comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson (U1282)
posted 6 hours, 41 minutes ago
Wan-Bissaka did not touch Harvey Elliot so the penalty has to be overturned.
=====
Was very soft IMO, but Bissaka never touched the ball either. Did he impede Elliot?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, Elliott dragged his right foot to ensure there was contact. He is a young athlete. He could have easily cleared the leg had he wanted to
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But he didn't want to. Why would he want to be put at a disadvantage in the box by a lunging defender? Instead he stood his ground, took the foul and went down. No debate, clear penalty. You can moan and whine all you want but fouls in the box will be penalties whether the player was looking for it, could have got out of the way,l etc etc.
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 1 hour, 17 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 7 hours, 17 minutes ago
Agree about Wan-Bissaka diving in, that was stupid to do that but still the replays show that Harvey dived so again I think that should have been overturned
———————
You’re contradicting yourself though. You’ve acknowledged that he dived in, once he does that in the penalty area then it’s a penalty almost every time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no contact. Elliott bought the pen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Christ the intelligence on the United board has decreased almost as fast as the quality of your team.
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 1 hour, 21 minutes ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson (U1282)
posted 6 hours, 41 minutes ago
Wan-Bissaka did not touch Harvey Elliot so the penalty has to be overturned.
=====
Was very soft IMO, but Bissaka never touched the ball either. Did he impede Elliot?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, Elliott dragged his right foot to ensure there was contact. He is a young athlete. He could have easily cleared the leg had he wanted to
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You do know that it doesn’t actually happen in slow motion, don’t you? That’s just a tool the tv people use to help see things clearly. 👍
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 3 hours, 14 minutes ago
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson (U1282)
posted 6 hours, 41 minutes ago
Wan-Bissaka did not touch Harvey Elliot so the penalty has to be overturned.
=====
Was very soft IMO, but Bissaka never touched the ball either. Did he impede Elliot?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, Elliott dragged his right foot to ensure there was contact. He is a young athlete. He could have easily cleared the leg had he wanted to
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But he didn't want to. Why would he want to be put at a disadvantage in the box by a lunging defender? Instead he stood his ground, took the foul and went down. No debate, clear penalty. You can moan and whine all you want but fouls in the box will be penalties whether the player was looking for it, could have got out of the way,l etc etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How would he have been at a disadvantage had he stepped over AWBs leg?
comment by Robbing Hoody - I taught Szoboszlai how to cushion half volleys (U6374)
posted 8 hours, 54 minutes ago
I initially disagreed with the Arsenal penalty, because a week earlier Doku kicked AMA in the chest and the VAR team literally said ‘He’s touched the ball’ so was working off that.
It’s a penalty though.
Liverpool, clear penalty imo. He’s slide in, missed the ball and caught the trailing leg. Completely on AWB that.
Maddison has to go and it’s weird that he didn’t.
Shame we’re all talking about the refs again though. Some cracking games again, this weekend.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
AWB didn't catch the trailing leg. Elliot dragged his foot to initiate contact and allow him to collapse
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 6 hours, 24 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 23 minutes ago
I'm shocked that TOOR thinks the Liverpool one was a clear penalty. Shocked, I tell you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would you be shocked that someone thinks that a clear penalty was a clear penalty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it wasn't a clear penalty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gets nowhere near the ball and impedes the player in the penalty area. It is pretty textbook.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Impedes him how?
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 3 hours, 36 minutes ago
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson (U1282)
posted 6 hours, 41 minutes ago
Wan-Bissaka did not touch Harvey Elliot so the penalty has to be overturned.
=====
Was very soft IMO, but Bissaka never touched the ball either. Did he impede Elliot?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, Elliott dragged his right foot to ensure there was contact. He is a young athlete. He could have easily cleared the leg had he wanted to
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But he didn't want to. Why would he want to be put at a disadvantage in the box by a lunging defender? Instead he stood his ground, took the foul and went down. No debate, clear penalty. You can moan and whine all you want but fouls in the box will be penalties whether the player was looking for it, could have got out of the way,l etc etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He altered his stride to initiate contact.
A clear dive.
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 4 hours, 43 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 31 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 50 seconds ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 23 minutes ago
I'm shocked that TOOR thinks the Liverpool one was a clear penalty. Shocked, I tell you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would you be shocked that someone thinks that a clear penalty was a clear penalty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it wasn't a clear penalty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gets nowhere near the ball and impedes the player in the penalty area. It is pretty textbook.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. Hence why it was given and not a single person whp saw it was surprised.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Imagine thinking it wasn't a clear penalty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Imagine being you.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 hours, 46 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 4 hours, 43 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 31 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 50 seconds ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 23 minutes ago
I'm shocked that TOOR thinks the Liverpool one was a clear penalty. Shocked, I tell you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would you be shocked that someone thinks that a clear penalty was a clear penalty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it wasn't a clear penalty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gets nowhere near the ball and impedes the player in the penalty area. It is pretty textbook.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. Hence why it was given and not a single person whp saw it was surprised.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Imagine thinking it wasn't a clear penalty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Imagine being you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Winston once again messes up an argument and, being incapable of admitting he is wrong, turns to ad hominem attacks to try to deflect and derail the conversation.
