comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 16 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
I strongly suspect that AA would have been punished for handball in the World Cup just gone.
Which of course, would have been an absurd decision.
Be interested to hear TOOR’s view on that. Actually, maybe not.
Good game and as you say OP, there was an air of inevitability about it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think he would, since it deflected off Silva's hand. The rules were the same in the World Cup just VAR was used differently.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Convenient.
It would have been given on the basis of his arms being away from his body, and you’d have backed it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it wouldn't as there was a deflection. Not to mention the deflection was actually off the hand of the opposition player. Without that however I'd have given handball due to where his arm was.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And that is yet more evidence that you haven’t got a clue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope. I just go by the actual laws which the PL clarified before the season began.
If you want to learn something you can read the part where they say deflections off the opposition will be taken into account. Therefore no handball in my opinion. If yours differs fine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No you don’t.
You invent your own version of them based on an incorrect interpretation and then pretend it’s a fact. You’re clueless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope. I read the law and then use it to form my opinion, which I've done here, which the referee did, the VAR did etc. We all agreed it wasn't a penalty, possibly for different reasons as there are a few potential reasons.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But I’m talking about the part where you’d say it would have been a handball if that deflection hadn’t have happened.
That’s utter crap to anyone who understands football.
You think it’s possible to play football with your arms pinned to your side. As I said, clueless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's what the new rule tries to clarify. Whether you're on handcuffs or whatever when a ball hits your hand (accidentally or not), it is a free kick if you gain an advantage as an attacking team.
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 39 seconds ago
"But I’m talking about the part where you’d say it would have been a handball if that deflection hadn’t have happened."
Ah, apologies I misunderstood.
For me it would have been, especially considering the new rules about your silhouette making the body bigger. He would have had time to move his arm out of the way in my opinion but the deflection caught him off guard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He doesn’t have to move his arm out of the way.
TOOR, if you can’t see that was just a natural position then you’d need your head examined.
As I’ve said before, I’d love you to play a football match and then watch a video back to see where are arms go during the match, as part of an entirely natural movement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He does, or he concedes a penalty, had be pretty stupid not to, in that respect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re wrong.
He’s under no obligation to move his hand and it all happens at such speed that it’s not realistic anyway.
You really haven’t got a clue.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 39 seconds ago
"But I’m talking about the part where you’d say it would have been a handball if that deflection hadn’t have happened."
Ah, apologies I misunderstood.
For me it would have been, especially considering the new rules about your silhouette making the body bigger. He would have had time to move his arm out of the way in my opinion but the deflection caught him off guard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He doesn’t have to move his arm out of the way.
TOOR, if you can’t see that was just a natural position then you’d need your head examined.
As I’ve said before, I’d love you to play a football match and then watch a video back to see where are arms go during the match, as part of an entirely natural movement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He does, or he concedes a penalty, had be pretty stupid not to, in that respect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re wrong.
He’s under no obligation to move his hand and it all happens at such speed that it’s not realistic anyway.
You really haven’t got a clue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say he was obligated to. I said he'd be stupid not to. No point conceding a penalty just because you aren't obligated to.
What do you make of Souness' comments after the game Winston, where he said (I think I've got this right so correct me if I'm wrong) that it should have been a penalty?
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 39 seconds ago
"But I’m talking about the part where you’d say it would have been a handball if that deflection hadn’t have happened."
Ah, apologies I misunderstood.
For me it would have been, especially considering the new rules about your silhouette making the body bigger. He would have had time to move his arm out of the way in my opinion but the deflection caught him off guard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He doesn’t have to move his arm out of the way.
TOOR, if you can’t see that was just a natural position then you’d need your head examined.
As I’ve said before, I’d love you to play a football match and then watch a video back to see where are arms go during the match, as part of an entirely natural movement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He does, or he concedes a penalty, had be pretty stupid not to, in that respect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re wrong.
He’s under no obligation to move his hand and it all happens at such speed that it’s not realistic anyway.
You really haven’t got a clue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say he was obligated to. I said he'd be stupid not to. No point conceding a penalty just because you aren't obligated to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stupid or not, it’s irrelevant as it’s not part of of the law.
But you’ve been duped by slow mo as usual anyway.
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 11 seconds ago
What do you make of Souness' comments after the game Winston, where he said (I think I've got this right so correct me if I'm wrong) that it should have been a penalty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well he’s talking absolute sheite, isn’t he?
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 39 seconds ago
"But I’m talking about the part where you’d say it would have been a handball if that deflection hadn’t have happened."
Ah, apologies I misunderstood.
For me it would have been, especially considering the new rules about your silhouette making the body bigger. He would have had time to move his arm out of the way in my opinion but the deflection caught him off guard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He doesn’t have to move his arm out of the way.
TOOR, if you can’t see that was just a natural position then you’d need your head examined.
As I’ve said before, I’d love you to play a football match and then watch a video back to see where are arms go during the match, as part of an entirely natural movement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He does, or he concedes a penalty, had be pretty stupid not to, in that respect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re wrong.
He’s under no obligation to move his hand and it all happens at such speed that it’s not realistic anyway.
You really haven’t got a clue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say he was obligated to. I said he'd be stupid not to. No point conceding a penalty just because you aren't obligated to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stupid or not, it’s irrelevant as it’s not part of of the law.
But you’ve been duped by slow mo as usual anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't. I just think your hand is in an unnatural position if you've had the chance to move it away but chosen not to.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpeace (U1661)
posted 42 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 seconds ago
comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpeace (U1661)
posted 43 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpeace (U1661)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 44 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
I strongly suspect that AA would have been punished for handball in the World Cup just gone.
Which of course, would have been an absurd decision.
Be interested to hear TOOR’s view on that. Actually, maybe not.
Good game and as you say OP, there was an air of inevitability about it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think he would, since it deflected off Silva's hand. The rules were the same in the World Cup just VAR was used differently.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure about that, the pl have already said they’ve gone further with it. As Silva didn’t score or create a goal scoring opportunity, then it might have been given at the World Cup.
I don’t have an issue with it though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No the PL haven't. They didn't bother going that far back as they deemed TAA's ok. Under the new rules you can't give the attacking an advantage from handball situations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes you can, if it doesn’t lead to a goal or a goal scoring opportunity, I imagine the reason pgmol didn’t mention the Silva handball today was because it didn’t lead to either of those, it led to another handball and so it’s easier to just say they didn’t seem TAAs handball as deliberate.
Read back about when Laportes got given and why the pl had to clarify their interpretation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A pen is a goalscoring opportunity????
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In a new phase of play. That’s why it gets messy and why pgmol didn’t mention Silvas handball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But the pen is a direct result of Silva's handball therefore same phase of play? It is a clear and simple rule IMO. I think we're making it way too complicated here.
