I'd like the spirit of the game intact too, ie the rules adhered to.
Yes, because I don't think accuracy in those is that big an issue anyway.
I don't think I'm saying anything too controversial with it, all I'm saying is until the technology is there to d so with absolutes, use VAR for obviously wrong decisions only.
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 54 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 5 minutes ago
I don't think it is a law change, as bear in mind the law has to account for everyone not using VAR too. I think it's just an implementation of VAR change in that even if they say they will always take it from the first frame after the ball has been hit, or left the foot, then that would be a start.
To me, if the naked eye can't tell if it's offside or not from a freeze frame then I don't think its enough to warrant being deemed a clear advantage. If they really do want to use the lines though, then factor in a certain amount of leeway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In that case you open it up to being subjective and one official might not see it as offside and another would. You then lose consistency. Which is very difficult to take when you have the option of getting the correct call, according to the law, instead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think it's that difficult, it just needs people to think more about whether there's been a clear advantage rather than worrying about milimetres, I.e. the original intent of the law.
Most replays, you can clearly tell straight away if the player is offside or not. The ones that aren't clear cut, I've never seen as something that needed to be fixed - as I said, it's the ones that are obviously wrong that should be eradicated first.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah I just don't like it. Offside is an easy one, with technology. Therefore we should just keep it simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It will be, it isn't yet though as it isn't accurate enough for the reasons I mentioned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But your preference makes it less accurate, surely?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Does it really have to be more accurate?
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 25 seconds ago
I'd like the spirit of the game intact too, ie the rules adhered to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In fairness, this is at a level you don’t have the capability to understand.
Straight lines, tick boxes, black and white.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpeace (U1661)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpeace (U1661)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 second ago
comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpeace (U1661)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 33 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’ve posted the rule yourself though and it clearly doesn’t say that! It says you have to gain possession or control from a handball and then either score or create a goal scoring opportunity.
I’ll give another example. If a defender kicks it out and it accidentally hits an attackers hand, then the defender goes in for a tackle and fouls that attacker, then that would still be a penalty.
You’re focusing on the wrong thing, it is only a question of whether TAA had enough time to react.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Slightly different scenario. TAA's handball directly results from Silva's handball. The example you have given, though still subjective, requires further action (i.e. tackle by defender). It this instance ball directly comes off Silva's hand and hits TAA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, this one still needed further action too, you've just proved my point. The action is TAA handling it, which then makes it about whether TAA did that intentionally or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What action did TAA take? City gained advantage directly from Silva's handball. Here's my own example... A defender makes a tackle in his own box, misses the ball and kick the attacker. However he only missed the ball because the it accidentally hits an attacker's arm and changes direction. Do you think the ref will give a pen or free kick?
----------------------------------------------------------------------That's the whole point, the question is what action did he take. If you think nothing (which I do) then it's no penalty. If you think he intentionally kept his arm there then it's a penalty. City didn't gain any advantage from Silvas handball, he'd lost possession.
On your scenario, yes they would give the penalty. I'm struggling to visualise that scenario happening though!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Giving City a pen would have been giving them possession/advantage directly from a handball. So therefore under the rules it's never a pen. Not in a million years. We can agree to disagree.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We can, I can't agree under the rules it's never a pen though as it simply doesn't say that, you posted the rules yourself.
City would have gained possession from TAA handling the ball. Now if you believe he didn't mean to handle it, then it's no penalty as I said. If he intentionally handled it, then it wasn't Silva handling the ball that causes it, it's TAAs own actions.
I'm in agreement it's not a penalty, just not on the rationale you're using for it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair comment Though I still believe it's no pen (and probably a freekick) under the rules.
I'd have been happy with that honest, at least play would have stopped!
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 54 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 5 minutes ago
I don't think it is a law change, as bear in mind the law has to account for everyone not using VAR too. I think it's just an implementation of VAR change in that even if they say they will always take it from the first frame after the ball has been hit, or left the foot, then that would be a start.