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 30 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 hours, 46 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 4 hours, 43 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 31 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 50 seconds ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 23 minutes ago
I'm shocked that TOOR thinks the Liverpool one was a clear penalty. Shocked, I tell you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would you be shocked that someone thinks that a clear penalty was a clear penalty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it wasn't a clear penalty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gets nowhere near the ball and impedes the player in the penalty area. It is pretty textbook.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. Hence why it was given and not a single person whp saw it was surprised.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Imagine thinking it wasn't a clear penalty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Imagine being you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Winston once again messes up an argument and, being incapable of admitting he is wrong, turns to ad hominem attacks to try to deflect and derail the conversation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, because your contribution to this debate warranted a full response, didn’t it?
Listen, it looked a clear penalty, but video evidence shows it was a dive.
Could it still be given? Of course. The way the laws are these days, you can try and make a case for it.
But there’s no question Elliott initiated the contact and threw himself on the floor.
Is it worth debating it with you? The man who can’t ever admit he’s wrong and sees things in black and white, because he’s a dead end middle manager?
Absolutely not.
Go and have a cry about it elsewhere.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 30 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 hours, 46 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 4 hours, 43 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 31 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 50 seconds ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 23 minutes ago
I'm shocked that TOOR thinks the Liverpool one was a clear penalty. Shocked, I tell you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would you be shocked that someone thinks that a clear penalty was a clear penalty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it wasn't a clear penalty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gets nowhere near the ball and impedes the player in the penalty area. It is pretty textbook.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. Hence why it was given and not a single person whp saw it was surprised.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Imagine thinking it wasn't a clear penalty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Imagine being you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Winston once again messes up an argument and, being incapable of admitting he is wrong, turns to ad hominem attacks to try to deflect and derail the conversation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, because your contribution to this debate warranted a full response, didn’t it?
Listen, it looked a clear penalty, but video evidence shows it was a dive.
Could it still be given? Of course. The way the laws are these days, you can try and make a case for it.
But there’s no question Elliott initiated the contact and threw himself on the floor.
Is it worth debating it with you? The man who can’t ever admit he’s wrong and sees things in black and white, because he’s a dead end middle manager?
Absolutely not.
Go and have a cry about it elsewhere.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Winston once again denying reality. Imagine claiming it was a dive with no evidence to back you up. All because you are upset at a football decision correctly going against you.
Once again getting personal because you aren't able to make a coherent point without contradicting yourself. It's pretty embarrassing.
No evidence apart from video footage, you mean.
And getting personal?
If you look above, you’ll see that’s what you did. So desperate to argue, you had to reply to a smiley.
You are, indeed, an embarrassment. And you’re intent on derailing this thread, clearly.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
No evidence apart from video footage, you mean.
And getting personal?
If you look above, you’ll see that’s what you did. So desperate to argue, you had to reply to a smiley.
You are, indeed, an embarrassment. And you’re intent on derailing this thread, clearly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. All the video footage shows contact. If you are watching it and refusing to see it then that's nobody else's fault.
2. If you look above and actually read the thread, you would see that all my contributions were specifically about the topic and then you responded with "imagine being you".
It isnt a huge shock to find that objective evidence once again proves Winston is lying. Imagine trying to claim someone else derailed the thread when the evidence is literally there showing it was you.
Winston resorts to personal attacks and outright lies whenever he realises he has embarrassed himself and is too insecure to admit it.
He was just looking for someone to argue with.
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
No evidence apart from video footage, you mean.
And getting personal?
If you look above, you’ll see that’s what you did. So desperate to argue, you had to reply to a smiley.
You are, indeed, an embarrassment. And you’re intent on derailing this thread, clearly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. All the video footage shows contact. If you are watching it and refusing to see it then that's nobody else's fault.
2. If you look above and actually read the thread, you would see that all my contributions were specifically about the topic and then you responded with "imagine being you".
It isnt a huge shock to find that objective evidence once again proves Winston is lying. Imagine trying to claim someone else derailed the thread when the evidence is literally there showing it was you.
Winston resorts to personal attacks and outright lies whenever he realises he has embarrassed himself and is too insecure to admit it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact that Elliott initiated.
