of contact, thereby deceiving the referee into believing the contact was far worse than it was?
Is that a fair comment?
posted on 22/4/19
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 2 hours, 5 minutes ago
Winston
“You brought up the FA, you absolute donut. You claimed the FA disagreed with me, which started the retrospective discussion.
You’re actually incapable of reading aren’t you?”
You really are thick. No one is disputing who brought the FA up. You said this yesterday and accused me of lying;
“Do you think you can lie and no one will notice?
You dragged this onto the meaning of FA action, not me.”
I then proved it was actually you that ‘dragged this onto the meaning of FA action’ with this;
“You seem to be a little confused about what the lack of retrospective action means. Do you need some help?”
You were the one who brought up the meaning of words, ‘restrospective action’, not me
It it’s me who’s incapable of reading
What a knobhead
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you forget what you’re debating from one post to the next?
You said the FA disagree with me and claimed a lack of retrospective action is evidence of that.
You were wrong.
Now, which bit specifically are you having problems with?
posted on 22/4/19
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 2 hours, 2 minutes ago
“Ah. What do the laws say a dive is?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Try looking it up ffs.
But oh that’s right, you don’t need to know the laws to know if a foul has taken place do you?”
Surely Mr ‘I know the laws of the game better than you’ would be able to recite the law about diving straight away.
Or you’ll avoid answering by insisting someone else looks it up.
Wonder why?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not avoiding anything. I’m just highlighting for everyone that the person debating the specific law around diving doesn’t actually know what it is.
By the way, you haven’t addressed the fact that TOOR also said he dived. Why haven’t you questioned his intellect as well?
And why no answer re: Kane? Did he dive at Anfield last season or not?
posted on 22/4/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 9 minutes ago
I think he did pretend to be fouled, TOOR.
Okay, let’s ask you this. You think there’s a problem with fouls not being given where it’s not sent the player to the ground.
Fine.
Don’t you also think there’s a problem with players conning referees into thinking a foul has occurred by throwing themselves onto the floor with the slightest of contact, thereby deceiving the referee into believing the contact was far worse than it was?
Is that a fair comment?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes that's definitely a fair comment. I think everybody agrees with that. There is only one way to tackle this issue without attackers being put at a disadvantage when being fouled and not getting the decision. That is to give fouls when players don't go down. Until then I agree with what you hear the professionals, ex players etc say, "he's entitled to go down there".
posted on 22/4/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 2 hours, 5 minutes ago
Winston
“You brought up the FA, you absolute donut. You claimed the FA disagreed with me, which started the retrospective discussion.
You’re actually incapable of reading aren’t you?”
You really are thick. No one is disputing who brought the FA up. You said this yesterday and accused me of lying;
“Do you think you can lie and no one will notice?
You dragged this onto the meaning of FA action, not me.”
I then proved it was actually you that ‘dragged this onto the meaning of FA action’ with this;
“You seem to be a little confused about what the lack of retrospective action means. Do you need some help?”
You were the one who brought up the meaning of words, ‘restrospective action’, not me
It it’s me who’s incapable of reading
What a knobhead
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you forget what you’re debating from one post to the next?
You said the FA disagree with me and claimed a lack of retrospective action is evidence of that.
You were wrong.
Now, which bit specifically are you having problems with?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No I know what we’re debating.
Did you accuse me of lying and bringing the meaning of the words ‘retrospective action’ into the debate?
Yes or no?
Did I then post the comment showing you bringing the meaning of the words ‘retrospective action’ into the debate?
Yes or no?
You’re the one who’s confused here. Maybe brush up on your reading.
I’ve simplified it enough for you to require yes or no answers from now on. I’ll expect an honest answer. Probably won’t get one though
posted on 22/4/19
"By the way, you haven’t addressed the fact that TOOR also said he dived. Why haven’t you questioned his intellect as well?"
This is due to the fact that people interpret diving differently. Some people say it's when you go down when you haven't been fouled. Some, including myself it's when you go down when you could have stayed up.
For me all players dive when they've been fouled, including Salah. When they dive when they haven't been fouled, they should be carded, however most referees let them off with it, as long as there has been contact but not enough for a foul.
posted on 22/4/19
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 9 minutes ago
I think he did pretend to be fouled, TOOR.
Okay, let’s ask you this. You think there’s a problem with fouls not being given where it’s not sent the player to the ground.
Fine.