To me, if the naked eye can't tell if it's offside or not from a freeze frame then I don't think its enough to warrant being deemed a clear advantage. If they really do want to use the lines though, then factor in a certain amount of leeway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In that case you open it up to being subjective and one official might not see it as offside and another would. You then lose consistency. Which is very difficult to take when you have the option of getting the correct call, according to the law, instead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think it's that difficult, it just needs people to think more about whether there's been a clear advantage rather than worrying about milimetres, I.e. the original intent of the law.
Most replays, you can clearly tell straight away if the player is offside or not. The ones that aren't clear cut, I've never seen as something that needed to be fixed - as I said, it's the ones that are obviously wrong that should be eradicated first.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah I just don't like it. Offside is an easy one, with technology. Therefore we should just keep it simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It will be, it isn't yet though as it isn't accurate enough for the reasons I mentioned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But your preference makes it less accurate, surely?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Does it really have to be more accurate?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn't have to be no. However I want it to be, as it can be. It goes along with the law and is easy to judge, using technology. There have been a few teething problems with lines etc but I'm sure it will improve.
So easy, TOOR, that you claim they got it wrong last week.
Oh sorry, that was because the officials are corrupt. Not because it’s a difficult process.
Silly me.
To what end will / can it improve?
It simply didn’t need to happen. Yet another example of trying to perfect what is an imperfect game. And it’s the imperfections that make it exciting and frustrating in equal measure.
It’s a balls up quite frankly.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
So easy, TOOR, that you claim they got it wrong last week.
Oh sorry, that was because the officials are corrupt. Not because it’s a difficult process.
Silly me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't claim they got it wrong. I claim they intentionally manipulated the lines to back up their mate.
Makes me sound like a crackpot I know but that's my opinion and accept the ridicule I'll receive for it.
This is a separate thing than what we are discussing.
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 1 minute ago
To what end will / can it improve?
It simply didn’t need to happen. Yet another example of trying to perfect what is an imperfect game. And it’s the imperfections that make it exciting and frustrating in equal measure.
It’s a balls up quite frankly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is your suggestion then?
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 2 minutes ago
To what end will / can it improve?
It simply didn’t need to happen. Yet another example of trying to perfect what is an imperfect game. And it’s the imperfections that make it exciting and frustrating in equal measure.
It’s a balls up quite frankly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Particularly when you're in the ground.
The speed of the decision can improve. The use of 3d imaging, rather than an individual drawing a line, it is automated and a decision made instantly. Perfectly achievable with technology.
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
So easy, TOOR, that you claim they got it wrong last week.
Oh sorry, that was because the officials are corrupt. Not because it’s a difficult process.
Silly me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't claim they got it wrong. I claim they intentionally manipulated the lines to back up their mate.
Makes me sound like a crackpot I know but that's my opinion and accept the ridicule I'll receive for it.
This is a separate thing than what we are discussing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well if they manipulated the lines to get a different outcome then you’re saying their decision was wrong.
It’s typical of you.
To anyone else, that decision just proves that it’s not as clear cut as you have made out. Yet you find an out by claiming the officials are corrupt.
Laughable.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
So easy, TOOR, that you claim they got it wrong last week.
Oh sorry, that was because the officials are corrupt. Not because it’s a difficult process.
Silly me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't claim they got it wrong. I claim they intentionally manipulated the lines to back up their mate.
Makes me sound like a crackpot I know but that's my opinion and accept the ridicule I'll receive for it.
This is a separate thing than what we are discussing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well if they manipulated the lines to get a different outcome then you’re saying their decision was wrong.
It’s typical of you.
To anyone else, that decision just proves that it’s not as clear cut as you have made out. Yet you find an out by claiming the officials are corrupt.
Laughable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well not just me but many people, including professionals, former players and referees.
I knew you'd take that approach and I understand it.
But i still believe it happened regardless. Former referees have admitted that the PGMOL made them do things against the rules, like say they hadn't seen an incident when they had, for example. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that they still do it, in order to keep high percentages, for example.