The attacking team can't gain an advantage from a handball situation regardless of whether intentional or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That isn’t the rule though, silva didn’t gain possession or control from the use of the hand, nor did any of his teammates (which was the justification used for the Laporte one).
I get the argument, but there is a reason pgmol didn’t just say “it wasn’t handball as it hit Silvas first”, because that means they’re adding even more of their own interpretation to it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City had last possession prior to TAA's handball, so yes Silva gained possession. If something else happened in between you'd have a point.
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 39 seconds ago
"But I’m talking about the part where you’d say it would have been a handball if that deflection hadn’t have happened."
Ah, apologies I misunderstood.
For me it would have been, especially considering the new rules about your silhouette making the body bigger. He would have had time to move his arm out of the way in my opinion but the deflection caught him off guard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He doesn’t have to move his arm out of the way.
TOOR, if you can’t see that was just a natural position then you’d need your head examined.
As I’ve said before, I’d love you to play a football match and then watch a video back to see where are arms go during the match, as part of an entirely natural movement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He does, or he concedes a penalty, had be pretty stupid not to, in that respect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re wrong.
He’s under no obligation to move his hand and it all happens at such speed that it’s not realistic anyway.
You really haven’t got a clue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say he was obligated to. I said he'd be stupid not to. No point conceding a penalty just because you aren't obligated to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stupid or not, it’s irrelevant as it’s not part of of the law.
But you’ve been duped by slow mo as usual anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't. I just think your hand is in an unnatural position if you've had the chance to move it away but chosen not to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’ve contradicted yourself there.
The only reason you think he’s got time to move his arm is because you’ve seen it in slo mo
comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpea... (U1661)
posted 47 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpeace (U1661)
posted 42 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 seconds ago
comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpeace (U1661)
posted 43 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpeace (U1661)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 44 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
I strongly suspect that AA would have been punished for handball in the World Cup just gone.
Which of course, would have been an absurd decision.
Be interested to hear TOOR’s view on that. Actually, maybe not.
Good game and as you say OP, there was an air of inevitability about it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think he would, since it deflected off Silva's hand. The rules were the same in the World Cup just VAR was used differently.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure about that, the pl have already said they’ve gone further with it. As Silva didn’t score or create a goal scoring opportunity, then it might have been given at the World Cup.
I don’t have an issue with it though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No the PL haven't. They didn't bother going that far back as they deemed TAA's ok. Under the new rules you can't give the attacking an advantage from handball situations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes you can, if it doesn’t lead to a goal or a goal scoring opportunity, I imagine the reason pgmol didn’t mention the Silva handball today was because it didn’t lead to either of those, it led to another handball and so it’s easier to just say they didn’t seem TAAs handball as deliberate.
Read back about when Laportes got given and why the pl had to clarify their interpretation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A pen is a goalscoring opportunity????
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In a new phase of play. That’s why it gets messy and why pgmol didn’t mention Silvas handball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But the pen is a direct result of Silva's handball therefore same phase of play? It is a clear and simple rule IMO. I think we're making it way too complicated here.
The attacking team can't gain an advantage from a handball situation regardless of whether intentional or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That isn’t the rule though, silva didn’t gain possession or control from the use of the hand, nor did any of his teammates (which was the justification used for the Laporte one).
I get the argument, but there is a reason pgmol didn’t just say “it wasn’t handball as it hit Silvas first”, because that means they’re adding even more of their own interpretation to it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City had last possession prior to TAA's handball, so yes Silva gained possession. If something else happened in between you'd have a point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the PGMOL had the same opinion as Winston, which I disagree with.
I thought it was one of those where VAR would have gone with whichever way the on field ref interpreted it.
Personally I’ve got no issues with it.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 35 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 39 seconds ago
"But I’m talking about the part where you’d say it would have been a handball if that deflection hadn’t have happened."
Ah, apologies I misunderstood.
For me it would have been, especially considering the new rules about your silhouette making the body bigger. He would have had time to move his arm out of the way in my opinion but the deflection caught him off guard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He doesn’t have to move his arm out of the way.
TOOR, if you can’t see that was just a natural position then you’d need your head examined.
As I’ve said before, I’d love you to play a football match and then watch a video back to see where are arms go during the match, as part of an entirely natural movement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He does, or he concedes a penalty, had be pretty stupid not to, in that respect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re wrong.
He’s under no obligation to move his hand and it all happens at such speed that it’s not realistic anyway.
You really haven’t got a clue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say he was obligated to. I said he'd be stupid not to. No point conceding a penalty just because you aren't obligated to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stupid or not, it’s irrelevant as it’s not part of of the law.
But you’ve been duped by slow mo as usual anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't. I just think your hand is in an unnatural position if you've had the chance to move it away but chosen not to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’ve contradicted yourself there.
The only reason you think he’s got time to move his arm is because you’ve seen it in slo mo
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't and not it isn't.
comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpeace (U1661)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpeace (U1661)
posted 42 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 seconds ago
comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpeace (U1661)
posted 43 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpeace (U1661)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 44 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
I strongly suspect that AA would have been punished for handball in the World Cup just gone.
Which of course, would have been an absurd decision.
Be interested to hear TOOR’s view on that. Actually, maybe not.
Good game and as you say OP, there was an air of inevitability about it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think he would, since it deflected off Silva's hand. The rules were the same in the World Cup just VAR was used differently.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure about that, the pl have already said they’ve gone further with it. As Silva didn’t score or create a goal scoring opportunity, then it might have been given at the World Cup.
I don’t have an issue with it though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No the PL haven't. They didn't bother going that far back as they deemed TAA's ok. Under the new rules you can't give the attacking an advantage from handball situations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes you can, if it doesn’t lead to a goal or a goal scoring opportunity, I imagine the reason pgmol didn’t mention the Silva handball today was because it didn’t lead to either of those, it led to another handball and so it’s easier to just say they didn’t seem TAAs handball as deliberate.
Read back about when Laportes got given and why the pl had to clarify their interpretation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A pen is a goalscoring opportunity????
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In a new phase of play. That’s why it gets messy and why pgmol didn’t mention Silvas handball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But the pen is a direct result of Silva's handball therefore same phase of play? It is a clear and simple rule IMO. I think we're making it way too complicated here.
The attacking team can't gain an advantage from a handball situation regardless of whether intentional or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That isn’t the rule though, silva didn’t gain possession or control from the use of the hand, nor did any of his teammates (which was the justification used for the Laporte one).
I get the argument, but there is a reason pgmol didn’t just say “it wasn’t handball as it hit Silvas first”, because that means they’re adding even more of their own interpretation to it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City had last possession prior to TAA's handball, so yes Silva gained possession. If something else happened in between you'd have a point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s irrelevant though! The handball has to lead to it, it says it quite clearly in the rules you’ve posted above. The question of Silvas is if there was enough intent or not, the same with TAA.