Don’t you also think there’s a problem with players conning referees into thinking a foul has occurred by throwing themselves onto the floor with the slightest of contact, thereby deceiving the referee into believing the contact was far worse than it was?
Is that a fair comment?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes that's definitely a fair comment. I think everybody agrees with that. There is only one way to tackle this issue without attackers being put at a disadvantage when being fouled and not getting the decision. That is to give fouls when players don't go down. Until then I agree with what you hear the professionals, ex players etc say, "he's entitled to go down there".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, glad you agree.
Now how about this - do you agree that with your solution, there will be cases where a player thinks he’s had enough contact to be fouled and so dives, but the referee wasn’t in agreement and only gave the foul because of the dive i.e. he’s been conned.
Fair comment?
posted on 22/4/19
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 11 seconds ago
"By the way, you haven’t addressed the fact that TOOR also said he dived. Why haven’t you questioned his intellect as well?"
This is due to the fact that people interpret diving differently. Some people say it's when you go down when you haven't been fouled. Some, including myself it's when you go down when you could have stayed up.
For me all players dive when they've been fouled, including Salah. When they dive when they haven't been fouled, they should be carded, however most referees let them off with it, as long as there has been contact but not enough for a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The point is though we both agree he threw himself to the floor, the challenge didn’t knock him over.
He’s using that as something to insult me for, yet you agree with me.
posted on 22/4/19
“I’m not avoiding anything. I’m just highlighting for everyone that the person debating the specific law around diving doesn’t actually know what it is.”
So go on then Mr ‘I know the laws of the game’. Enlighten us. What is the specific law in the game regarding diving.
No Googling now as that’s just cheating.
posted on 22/4/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 32 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 9 minutes ago
I think he did pretend to be fouled, TOOR.
Okay, let’s ask you this. You think there’s a problem with fouls not being given where it’s not sent the player to the ground.
Fine.
Don’t you also think there’s a problem with players conning referees into thinking a foul has occurred by throwing themselves onto the floor with the slightest of contact, thereby deceiving the referee into believing the contact was far worse than it was?
Is that a fair comment?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes that's definitely a fair comment. I think everybody agrees with that. There is only one way to tackle this issue without attackers being put at a disadvantage when being fouled and not getting the decision. That is to give fouls when players don't go down. Until then I agree with what you hear the professionals, ex players etc say, "he's entitled to go down there".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, glad you agree.
Now how about this - do you agree that with your solution, there will be cases where a player thinks he’s had enough contact to be fouled and so dives, but the referee wasn’t in agreement and only gave the foul because of the dive i.e. he’s been conned.
Fair comment?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I would also agree with that.
posted on 22/4/19
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 2 hours, 5 minutes ago
Winston
“You brought up the FA, you absolute donut. You claimed the FA disagreed with me, which started the retrospective discussion.
You’re actually incapable of reading aren’t you?”
You really are thick. No one is disputing who brought the FA up. You said this yesterday and accused me of lying;
“Do you think you can lie and no one will notice?
You dragged this onto the meaning of FA action, not me.”
I then proved it was actually you that ‘dragged this onto the meaning of FA action’ with this;
“You seem to be a little confused about what the lack of retrospective action means. Do you need some help?”
You were the one who brought up the meaning of words, ‘restrospective action’, not me
It it’s me who’s incapable of reading
What a knobhead
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you forget what you’re debating from one post to the next?
You said the FA disagree with me and claimed a lack of retrospective action is evidence of that.
You were wrong.
Now, which bit specifically are you having problems with?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No I know what we’re debating.
Did you accuse me of lying and bringing the meaning of the words ‘retrospective action’ into the debate?
Yes or no?
Did I then post the comment showing you bringing the meaning of the words ‘retrospective action’ into the debate?
Yes or no?
You’re the one who’s confused here. Maybe brush up on your reading.
I’ve simplified it enough for you to require yes or no answers from now on. I’ll expect an honest answer. Probably won’t get one though
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You were lying and you are the one who wanted to move the goalposts onto something about the meaning of words.
I wanted to discuss your incorrect comment that the FA disagree with my view.
posted on 22/4/19
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 51 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 32 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 9 minutes ago
I think he did pretend to be fouled, TOOR.
Okay, let’s ask you this. You think there’s a problem with fouls not being given where it’s not sent the player to the ground.
Fine.
Don’t you also think there’s a problem with players conning referees into thinking a foul has occurred by throwing themselves onto the floor with the slightest of contact, thereby deceiving the referee into believing the contact was far worse than it was?