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
So easy, TOOR, that you claim they got it wrong last week.
Oh sorry, that was because the officials are corrupt. Not because it’s a difficult process.
Silly me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't claim they got it wrong. I claim they intentionally manipulated the lines to back up their mate.
Makes me sound like a crackpot I know but that's my opinion and accept the ridicule I'll receive for it.
This is a separate thing than what we are discussing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well if they manipulated the lines to get a different outcome then you’re saying their decision was wrong.
It’s typical of you.
To anyone else, that decision just proves that it’s not as clear cut as you have made out. Yet you find an out by claiming the officials are corrupt.
Laughable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well not just me but many people, including professionals, former players and referees.
I knew you'd take that approach and I understand it.
But i still believe it happened regardless. Former referees have admitted that the PGMOL made them do things against the rules, like say they hadn't seen an incident when they had, for example. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that they still do it, in order to keep high percentages, for example.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I said, laughable.
You’ll find any excuse, any way of getting out of admitting you’ve made a mistake.
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
So easy, TOOR, that you claim they got it wrong last week.
Oh sorry, that was because the officials are corrupt. Not because it’s a difficult process.
Silly me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't claim they got it wrong. I claim they intentionally manipulated the lines to back up their mate.
Makes me sound like a crackpot I know but that's my opinion and accept the ridicule I'll receive for it.
This is a separate thing than what we are discussing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which incident are you talking about there? I missed a lot of the football last weekend
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
So easy, TOOR, that you claim they got it wrong last week.
Oh sorry, that was because the officials are corrupt. Not because it’s a difficult process.
Silly me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't claim they got it wrong. I claim they intentionally manipulated the lines to back up their mate.
Makes me sound like a crackpot I know but that's my opinion and accept the ridicule I'll receive for it.
This is a separate thing than what we are discussing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which incident are you talking about there? I missed a lot of the football last weekend
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Firmino called offside when he was on. The VAR put the lines up which showed Firmino offside, he moved the line until he thought he was offside but when that didn't work, he drew a diagonal line from Firmino's armpit to the line across the pitch. The diagonal dotted line was ridiculous.
So the lines moved twice and he even changed which line belonged to which player at one point.
He's the best video I can find of it.
https://t.co/cxC4AZuptQ
I don’t even know what you guys are arguing about here tbh.
Is anyone arguing TAAs was handball or not?
comment by Tiddles (U17634)
posted 19 seconds ago
I don’t even know what you guys are arguing about here tbh.
Is anyone arguing TAAs was handball or not?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope.
Anyways i was only able to catch the first half but thought it was great, both sides going at it trying to win and both sides playing to such a high level. Both managers passionate on the sidelines, bit of niggle too, best prem game I’ve seen for a while.
Felt this odd sense of calm as soon as we went up that we were going to win though, don’t know why.
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tiddles (U17634)
posted 19 seconds ago
I don’t even know what you guys are arguing about here tbh.
Is anyone arguing TAAs was handball or not?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So what’s the argument about then? Seems everyone is in agreement it wasn’t.
comment by Tiddles (U17634)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tiddles (U17634)
posted 19 seconds ago
I don’t even know what you guys are arguing about here tbh.
Is anyone arguing TAAs was handball or not?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So what’s the argument about then? Seems everyone is in agreement it wasn’t.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
About the reason it shouldn't have been a penalty. Oh and also an argument about whether it would have been a penalty had it not hit Silva's hand. Anything for an argument!
Oh.
It hit Silva’s first right? If you give that as a pen surely you’d have to give the initial handball as a free kick to us?
Sign in if you want to comment
Great game
Page 6 of 7
6 | 7
posted on 10/11/19
I'd like the spirit of the game intact too, ie the rules adhered to.
posted on 10/11/19
Yes, because I don't think accuracy in those is that big an issue anyway.