I keep going back to it, but there is a reason the pgmol statement doesn’t mention Silvas handball.
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 35 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 39 seconds ago
"But I’m talking about the part where you’d say it would have been a handball if that deflection hadn’t have happened."
Ah, apologies I misunderstood.
For me it would have been, especially considering the new rules about your silhouette making the body bigger. He would have had time to move his arm out of the way in my opinion but the deflection caught him off guard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He doesn’t have to move his arm out of the way.
TOOR, if you can’t see that was just a natural position then you’d need your head examined.
As I’ve said before, I’d love you to play a football match and then watch a video back to see where are arms go during the match, as part of an entirely natural movement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He does, or he concedes a penalty, had be pretty stupid not to, in that respect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re wrong.
He’s under no obligation to move his hand and it all happens at such speed that it’s not realistic anyway.
You really haven’t got a clue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say he was obligated to. I said he'd be stupid not to. No point conceding a penalty just because you aren't obligated to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stupid or not, it’s irrelevant as it’s not part of of the law.
But you’ve been duped by slow mo as usual anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't. I just think your hand is in an unnatural position if you've had the chance to move it away but chosen not to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’ve contradicted yourself there.
The only reason you think he’s got time to move his arm is because you’ve seen it in slo mo
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't and not it isn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes you have and yes it is.
Anyone who has played the game and has half a brain wouldn’t look at that incident and seriously believe there’s any intent to use his arm.
It’s a natural movement with no time to move the arm away.
Anyway, the pen wasn't given in the game itself. Rightfully in my opinion.
Was that the incident that decided the game? Robertson stated that the first goal would be crucial in his post-match interview.
But could you ever imagine a scenario where a game was pulled back after a goal was scored, only to award a penalty for the other team?
I mean, has that ever happened?
Citing the rules this and the rules that does nothing really (other than trying to win an online "argument" (for want of a better word).
And while my thread has ended up discussing this, it wasn't what my thread was solely about.
So, back on topic guys if that's ok with all you sensitive souls. Liverpool deserved the win, full credit to them, and they were the better team (and City played really well to boot).
I'm off to order a takeaway. What do you reckon, Indian or Chinese?
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 1 minute ago
Anyway, the pen wasn't given in the game itself. Rightfully in my opinion.
Was that the incident that decided the game? Robertson stated that the first goal would be crucial in his post-match interview.
But could you ever imagine a scenario where a game was pulled back after a goal was scored, only to award a penalty for the other team?
I mean, has that ever happened?
Citing the rules this and the rules that does nothing really (other than trying to win an online "argument" (for want of a better word).
And while my thread has ended up discussing this, it wasn't what my thread was solely about.
So, back on topic guys if that's ok with all you sensitive souls. Liverpool deserved the win, full credit to them, and they were the better team (and City played really well to boot).
I'm off to order a takeaway. What do you reckon, Indian or Chinese?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I reckon Indian and if you disagree with me you don't have a clue.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 35 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 39 seconds ago
"But I’m talking about the part where you’d say it would have been a handball if that deflection hadn’t have happened."
Ah, apologies I misunderstood.
For me it would have been, especially considering the new rules about your silhouette making the body bigger. He would have had time to move his arm out of the way in my opinion but the deflection caught him off guard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He doesn’t have to move his arm out of the way.
TOOR, if you can’t see that was just a natural position then you’d need your head examined.
As I’ve said before, I’d love you to play a football match and then watch a video back to see where are arms go during the match, as part of an entirely natural movement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He does, or he concedes a penalty, had be pretty stupid not to, in that respect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re wrong.
He’s under no obligation to move his hand and it all happens at such speed that it’s not realistic anyway.
You really haven’t got a clue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say he was obligated to. I said he'd be stupid not to. No point conceding a penalty just because you aren't obligated to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stupid or not, it’s irrelevant as it’s not part of of the law.
But you’ve been duped by slow mo as usual anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't. I just think your hand is in an unnatural position if you've had the chance to move it away but chosen not to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’ve contradicted yourself there.
The only reason you think he’s got time to move his arm is because you’ve seen it in slo mo
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't and not it isn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes you have and yes it is.
Anyone who has played the game and has half a brain wouldn’t look at that incident and seriously believe there’s any intent to use his arm.
It’s a natural movement with no time to move the arm away.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree with that in this instance due to the deflection but otherwise I wouldn't have agreed.
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 34 seconds ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 1 minute ago
Anyway, the pen wasn't given in the game itself. Rightfully in my opinion.
Was that the incident that decided the game? Robertson stated that the first goal would be crucial in his post-match interview.
But could you ever imagine a scenario where a game was pulled back after a goal was scored, only to award a penalty for the other team?
I mean, has that ever happened?
Citing the rules this and the rules that does nothing really (other than trying to win an online "argument" (for want of a better word).
And while my thread has ended up discussing this, it wasn't what my thread was solely about.
So, back on topic guys if that's ok with all you sensitive souls. Liverpool deserved the win, full credit to them, and they were the better team (and City played really well to boot).
I'm off to order a takeaway. What do you reckon, Indian or Chinese?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I reckon Indian and if you disagree with me you don't have a clue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Grow up, TOOR.
I’m all for opinions but on this subject you are truly clueless. Nothing wrong with me saying that.
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 35 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 39 seconds ago
"But I’m talking about the part where you’d say it would have been a handball if that deflection hadn’t have happened."
Ah, apologies I misunderstood.
For me it would have been, especially considering the new rules about your silhouette making the body bigger. He would have had time to move his arm out of the way in my opinion but the deflection caught him off guard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He doesn’t have to move his arm out of the way.
TOOR, if you can’t see that was just a natural position then you’d need your head examined.
As I’ve said before, I’d love you to play a football match and then watch a video back to see where are arms go during the match, as part of an entirely natural movement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He does, or he concedes a penalty, had be pretty stupid not to, in that respect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re wrong.
He’s under no obligation to move his hand and it all happens at such speed that it’s not realistic anyway.
You really haven’t got a clue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say he was obligated to. I said he'd be stupid not to. No point conceding a penalty just because you aren't obligated to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stupid or not, it’s irrelevant as it’s not part of of the law.
But you’ve been duped by slow mo as usual anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't. I just think your hand is in an unnatural position if you've had the chance to move it away but chosen not to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’ve contradicted yourself there.
The only reason you think he’s got time to move his arm is because you’ve seen it in slo mo
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't and not it isn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes you have and yes it is.
Anyone who has played the game and has half a brain wouldn’t look at that incident and seriously believe there’s any intent to use his arm.