Is that a fair comment?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes that's definitely a fair comment. I think everybody agrees with that. There is only one way to tackle this issue without attackers being put at a disadvantage when being fouled and not getting the decision. That is to give fouls when players don't go down. Until then I agree with what you hear the professionals, ex players etc say, "he's entitled to go down there".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, glad you agree.
Now how about this - do you agree that with your solution, there will be cases where a player thinks he’s had enough contact to be fouled and so dives, but the referee wasn’t in agreement and only gave the foul because of the dive i.e. he’s been conned.
Fair comment?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I would also agree with that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Great, so surely you see the issue?
Saying players are entitled to go down means you are creating situations where referees are conned and players feel it’s acceptable to decide whether they’ve been fouled themselves.
How can that be a good thing?
posted on 22/4/19
“You were lying and you are the one who wanted to move the goalposts onto something about the meaning of words.”
And yet I’ve posted proof it was you that moved on to the meaning of words, weird. You can’t do the same for me.
The very first comment mentioning the meaning of the words ‘retrospective action’ was made by you, followed by the obligatory ‘let me know of you need help’.
It is there in black and white you thick caant. Yet you’re still denying it and calling me a liar
posted on 22/4/19
It’s been 5 minutes and Winston is desperately Googling the laws of the game about diving.
Still nothing
posted on 22/4/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 36 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 51 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 32 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 9 minutes ago
I think he did pretend to be fouled, TOOR.
Okay, let’s ask you this. You think there’s a problem with fouls not being given where it’s not sent the player to the ground.
Fine.
Don’t you also think there’s a problem with players conning referees into thinking a foul has occurred by throwing themselves onto the floor with the slightest of contact, thereby deceiving the referee into believing the contact was far worse than it was?
Is that a fair comment?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes that's definitely a fair comment. I think everybody agrees with that. There is only one way to tackle this issue without attackers being put at a disadvantage when being fouled and not getting the decision. That is to give fouls when players don't go down. Until then I agree with what you hear the professionals, ex players etc say, "he's entitled to go down there".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, glad you agree.
Now how about this - do you agree that with your solution, there will be cases where a player thinks he’s had enough contact to be fouled and so dives, but the referee wasn’t in agreement and only gave the foul because of the dive i.e. he’s been conned.
Fair comment?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I would also agree with that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Great, so surely you see the issue?
Saying players are entitled to go down means you are creating situations where referees are conned and players feel it’s acceptable to decide whether they’ve been fouled themselves.
How can that be a good thing?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I see the issue. However the alternative is that the attackers don't go down and defenders foul players in the box, with attackers put at a disadvantage. Considering the team I support spend most of the time attacking, I'm more in favour of going down when fouled than staying up and hoping the referee gives the penalty, despite all the evidence suggesting he won't, if you stay up.
It's the lesser of two evils for me and it's up to the referee and especially VAR next season to get the decision correct.
posted on 22/4/19
I was a defender and often I would put the attacker at a disadvantage illegally and hope the referee didn't see it. If the attacker was going down when I touched him, I stopped and tried to defend legally. Defenders should not be able to pull and hold attackers and claim it as fair contact because the attacker didn't go down. This is why it is accepted in the game.
posted on 22/4/19
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 16 seconds ago
I was a defender and often I would put the attacker at a disadvantage illegally and hope the referee didn't see it. If the attacker was going down when I touched him, I stopped and tried to defend legally. Defenders should not be able to pull and hold attackers and claim it as fair contact because the attacker didn't go down. This is why it is accepted in the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely agree with this.
Why should Morrison get away with grabbing hold of Salah yesterday? If Salah doesn’t go down the ref doesn’t give the pen.
Simple enough, you’d think.
posted on 22/4/19
I understand your point TOOR but firmly believe you’re overstating the issue, whereas for me, players seeking to deceive the referee is a massive issue.
The biggest problem though is that we just don’t know what referees would decide without the diving.
The Salah incident is a case in point. You think it was a foul, I don’t. Neither of us know what the referee would have decided because Salah cheated. It wasn’t his decision to make.
So you look at that and believe he helped the referee reach the correct decision but I look at it and think the opposite.
I do understand your point and yesterday is a good example of the problem you describe but really don’t think it’s a big issue and unless players stop throwing themselves on the floor we’ll never know the extent of it.
Page 9 of 25
10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14