I don't think I'm saying anything too controversial with it, all I'm saying is until the technology is there to d so with absolutes, use VAR for obviously wrong decisions only.
posted on 10/11/19
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 54 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 5 minutes ago
I don't think it is a law change, as bear in mind the law has to account for everyone not using VAR too. I think it's just an implementation of VAR change in that even if they say they will always take it from the first frame after the ball has been hit, or left the foot, then that would be a start.
To me, if the naked eye can't tell if it's offside or not from a freeze frame then I don't think its enough to warrant being deemed a clear advantage. If they really do want to use the lines though, then factor in a certain amount of leeway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In that case you open it up to being subjective and one official might not see it as offside and another would. You then lose consistency. Which is very difficult to take when you have the option of getting the correct call, according to the law, instead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think it's that difficult, it just needs people to think more about whether there's been a clear advantage rather than worrying about milimetres, I.e. the original intent of the law.
Most replays, you can clearly tell straight away if the player is offside or not. The ones that aren't clear cut, I've never seen as something that needed to be fixed - as I said, it's the ones that are obviously wrong that should be eradicated first.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah I just don't like it. Offside is an easy one, with technology. Therefore we should just keep it simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It will be, it isn't yet though as it isn't accurate enough for the reasons I mentioned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But your preference makes it less accurate, surely?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Does it really have to be more accurate?
posted on 10/11/19
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 25 seconds ago
I'd like the spirit of the game intact too, ie the rules adhered to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In fairness, this is at a level you don’t have the capability to understand.
Straight lines, tick boxes, black and white.
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 1 minute ago
comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpeace (U1661)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 second ago
comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpeace (U1661)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 33 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’ve posted the rule yourself though and it clearly doesn’t say that! It says you have to gain possession or control from a handball and then either score or create a goal scoring opportunity.
I’ll give another example. If a defender kicks it out and it accidentally hits an attackers hand, then the defender goes in for a tackle and fouls that attacker, then that would still be a penalty.
You’re focusing on the wrong thing, it is only a question of whether TAA had enough time to react.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Slightly different scenario. TAA's handball directly results from Silva's handball. The example you have given, though still subjective, requires further action (i.e. tackle by defender). It this instance ball directly comes off Silva's hand and hits TAA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, this one still needed further action too, you've just proved my point. The action is TAA handling it, which then makes it about whether TAA did that intentionally or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What action did TAA take? City gained advantage directly from Silva's handball. Here's my own example... A defender makes a tackle in his own box, misses the ball and kick the attacker. However he only missed the ball because the it accidentally hits an attacker's arm and changes direction. Do you think the ref will give a pen or free kick?
----------------------------------------------------------------------That's the whole point, the question is what action did he take. If you think nothing (which I do) then it's no penalty. If you think he intentionally kept his arm there then it's a penalty. City didn't gain any advantage from Silvas handball, he'd lost possession.
On your scenario, yes they would give the penalty. I'm struggling to visualise that scenario happening though!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Giving City a pen would have been giving them possession/advantage directly from a handball. So therefore under the rules it's never a pen. Not in a million years. We can agree to disagree.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We can, I can't agree under the rules it's never a pen though as it simply doesn't say that, you posted the rules yourself.
City would have gained possession from TAA handling the ball. Now if you believe he didn't mean to handle it, then it's no penalty as I said. If he intentionally handled it, then it wasn't Silva handling the ball that causes it, it's TAAs own actions.
I'm in agreement it's not a penalty, just not on the rationale you're using for it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair comment Though I still believe it's no pen (and probably a freekick) under the rules.
posted on 10/11/19
I'd have been happy with that honest, at least play would have stopped!
posted on 10/11/19
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 54 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 5 minutes ago
I don't think it is a law change, as bear in mind the law has to account for everyone not using VAR too. I think it's just an implementation of VAR change in that even if they say they will always take it from the first frame after the ball has been hit, or left the foot, then that would be a start.