It’s a natural movement with no time to move the arm away.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree with that in this instance due to the deflection but otherwise I wouldn't have agreed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, which makes you clueless.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpeace (U1661)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpeace (U1661)
posted 42 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 seconds ago
comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpeace (U1661)
posted 43 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpeace (U1661)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 44 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
I strongly suspect that AA would have been punished for handball in the World Cup just gone.
Which of course, would have been an absurd decision.
Be interested to hear TOOR’s view on that. Actually, maybe not.
Good game and as you say OP, there was an air of inevitability about it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think he would, since it deflected off Silva's hand. The rules were the same in the World Cup just VAR was used differently.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure about that, the pl have already said they’ve gone further with it. As Silva didn’t score or create a goal scoring opportunity, then it might have been given at the World Cup.
I don’t have an issue with it though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No the PL haven't. They didn't bother going that far back as they deemed TAA's ok. Under the new rules you can't give the attacking an advantage from handball situations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes you can, if it doesn’t lead to a goal or a goal scoring opportunity, I imagine the reason pgmol didn’t mention the Silva handball today was because it didn’t lead to either of those, it led to another handball and so it’s easier to just say they didn’t seem TAAs handball as deliberate.
Read back about when Laportes got given and why the pl had to clarify their interpretation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A pen is a goalscoring opportunity????
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In a new phase of play. That’s why it gets messy and why pgmol didn’t mention Silvas handball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But the pen is a direct result of Silva's handball therefore same phase of play? It is a clear and simple rule IMO. I think we're making it way too complicated here.
The attacking team can't gain an advantage from a handball situation regardless of whether intentional or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That isn’t the rule though, silva didn’t gain possession or control from the use of the hand, nor did any of his teammates (which was the justification used for the Laporte one).
I get the argument, but there is a reason pgmol didn’t just say “it wasn’t handball as it hit Silvas first”, because that means they’re adding even more of their own interpretation to it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City had last possession prior to TAA's handball, so yes Silva gained possession. If something else happened in between you'd have a point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s irrelevant though! The handball has to lead to it, it says it quite clearly in the rules you’ve posted above. The question of Silvas is if there was enough intent or not, the same with TAA.
I keep going back to it, but there is a reason the pgmol statement doesn’t mention Silvas handball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
PGMOL didn't mention Silva's handball because they deemed TAA's handball legal/fair. Maybe it should have been a free kick due to Silva's handball. New rule says intent is irrelevant once you gain an attacking advantage in build up. No way it's a pen. Not in a million years.
Yeah, I agree. Indian it is
Oh well, I'll leave my thread in the capable hands of you guys.
Enjoy.
“ But could you ever imagine a scenario where a game was pulled back after a goal was scored, only to award a penalty for the other team?
I mean, has that ever happened?”
The whole phase of play thing is a bit of a mess at the moment imo.
Ps
Indian every time 👍
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 24 seconds ago
Yeah, I agree. Indian it is
Oh well, I'll leave my thread in the capable hands of you guys.
Enjoy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry Ripleys, but most of what you’ve said is widely agreeable and so people tend to focus on the more controversial and debatable parts!
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 34 seconds ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 1 minute ago
Anyway, the pen wasn't given in the game itself. Rightfully in my opinion.
Was that the incident that decided the game? Robertson stated that the first goal would be crucial in his post-match interview.
But could you ever imagine a scenario where a game was pulled back after a goal was scored, only to award a penalty for the other team?
I mean, has that ever happened?
Citing the rules this and the rules that does nothing really (other than trying to win an online "argument" (for want of a better word).
And while my thread has ended up discussing this, it wasn't what my thread was solely about.
So, back on topic guys if that's ok with all you sensitive souls. Liverpool deserved the win, full credit to them, and they were the better team (and City played really well to boot).
I'm off to order a takeaway. What do you reckon, Indian or Chinese?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I reckon Indian and if you disagree with me you don't have a clue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Grow up, TOOR.
I’m all for opinions but on this subject you are truly clueless. Nothing wrong with me saying that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was only a joke.
It is you who needs to grow up, you've been getting increasingly aggressive throughout this article just because I have a different opinion to you. You really need to learn to accept other opinions. I have no problem with you disagreeing but you can disagree without insulting the intelligence of others.
In case you hadn't noticed, many of the words and phrases in the laws are open to interpretation, for example 'natural position'. For me it is not a natural position to have you arm out, have enough time to bring it back in but keep it there. In this instance that was different as there was a deflection and therefore he had to reposition himself in a split second. You have a different opinion, that's fine. The world moves on. Don't get so worked up over it.
Although it would have been really funny if there wasn't a deflection. You would have been arguing it wasn't a penalty against Liverpool and I'd have been arguing the opposite. Oh well, silver lining and all that.
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 34 seconds ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 1 minute ago
Anyway, the pen wasn't given in the game itself. Rightfully in my opinion.
Was that the incident that decided the game? Robertson stated that the first goal would be crucial in his post-match interview.
But could you ever imagine a scenario where a game was pulled back after a goal was scored, only to award a penalty for the other team?
I mean, has that ever happened?
Citing the rules this and the rules that does nothing really (other than trying to win an online "argument" (for want of a better word).
And while my thread has ended up discussing this, it wasn't what my thread was solely about.
So, back on topic guys if that's ok with all you sensitive souls. Liverpool deserved the win, full credit to them, and they were the better team (and City played really well to boot).
I'm off to order a takeaway. What do you reckon, Indian or Chinese?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I reckon Indian and if you disagree with me you don't have a clue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Grow up, TOOR.
I’m all for opinions but on this subject you are truly clueless. Nothing wrong with me saying that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was only a joke.
It is you who needs to grow up, you've been getting increasingly aggressive throughout this article just because I have a different opinion to you. You really need to learn to accept other opinions. I have no problem with you disagreeing but you can disagree without insulting the intelligence of others.
In case you hadn't noticed, many of the words and phrases in the laws are open to interpretation, for example 'natural position'. For me it is not a natural position to have you arm out, have enough time to bring it back in but keep it there. In this instance that was different as there was a deflection and therefore he had to reposition himself in a split second. You have a different opinion, that's fine. The world moves on. Don't get so worked up over it.
Although it would have been really funny if there wasn't a deflection. You would have been arguing it wasn't a penalty against Liverpool and I'd have been arguing the opposite. Oh well, silver lining and all that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aggressive?
I can accept alternative opinions. But this isn’t an opinion - it’s a fact that you have no idea what a natural position is.
Sign in if you want to comment
Great game
Page 3 of 7
6 | 7
posted on 10/11/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 16 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
I strongly suspect that AA would have been punished for handball in the World Cup just gone.
Which of course, would have been an absurd decision.
Be interested to hear TOOR’s view on that. Actually, maybe not.