If you look above, you’ll find I have you short answers because I could tell you just wanted to argue with me, with your black and white view on the world.
You then replied to a smiley, when clearly there was no need.
As usual you’re wrong and can’t admit it.
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
He was just looking for someone to argue with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He replied to me, and then continued to reply to a smiley.
Doesn’t fit with your narrative, does it?
There’s not many on here that think it wasn’t a penalty, and I think the ones that do are giving Elliot FAR too much credit for his reaction times, speed of thought, balance and quick feet. I’d also have a look at who those posters are in the main.
The ref, pundits, VAR team and Utd manager all thought it was a penalty. Most on here thought it was a penalty too. I’ve not met a single person in RL that didn’t think it was a penalty either.
Each to their own though.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 35 seconds ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
No evidence apart from video footage, you mean.
And getting personal?
If you look above, you’ll see that’s what you did. So desperate to argue, you had to reply to a smiley.
You are, indeed, an embarrassment. And you’re intent on derailing this thread, clearly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. All the video footage shows contact. If you are watching it and refusing to see it then that's nobody else's fault.
2. If you look above and actually read the thread, you would see that all my contributions were specifically about the topic and then you responded with "imagine being you".
It isnt a huge shock to find that objective evidence once again proves Winston is lying. Imagine trying to claim someone else derailed the thread when the evidence is literally there showing it was you.
Winston resorts to personal attacks and outright lies whenever he realises he has embarrassed himself and is too insecure to admit it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact that Elliott initiated.
If you look above, you’ll find I have you short answers because I could tell you just wanted to argue with me, with your black and white view on the world.
You then replied to a smiley, when clearly there was no need.
As usual you’re wrong and can’t admit it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. So there was contact that impeded Elliott. Glad you finally admit it was a clear penalty.
2. Short answers? Every single one of my comments to you was a single sentence (or one one occasion two sentences where one sentence was "yes." before you then replied with a 10 sentence response spread over 7 paragraphs. Winston lying again.
3. A smiley is still a comment furthering a conversation it can be replied to. You could have also not replied at any point...
4. I'm very much correct and when the entirety of the argument you have left is literally copying what I've said and projecting your own failings then it's clear you don't have anything left to say.
So at this point I'm going to make it easy. I have proven that you have lied multiple times in this thread and so have no credibility left, therefore everyone can disregard anything you have to say.
Therefore, I am going to stop replying to you on this thread. Much like you are too insecure to admit you are wrong (or too limited to recognise it) we all know you are too insecure to let anyone else have the last word. So I'm going to let you have it here. Cheerio.
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson (U1282)
posted 9 minutes ago
He was just looking for someone to argue with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, unfortunately for him, he just embarrasses himself whenever he tries to argue with people.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 15 hours, 51 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 23 minutes ago
I'm shocked that TOOR thinks the Liverpool one was a clear penalty. Shocked, I tell you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Somebody needs to go to Specsavers.
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 35 seconds ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
No evidence apart from video footage, you mean.
And getting personal?
If you look above, you’ll see that’s what you did. So desperate to argue, you had to reply to a smiley.
You are, indeed, an embarrassment. And you’re intent on derailing this thread, clearly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. All the video footage shows contact. If you are watching it and refusing to see it then that's nobody else's fault.
2. If you look above and actually read the thread, you would see that all my contributions were specifically about the topic and then you responded with "imagine being you".
It isnt a huge shock to find that objective evidence once again proves Winston is lying. Imagine trying to claim someone else derailed the thread when the evidence is literally there showing it was you.
Winston resorts to personal attacks and outright lies whenever he realises he has embarrassed himself and is too insecure to admit it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact that Elliott initiated.
If you look above, you’ll find I have you short answers because I could tell you just wanted to argue with me, with your black and white view on the world.
You then replied to a smiley, when clearly there was no need.
As usual you’re wrong and can’t admit it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. So there was contact that impeded Elliott. Glad you finally admit it was a clear penalty.
2. Short answers? Every single one of my comments to you was a single sentence (or one one occasion two sentences where one sentence was "yes."before you then replied with a 10 sentence response spread over 7 paragraphs. Winston lying again.
3. A smiley is still a comment furthering a conversation it can be replied to. You could have also not replied at any point...
4. I'm very much correct and when the entirety of the argument you have left is literally copying what I've said and projecting your own failings then it's clear you don't have anything left to say.
So at this point I'm going to make it easy. I have proven that you have lied multiple times in this thread and so have no credibility left, therefore everyone can disregard anything you have to say.
Therefore, I am going to stop replying to you on this thread. Much like you are too insecure to admit you are wrong (or too limited to recognise it) we all know you are too insecure to let anyone else have the last word. So I'm going to let you have it here. Cheerio.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. There wouldn’t have been contact had Elliott not initiated, so it didn’t impede him.