To me, if the naked eye can't tell if it's offside or not from a freeze frame then I don't think its enough to warrant being deemed a clear advantage. If they really do want to use the lines though, then factor in a certain amount of leeway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In that case you open it up to being subjective and one official might not see it as offside and another would. You then lose consistency. Which is very difficult to take when you have the option of getting the correct call, according to the law, instead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think it's that difficult, it just needs people to think more about whether there's been a clear advantage rather than worrying about milimetres, I.e. the original intent of the law.
Most replays, you can clearly tell straight away if the player is offside or not. The ones that aren't clear cut, I've never seen as something that needed to be fixed - as I said, it's the ones that are obviously wrong that should be eradicated first.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah I just don't like it. Offside is an easy one, with technology. Therefore we should just keep it simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It will be, it isn't yet though as it isn't accurate enough for the reasons I mentioned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But your preference makes it less accurate, surely?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Does it really have to be more accurate?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn't have to be no. However I want it to be, as it can be. It goes along with the law and is easy to judge, using technology. There have been a few teething problems with lines etc but I'm sure it will improve.
posted on 10/11/19
So easy, TOOR, that you claim they got it wrong last week.
Oh sorry, that was because the officials are corrupt. Not because it’s a difficult process.
Silly me.
posted on 10/11/19
To what end will / can it improve?
It simply didn’t need to happen. Yet another example of trying to perfect what is an imperfect game. And it’s the imperfections that make it exciting and frustrating in equal measure.
It’s a balls up quite frankly.
posted on 10/11/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
So easy, TOOR, that you claim they got it wrong last week.
Oh sorry, that was because the officials are corrupt. Not because it’s a difficult process.
Silly me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't claim they got it wrong. I claim they intentionally manipulated the lines to back up their mate.
Makes me sound like a crackpot I know but that's my opinion and accept the ridicule I'll receive for it.
This is a separate thing than what we are discussing.
posted on 10/11/19
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 1 minute ago
To what end will / can it improve?
It simply didn’t need to happen. Yet another example of trying to perfect what is an imperfect game. And it’s the imperfections that make it exciting and frustrating in equal measure.
It’s a balls up quite frankly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is your suggestion then?
posted on 10/11/19
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 2 minutes ago
To what end will / can it improve?
It simply didn’t need to happen. Yet another example of trying to perfect what is an imperfect game. And it’s the imperfections that make it exciting and frustrating in equal measure.
It’s a balls up quite frankly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Particularly when you're in the ground.
posted on 10/11/19
The speed of the decision can improve. The use of 3d imaging, rather than an individual drawing a line, it is automated and a decision made instantly. Perfectly achievable with technology.
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 1 minute ago
So easy, TOOR, that you claim they got it wrong last week.
Oh sorry, that was because the officials are corrupt. Not because it’s a difficult process.
Silly me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't claim they got it wrong. I claim they intentionally manipulated the lines to back up their mate.
Makes me sound like a crackpot I know but that's my opinion and accept the ridicule I'll receive for it.
This is a separate thing than what we are discussing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well if they manipulated the lines to get a different outcome then you’re saying their decision was wrong.
It’s typical of you.
To anyone else, that decision just proves that it’s not as clear cut as you have made out. Yet you find an out by claiming the officials are corrupt.
Laughable.
posted on 10/11/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
So easy, TOOR, that you claim they got it wrong last week.
Oh sorry, that was because the officials are corrupt. Not because it’s a difficult process.
Silly me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't claim they got it wrong. I claim they intentionally manipulated the lines to back up their mate.
Makes me sound like a crackpot I know but that's my opinion and accept the ridicule I'll receive for it.
This is a separate thing than what we are discussing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well if they manipulated the lines to get a different outcome then you’re saying their decision was wrong.
It’s typical of you.
To anyone else, that decision just proves that it’s not as clear cut as you have made out. Yet you find an out by claiming the officials are corrupt.
Laughable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well not just me but many people, including professionals, former players and referees.
I knew you'd take that approach and I understand it.