Good game and as you say OP, there was an air of inevitability about it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think he would, since it deflected off Silva's hand. The rules were the same in the World Cup just VAR was used differently.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Convenient.
It would have been given on the basis of his arms being away from his body, and you’d have backed it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it wouldn't as there was a deflection. Not to mention the deflection was actually off the hand of the opposition player. Without that however I'd have given handball due to where his arm was.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And that is yet more evidence that you haven’t got a clue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope. I just go by the actual laws which the PL clarified before the season began.
If you want to learn something you can read the part where they say deflections off the opposition will be taken into account. Therefore no handball in my opinion. If yours differs fine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No you don’t.
You invent your own version of them based on an incorrect interpretation and then pretend it’s a fact. You’re clueless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope. I read the law and then use it to form my opinion, which I've done here, which the referee did, the VAR did etc. We all agreed it wasn't a penalty, possibly for different reasons as there are a few potential reasons.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But I’m talking about the part where you’d say it would have been a handball if that deflection hadn’t have happened.
That’s utter crap to anyone who understands football.
You think it’s possible to play football with your arms pinned to your side. As I said, clueless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's what the new rule tries to clarify. Whether you're on handcuffs or whatever when a ball hits your hand (accidentally or not), it is a free kick if you gain an advantage as an attacking team.
posted on 10/11/19
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 39 seconds ago
"But I’m talking about the part where you’d say it would have been a handball if that deflection hadn’t have happened."
Ah, apologies I misunderstood.
For me it would have been, especially considering the new rules about your silhouette making the body bigger. He would have had time to move his arm out of the way in my opinion but the deflection caught him off guard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He doesn’t have to move his arm out of the way.
TOOR, if you can’t see that was just a natural position then you’d need your head examined.
As I’ve said before, I’d love you to play a football match and then watch a video back to see where are arms go during the match, as part of an entirely natural movement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He does, or he concedes a penalty, had be pretty stupid not to, in that respect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re wrong.
He’s under no obligation to move his hand and it all happens at such speed that it’s not realistic anyway.
You really haven’t got a clue.
posted on 10/11/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 39 seconds ago
"But I’m talking about the part where you’d say it would have been a handball if that deflection hadn’t have happened."
Ah, apologies I misunderstood.
For me it would have been, especially considering the new rules about your silhouette making the body bigger. He would have had time to move his arm out of the way in my opinion but the deflection caught him off guard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He doesn’t have to move his arm out of the way.
TOOR, if you can’t see that was just a natural position then you’d need your head examined.
As I’ve said before, I’d love you to play a football match and then watch a video back to see where are arms go during the match, as part of an entirely natural movement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He does, or he concedes a penalty, had be pretty stupid not to, in that respect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re wrong.
He’s under no obligation to move his hand and it all happens at such speed that it’s not realistic anyway.
You really haven’t got a clue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say he was obligated to. I said he'd be stupid not to. No point conceding a penalty just because you aren't obligated to.
posted on 10/11/19
What do you make of Souness' comments after the game Winston, where he said (I think I've got this right so correct me if I'm wrong) that it should have been a penalty?
posted on 10/11/19
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 39 seconds ago
"But I’m talking about the part where you’d say it would have been a handball if that deflection hadn’t have happened."
Ah, apologies I misunderstood.
For me it would have been, especially considering the new rules about your silhouette making the body bigger. He would have had time to move his arm out of the way in my opinion but the deflection caught him off guard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He doesn’t have to move his arm out of the way.
TOOR, if you can’t see that was just a natural position then you’d need your head examined.
As I’ve said before, I’d love you to play a football match and then watch a video back to see where are arms go during the match, as part of an entirely natural movement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He does, or he concedes a penalty, had be pretty stupid not to, in that respect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re wrong.
He’s under no obligation to move his hand and it all happens at such speed that it’s not realistic anyway.
You really haven’t got a clue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say he was obligated to. I said he'd be stupid not to. No point conceding a penalty just because you aren't obligated to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stupid or not, it’s irrelevant as it’s not part of of the law.
But you’ve been duped by slow mo as usual anyway.
posted on 10/11/19
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 11 seconds ago
What do you make of Souness' comments after the game Winston, where he said (I think I've got this right so correct me if I'm wrong) that it should have been a penalty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well he’s talking absolute sheite, isn’t he?
posted on 10/11/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 39 seconds ago
"But I’m talking about the part where you’d say it would have been a handball if that deflection hadn’t have happened."
Ah, apologies I misunderstood.
For me it would have been, especially considering the new rules about your silhouette making the body bigger. He would have had time to move his arm out of the way in my opinion but the deflection caught him off guard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He doesn’t have to move his arm out of the way.
TOOR, if you can’t see that was just a natural position then you’d need your head examined.
As I’ve said before, I’d love you to play a football match and then watch a video back to see where are arms go during the match, as part of an entirely natural movement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He does, or he concedes a penalty, had be pretty stupid not to, in that respect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re wrong.
He’s under no obligation to move his hand and it all happens at such speed that it’s not realistic anyway.
You really haven’t got a clue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say he was obligated to. I said he'd be stupid not to. No point conceding a penalty just because you aren't obligated to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stupid or not, it’s irrelevant as it’s not part of of the law.
But you’ve been duped by slow mo as usual anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't. I just think your hand is in an unnatural position if you've had the chance to move it away but chosen not to.
posted on 10/11/19
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpeace (U1661)
posted 42 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 seconds ago
comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpeace (U1661)
posted 43 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpeace (U1661)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 44 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
I strongly suspect that AA would have been punished for handball in the World Cup just gone.
Which of course, would have been an absurd decision.
Be interested to hear TOOR’s view on that. Actually, maybe not.
Good game and as you say OP, there was an air of inevitability about it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think he would, since it deflected off Silva's hand. The rules were the same in the World Cup just VAR was used differently.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure about that, the pl have already said they’ve gone further with it. As Silva didn’t score or create a goal scoring opportunity, then it might have been given at the World Cup.
I don’t have an issue with it though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No the PL haven't. They didn't bother going that far back as they deemed TAA's ok. Under the new rules you can't give the attacking an advantage from handball situations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes you can, if it doesn’t lead to a goal or a goal scoring opportunity, I imagine the reason pgmol didn’t mention the Silva handball today was because it didn’t lead to either of those, it led to another handball and so it’s easier to just say they didn’t seem TAAs handball as deliberate.
Read back about when Laportes got given and why the pl had to clarify their interpretation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A pen is a goalscoring opportunity????
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In a new phase of play. That’s why it gets messy and why pgmol didn’t mention Silvas handball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But the pen is a direct result of Silva's handball therefore same phase of play? It is a clear and simple rule IMO. I think we're making it way too complicated here.
The attacking team can't gain an advantage from a handball situation regardless of whether intentional or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That isn’t the rule though, silva didn’t gain possession or control from the use of the hand, nor did any of his teammates (which was the justification used for the Laporte one).
I get the argument, but there is a reason pgmol didn’t just say “it wasn’t handball as it hit Silvas first”, because that means they’re adding even more of their own interpretation to it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City had last possession prior to TAA's handball, so yes Silva gained possession. If something else happened in between you'd have a point.
posted on 10/11/19
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 39 seconds ago
"But I’m talking about the part where you’d say it would have been a handball if that deflection hadn’t have happened."
Ah, apologies I misunderstood.
For me it would have been, especially considering the new rules about your silhouette making the body bigger. He would have had time to move his arm out of the way in my opinion but the deflection caught him off guard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He doesn’t have to move his arm out of the way.
TOOR, if you can’t see that was just a natural position then you’d need your head examined.
As I’ve said before, I’d love you to play a football match and then watch a video back to see where are arms go during the match, as part of an entirely natural movement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He does, or he concedes a penalty, had be pretty stupid not to, in that respect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re wrong.
He’s under no obligation to move his hand and it all happens at such speed that it’s not realistic anyway.
You really haven’t got a clue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say he was obligated to. I said he'd be stupid not to. No point conceding a penalty just because you aren't obligated to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stupid or not, it’s irrelevant as it’s not part of of the law.
But you’ve been duped by slow mo as usual anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't. I just think your hand is in an unnatural position if you've had the chance to move it away but chosen not to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’ve contradicted yourself there.
The only reason you think he’s got time to move his arm is because you’ve seen it in slo mo
posted on 10/11/19
comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpea... (U1661)
posted 47 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpeace (U1661)
posted 42 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 seconds ago
comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpeace (U1661)
posted 43 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpeace (U1661)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 44 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
I strongly suspect that AA would have been punished for handball in the World Cup just gone.
Which of course, would have been an absurd decision.
Be interested to hear TOOR’s view on that. Actually, maybe not.
Good game and as you say OP, there was an air of inevitability about it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think he would, since it deflected off Silva's hand. The rules were the same in the World Cup just VAR was used differently.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure about that, the pl have already said they’ve gone further with it. As Silva didn’t score or create a goal scoring opportunity, then it might have been given at the World Cup.
I don’t have an issue with it though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No the PL haven't. They didn't bother going that far back as they deemed TAA's ok. Under the new rules you can't give the attacking an advantage from handball situations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes you can, if it doesn’t lead to a goal or a goal scoring opportunity, I imagine the reason pgmol didn’t mention the Silva handball today was because it didn’t lead to either of those, it led to another handball and so it’s easier to just say they didn’t seem TAAs handball as deliberate.
Read back about when Laportes got given and why the pl had to clarify their interpretation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A pen is a goalscoring opportunity????
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In a new phase of play. That’s why it gets messy and why pgmol didn’t mention Silvas handball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But the pen is a direct result of Silva's handball therefore same phase of play? It is a clear and simple rule IMO. I think we're making it way too complicated here.
The attacking team can't gain an advantage from a handball situation regardless of whether intentional or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That isn’t the rule though, silva didn’t gain possession or control from the use of the hand, nor did any of his teammates (which was the justification used for the Laporte one).
I get the argument, but there is a reason pgmol didn’t just say “it wasn’t handball as it hit Silvas first”, because that means they’re adding even more of their own interpretation to it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City had last possession prior to TAA's handball, so yes Silva gained possession. If something else happened in between you'd have a point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the PGMOL had the same opinion as Winston, which I disagree with.
posted on 10/11/19
I thought it was one of those where VAR would have gone with whichever way the on field ref interpreted it.
Personally I’ve got no issues with it.
posted on 10/11/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 35 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 39 seconds ago
"But I’m talking about the part where you’d say it would have been a handball if that deflection hadn’t have happened."
Ah, apologies I misunderstood.
For me it would have been, especially considering the new rules about your silhouette making the body bigger. He would have had time to move his arm out of the way in my opinion but the deflection caught him off guard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He doesn’t have to move his arm out of the way.
TOOR, if you can’t see that was just a natural position then you’d need your head examined.
As I’ve said before, I’d love you to play a football match and then watch a video back to see where are arms go during the match, as part of an entirely natural movement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He does, or he concedes a penalty, had be pretty stupid not to, in that respect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re wrong.
He’s under no obligation to move his hand and it all happens at such speed that it’s not realistic anyway.
You really haven’t got a clue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say he was obligated to. I said he'd be stupid not to. No point conceding a penalty just because you aren't obligated to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stupid or not, it’s irrelevant as it’s not part of of the law.
But you’ve been duped by slow mo as usual anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't. I just think your hand is in an unnatural position if you've had the chance to move it away but chosen not to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’ve contradicted yourself there.
The only reason you think he’s got time to move his arm is because you’ve seen it in slo mo
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't and not it isn't.
posted on 10/11/19
comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpeace (U1661)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpeace (U1661)
posted 42 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 seconds ago
comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpeace (U1661)
posted 43 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpeace (U1661)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 44 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
I strongly suspect that AA would have been punished for handball in the World Cup just gone.
Which of course, would have been an absurd decision.
Be interested to hear TOOR’s view on that. Actually, maybe not.
Good game and as you say OP, there was an air of inevitability about it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think he would, since it deflected off Silva's hand. The rules were the same in the World Cup just VAR was used differently.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure about that, the pl have already said they’ve gone further with it. As Silva didn’t score or create a goal scoring opportunity, then it might have been given at the World Cup.
I don’t have an issue with it though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No the PL haven't. They didn't bother going that far back as they deemed TAA's ok. Under the new rules you can't give the attacking an advantage from handball situations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes you can, if it doesn’t lead to a goal or a goal scoring opportunity, I imagine the reason pgmol didn’t mention the Silva handball today was because it didn’t lead to either of those, it led to another handball and so it’s easier to just say they didn’t seem TAAs handball as deliberate.
Read back about when Laportes got given and why the pl had to clarify their interpretation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A pen is a goalscoring opportunity????
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In a new phase of play. That’s why it gets messy and why pgmol didn’t mention Silvas handball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But the pen is a direct result of Silva's handball therefore same phase of play? It is a clear and simple rule IMO. I think we're making it way too complicated here.
The attacking team can't gain an advantage from a handball situation regardless of whether intentional or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That isn’t the rule though, silva didn’t gain possession or control from the use of the hand, nor did any of his teammates (which was the justification used for the Laporte one).
I get the argument, but there is a reason pgmol didn’t just say “it wasn’t handball as it hit Silvas first”, because that means they’re adding even more of their own interpretation to it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City had last possession prior to TAA's handball, so yes Silva gained possession. If something else happened in between you'd have a point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s irrelevant though! The handball has to lead to it, it says it quite clearly in the rules you’ve posted above. The question of Silvas is if there was enough intent or not, the same with TAA.