But i still believe it happened regardless. Former referees have admitted that the PGMOL made them do things against the rules, like say they hadn't seen an incident when they had, for example. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that they still do it, in order to keep high percentages, for example.
posted on 10/11/19
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
So easy, TOOR, that you claim they got it wrong last week.
Oh sorry, that was because the officials are corrupt. Not because it’s a difficult process.
Silly me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't claim they got it wrong. I claim they intentionally manipulated the lines to back up their mate.
Makes me sound like a crackpot I know but that's my opinion and accept the ridicule I'll receive for it.
This is a separate thing than what we are discussing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well if they manipulated the lines to get a different outcome then you’re saying their decision was wrong.
It’s typical of you.
To anyone else, that decision just proves that it’s not as clear cut as you have made out. Yet you find an out by claiming the officials are corrupt.
Laughable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well not just me but many people, including professionals, former players and referees.
I knew you'd take that approach and I understand it.
But i still believe it happened regardless. Former referees have admitted that the PGMOL made them do things against the rules, like say they hadn't seen an incident when they had, for example. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that they still do it, in order to keep high percentages, for example.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I said, laughable.
You’ll find any excuse, any way of getting out of admitting you’ve made a mistake.
posted on 10/11/19
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
So easy, TOOR, that you claim they got it wrong last week.
Oh sorry, that was because the officials are corrupt. Not because it’s a difficult process.
Silly me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't claim they got it wrong. I claim they intentionally manipulated the lines to back up their mate.
Makes me sound like a crackpot I know but that's my opinion and accept the ridicule I'll receive for it.
This is a separate thing than what we are discussing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which incident are you talking about there? I missed a lot of the football last weekend
posted on 10/11/19
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
So easy, TOOR, that you claim they got it wrong last week.
Oh sorry, that was because the officials are corrupt. Not because it’s a difficult process.
Silly me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't claim they got it wrong. I claim they intentionally manipulated the lines to back up their mate.
Makes me sound like a crackpot I know but that's my opinion and accept the ridicule I'll receive for it.
This is a separate thing than what we are discussing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which incident are you talking about there? I missed a lot of the football last weekend
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Firmino called offside when he was on. The VAR put the lines up which showed Firmino offside, he moved the line until he thought he was offside but when that didn't work, he drew a diagonal line from Firmino's armpit to the line across the pitch. The diagonal dotted line was ridiculous.
So the lines moved twice and he even changed which line belonged to which player at one point.
posted on 10/11/19
He's the best video I can find of it.
https://t.co/cxC4AZuptQ
posted on 10/11/19
I don’t even know what you guys are arguing about here tbh.
Is anyone arguing TAAs was handball or not?
posted on 10/11/19
comment by Tiddles (U17634)
posted 19 seconds ago
I don’t even know what you guys are arguing about here tbh.
Is anyone arguing TAAs was handball or not?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope.
posted on 10/11/19
Anyways i was only able to catch the first half but thought it was great, both sides going at it trying to win and both sides playing to such a high level. Both managers passionate on the sidelines, bit of niggle too, best prem game I’ve seen for a while.
Felt this odd sense of calm as soon as we went up that we were going to win though, don’t know why.
posted on 10/11/19
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tiddles (U17634)
posted 19 seconds ago
I don’t even know what you guys are arguing about here tbh.
Is anyone arguing TAAs was handball or not?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So what’s the argument about then? Seems everyone is in agreement it wasn’t.
posted on 10/11/19
comment by Tiddles (U17634)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tiddles (U17634)
posted 19 seconds ago
I don’t even know what you guys are arguing about here tbh.
Is anyone arguing TAAs was handball or not?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So what’s the argument about then? Seems everyone is in agreement it wasn’t.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
About the reason it shouldn't have been a penalty. Oh and also an argument about whether it would have been a penalty had it not hit Silva's hand. Anything for an argument!
posted on 10/11/19
Oh.
It hit Silva’s first right? If you give that as a pen surely you’d have to give the initial handball as a free kick to us?
Page 6 of 7
6 | 7