I keep going back to it, but there is a reason the pgmol statement doesn’t mention Silvas handball.
posted on 10/11/19
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 35 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 39 seconds ago
"But I’m talking about the part where you’d say it would have been a handball if that deflection hadn’t have happened."
Ah, apologies I misunderstood.
For me it would have been, especially considering the new rules about your silhouette making the body bigger. He would have had time to move his arm out of the way in my opinion but the deflection caught him off guard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He doesn’t have to move his arm out of the way.
TOOR, if you can’t see that was just a natural position then you’d need your head examined.
As I’ve said before, I’d love you to play a football match and then watch a video back to see where are arms go during the match, as part of an entirely natural movement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He does, or he concedes a penalty, had be pretty stupid not to, in that respect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re wrong.
He’s under no obligation to move his hand and it all happens at such speed that it’s not realistic anyway.
You really haven’t got a clue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say he was obligated to. I said he'd be stupid not to. No point conceding a penalty just because you aren't obligated to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stupid or not, it’s irrelevant as it’s not part of of the law.
But you’ve been duped by slow mo as usual anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't. I just think your hand is in an unnatural position if you've had the chance to move it away but chosen not to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’ve contradicted yourself there.
The only reason you think he’s got time to move his arm is because you’ve seen it in slo mo
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't and not it isn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes you have and yes it is.
Anyone who has played the game and has half a brain wouldn’t look at that incident and seriously believe there’s any intent to use his arm.
It’s a natural movement with no time to move the arm away.
posted on 10/11/19
Anyway, the pen wasn't given in the game itself. Rightfully in my opinion.
Was that the incident that decided the game? Robertson stated that the first goal would be crucial in his post-match interview.
But could you ever imagine a scenario where a game was pulled back after a goal was scored, only to award a penalty for the other team?
I mean, has that ever happened?
Citing the rules this and the rules that does nothing really (other than trying to win an online "argument" (for want of a better word).
And while my thread has ended up discussing this, it wasn't what my thread was solely about.
So, back on topic guys if that's ok with all you sensitive souls. Liverpool deserved the win, full credit to them, and they were the better team (and City played really well to boot).
I'm off to order a takeaway. What do you reckon, Indian or Chinese?
posted on 10/11/19
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 1 minute ago
Anyway, the pen wasn't given in the game itself. Rightfully in my opinion.
Was that the incident that decided the game? Robertson stated that the first goal would be crucial in his post-match interview.
But could you ever imagine a scenario where a game was pulled back after a goal was scored, only to award a penalty for the other team?
I mean, has that ever happened?
Citing the rules this and the rules that does nothing really (other than trying to win an online "argument" (for want of a better word).
And while my thread has ended up discussing this, it wasn't what my thread was solely about.
So, back on topic guys if that's ok with all you sensitive souls. Liverpool deserved the win, full credit to them, and they were the better team (and City played really well to boot).
I'm off to order a takeaway. What do you reckon, Indian or Chinese?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I reckon Indian and if you disagree with me you don't have a clue.
posted on 10/11/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 35 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 39 seconds ago
"But I’m talking about the part where you’d say it would have been a handball if that deflection hadn’t have happened."
Ah, apologies I misunderstood.
For me it would have been, especially considering the new rules about your silhouette making the body bigger. He would have had time to move his arm out of the way in my opinion but the deflection caught him off guard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He doesn’t have to move his arm out of the way.
TOOR, if you can’t see that was just a natural position then you’d need your head examined.
As I’ve said before, I’d love you to play a football match and then watch a video back to see where are arms go during the match, as part of an entirely natural movement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He does, or he concedes a penalty, had be pretty stupid not to, in that respect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re wrong.
He’s under no obligation to move his hand and it all happens at such speed that it’s not realistic anyway.
You really haven’t got a clue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say he was obligated to. I said he'd be stupid not to. No point conceding a penalty just because you aren't obligated to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stupid or not, it’s irrelevant as it’s not part of of the law.
But you’ve been duped by slow mo as usual anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't. I just think your hand is in an unnatural position if you've had the chance to move it away but chosen not to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’ve contradicted yourself there.
The only reason you think he’s got time to move his arm is because you’ve seen it in slo mo
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't and not it isn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes you have and yes it is.
Anyone who has played the game and has half a brain wouldn’t look at that incident and seriously believe there’s any intent to use his arm.
It’s a natural movement with no time to move the arm away.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree with that in this instance due to the deflection but otherwise I wouldn't have agreed.
posted on 10/11/19
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 34 seconds ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 1 minute ago
Anyway, the pen wasn't given in the game itself. Rightfully in my opinion.
Was that the incident that decided the game? Robertson stated that the first goal would be crucial in his post-match interview.
But could you ever imagine a scenario where a game was pulled back after a goal was scored, only to award a penalty for the other team?
I mean, has that ever happened?
Citing the rules this and the rules that does nothing really (other than trying to win an online "argument" (for want of a better word).
And while my thread has ended up discussing this, it wasn't what my thread was solely about.
So, back on topic guys if that's ok with all you sensitive souls. Liverpool deserved the win, full credit to them, and they were the better team (and City played really well to boot).
I'm off to order a takeaway. What do you reckon, Indian or Chinese?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I reckon Indian and if you disagree with me you don't have a clue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Grow up, TOOR.
I’m all for opinions but on this subject you are truly clueless. Nothing wrong with me saying that.
posted on 10/11/19
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 35 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 39 seconds ago
"But I’m talking about the part where you’d say it would have been a handball if that deflection hadn’t have happened."
Ah, apologies I misunderstood.
For me it would have been, especially considering the new rules about your silhouette making the body bigger. He would have had time to move his arm out of the way in my opinion but the deflection caught him off guard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He doesn’t have to move his arm out of the way.
TOOR, if you can’t see that was just a natural position then you’d need your head examined.
As I’ve said before, I’d love you to play a football match and then watch a video back to see where are arms go during the match, as part of an entirely natural movement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He does, or he concedes a penalty, had be pretty stupid not to, in that respect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re wrong.
He’s under no obligation to move his hand and it all happens at such speed that it’s not realistic anyway.
You really haven’t got a clue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say he was obligated to. I said he'd be stupid not to. No point conceding a penalty just because you aren't obligated to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stupid or not, it’s irrelevant as it’s not part of of the law.
But you’ve been duped by slow mo as usual anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't. I just think your hand is in an unnatural position if you've had the chance to move it away but chosen not to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’ve contradicted yourself there.
The only reason you think he’s got time to move his arm is because you’ve seen it in slo mo
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't and not it isn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes you have and yes it is.
Anyone who has played the game and has half a brain wouldn’t look at that incident and seriously believe there’s any intent to use his arm.
It’s a natural movement with no time to move the arm away.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree with that in this instance due to the deflection but otherwise I wouldn't have agreed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, which makes you clueless.
posted on 10/11/19
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpeace (U1661)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpeace (U1661)
posted 42 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 seconds ago
comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpeace (U1661)
posted 43 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpeace (U1661)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 44 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
I strongly suspect that AA would have been punished for handball in the World Cup just gone.
Which of course, would have been an absurd decision.
Be interested to hear TOOR’s view on that. Actually, maybe not.
Good game and as you say OP, there was an air of inevitability about it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think he would, since it deflected off Silva's hand. The rules were the same in the World Cup just VAR was used differently.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure about that, the pl have already said they’ve gone further with it. As Silva didn’t score or create a goal scoring opportunity, then it might have been given at the World Cup.
I don’t have an issue with it though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No the PL haven't. They didn't bother going that far back as they deemed TAA's ok. Under the new rules you can't give the attacking an advantage from handball situations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes you can, if it doesn’t lead to a goal or a goal scoring opportunity, I imagine the reason pgmol didn’t mention the Silva handball today was because it didn’t lead to either of those, it led to another handball and so it’s easier to just say they didn’t seem TAAs handball as deliberate.
Read back about when Laportes got given and why the pl had to clarify their interpretation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A pen is a goalscoring opportunity????
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In a new phase of play. That’s why it gets messy and why pgmol didn’t mention Silvas handball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But the pen is a direct result of Silva's handball therefore same phase of play? It is a clear and simple rule IMO. I think we're making it way too complicated here.
The attacking team can't gain an advantage from a handball situation regardless of whether intentional or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That isn’t the rule though, silva didn’t gain possession or control from the use of the hand, nor did any of his teammates (which was the justification used for the Laporte one).
I get the argument, but there is a reason pgmol didn’t just say “it wasn’t handball as it hit Silvas first”, because that means they’re adding even more of their own interpretation to it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City had last possession prior to TAA's handball, so yes Silva gained possession. If something else happened in between you'd have a point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s irrelevant though! The handball has to lead to it, it says it quite clearly in the rules you’ve posted above. The question of Silvas is if there was enough intent or not, the same with TAA.
I keep going back to it, but there is a reason the pgmol statement doesn’t mention Silvas handball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
PGMOL didn't mention Silva's handball because they deemed TAA's handball legal/fair. Maybe it should have been a free kick due to Silva's handball. New rule says intent is irrelevant once you gain an attacking advantage in build up. No way it's a pen. Not in a million years.
posted on 10/11/19
Yeah, I agree. Indian it is
Oh well, I'll leave my thread in the capable hands of you guys.
Enjoy.
posted on 10/11/19
“ But could you ever imagine a scenario where a game was pulled back after a goal was scored, only to award a penalty for the other team?
I mean, has that ever happened?”
The whole phase of play thing is a bit of a mess at the moment imo.
Ps
Indian every time 👍
posted on 10/11/19
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 24 seconds ago
Yeah, I agree. Indian it is
Oh well, I'll leave my thread in the capable hands of you guys.
Enjoy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry Ripleys, but most of what you’ve said is widely agreeable and so people tend to focus on the more controversial and debatable parts!
posted on 10/11/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 34 seconds ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 1 minute ago
Anyway, the pen wasn't given in the game itself. Rightfully in my opinion.
Was that the incident that decided the game? Robertson stated that the first goal would be crucial in his post-match interview.
But could you ever imagine a scenario where a game was pulled back after a goal was scored, only to award a penalty for the other team?
I mean, has that ever happened?
Citing the rules this and the rules that does nothing really (other than trying to win an online "argument" (for want of a better word).
And while my thread has ended up discussing this, it wasn't what my thread was solely about.
So, back on topic guys if that's ok with all you sensitive souls. Liverpool deserved the win, full credit to them, and they were the better team (and City played really well to boot).
I'm off to order a takeaway. What do you reckon, Indian or Chinese?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I reckon Indian and if you disagree with me you don't have a clue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Grow up, TOOR.
I’m all for opinions but on this subject you are truly clueless. Nothing wrong with me saying that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was only a joke.
It is you who needs to grow up, you've been getting increasingly aggressive throughout this article just because I have a different opinion to you. You really need to learn to accept other opinions. I have no problem with you disagreeing but you can disagree without insulting the intelligence of others.
In case you hadn't noticed, many of the words and phrases in the laws are open to interpretation, for example 'natural position'. For me it is not a natural position to have you arm out, have enough time to bring it back in but keep it there. In this instance that was different as there was a deflection and therefore he had to reposition himself in a split second. You have a different opinion, that's fine. The world moves on. Don't get so worked up over it.
Although it would have been really funny if there wasn't a deflection. You would have been arguing it wasn't a penalty against Liverpool and I'd have been arguing the opposite. Oh well, silver lining and all that.
posted on 10/11/19
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 34 seconds ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 1 minute ago
Anyway, the pen wasn't given in the game itself. Rightfully in my opinion.
Was that the incident that decided the game? Robertson stated that the first goal would be crucial in his post-match interview.
But could you ever imagine a scenario where a game was pulled back after a goal was scored, only to award a penalty for the other team?
I mean, has that ever happened?
Citing the rules this and the rules that does nothing really (other than trying to win an online "argument" (for want of a better word).
And while my thread has ended up discussing this, it wasn't what my thread was solely about.
So, back on topic guys if that's ok with all you sensitive souls. Liverpool deserved the win, full credit to them, and they were the better team (and City played really well to boot).
I'm off to order a takeaway. What do you reckon, Indian or Chinese?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I reckon Indian and if you disagree with me you don't have a clue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Grow up, TOOR.
I’m all for opinions but on this subject you are truly clueless. Nothing wrong with me saying that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was only a joke.
It is you who needs to grow up, you've been getting increasingly aggressive throughout this article just because I have a different opinion to you. You really need to learn to accept other opinions. I have no problem with you disagreeing but you can disagree without insulting the intelligence of others.
In case you hadn't noticed, many of the words and phrases in the laws are open to interpretation, for example 'natural position'. For me it is not a natural position to have you arm out, have enough time to bring it back in but keep it there. In this instance that was different as there was a deflection and therefore he had to reposition himself in a split second. You have a different opinion, that's fine. The world moves on. Don't get so worked up over it.
Although it would have been really funny if there wasn't a deflection. You would have been arguing it wasn't a penalty against Liverpool and I'd have been arguing the opposite. Oh well, silver lining and all that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aggressive?
I can accept alternative opinions. But this isn’t an opinion - it’s a fact that you have no idea what a natural position is.
Page 3 of 7
6 | 7