2. What? I said I gave you short answers, is that not correct?
3. There was no need to reply at that point. You just wanted to argue.
4. You’re wrong and you can’t admit it.
As usual, you start something you can’t finish and you have to try and make it all about me.
It’s half 8 in the morning and you’re a raging mess already.
There wouldn’t have been contact had Elliott not initiated, so it didn’t impede him.
=====
Imagine purposely dragging your leg to ensure you can throw yourself on the floor, to then claim you've been impeded.
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
There wouldn’t have been contact had Elliott not initiated, so it didn’t impede him.
=====
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Funny that Winston is berating me for responding to emojis when he has then responded to your comment which was an emoji, isn't it?
Sign in if you want to comment
Weekend Decisions
Page 5 of 8
6 | 7 | 8
posted on 8/4/24
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson (U1282)
posted 6 hours, 41 minutes ago
Wan-Bissaka did not touch Harvey Elliot so the penalty has to be overturned.
=====
Was very soft IMO, but Bissaka never touched the ball either. Did he impede Elliot?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, Elliott dragged his right foot to ensure there was contact. He is a young athlete. He could have easily cleared the leg had he wanted to
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But he didn't want to. Why would he want to be put at a disadvantage in the box by a lunging defender? Instead he stood his ground, took the foul and went down. No debate, clear penalty. You can moan and whine all you want but fouls in the box will be penalties whether the player was looking for it, could have got out of the way,l etc etc.
posted on 8/4/24
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 1 hour, 17 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 7 hours, 17 minutes ago
Agree about Wan-Bissaka diving in, that was stupid to do that but still the replays show that Harvey dived so again I think that should have been overturned
———————
You’re contradicting yourself though. You’ve acknowledged that he dived in, once he does that in the penalty area then it’s a penalty almost every time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no contact. Elliott bought the pen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Christ the intelligence on the United board has decreased almost as fast as the quality of your team.
posted on 8/4/24
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 1 hour, 21 minutes ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson (U1282)
posted 6 hours, 41 minutes ago
Wan-Bissaka did not touch Harvey Elliot so the penalty has to be overturned.
=====
Was very soft IMO, but Bissaka never touched the ball either. Did he impede Elliot?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, Elliott dragged his right foot to ensure there was contact. He is a young athlete. He could have easily cleared the leg had he wanted to
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You do know that it doesn’t actually happen in slow motion, don’t you? That’s just a tool the tv people use to help see things clearly. 👍
posted on 8/4/24
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 3 hours, 14 minutes ago
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson (U1282)
posted 6 hours, 41 minutes ago
Wan-Bissaka did not touch Harvey Elliot so the penalty has to be overturned.
=====
Was very soft IMO, but Bissaka never touched the ball either. Did he impede Elliot?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, Elliott dragged his right foot to ensure there was contact. He is a young athlete. He could have easily cleared the leg had he wanted to
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But he didn't want to. Why would he want to be put at a disadvantage in the box by a lunging defender? Instead he stood his ground, took the foul and went down. No debate, clear penalty. You can moan and whine all you want but fouls in the box will be penalties whether the player was looking for it, could have got out of the way,l etc etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How would he have been at a disadvantage had he stepped over AWBs leg?
posted on 8/4/24
comment by Robbing Hoody - I taught Szoboszlai how to cushion half volleys (U6374)
posted 8 hours, 54 minutes ago
I initially disagreed with the Arsenal penalty, because a week earlier Doku kicked AMA in the chest and the VAR team literally said ‘He’s touched the ball’ so was working off that.
It’s a penalty though.
Liverpool, clear penalty imo. He’s slide in, missed the ball and caught the trailing leg. Completely on AWB that.
Maddison has to go and it’s weird that he didn’t.
Shame we’re all talking about the refs again though. Some cracking games again, this weekend.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
AWB didn't catch the trailing leg. Elliot dragged his foot to initiate contact and allow him to collapse
posted on 8/4/24
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 6 hours, 24 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 23 minutes ago
I'm shocked that TOOR thinks the Liverpool one was a clear penalty. Shocked, I tell you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would you be shocked that someone thinks that a clear penalty was a clear penalty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it wasn't a clear penalty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gets nowhere near the ball and impedes the player in the penalty area. It is pretty textbook.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Impedes him how?
posted on 8/4/24
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 3 hours, 36 minutes ago
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson (U1282)
posted 6 hours, 41 minutes ago
Wan-Bissaka did not touch Harvey Elliot so the penalty has to be overturned.
=====
Was very soft IMO, but Bissaka never touched the ball either. Did he impede Elliot?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, Elliott dragged his right foot to ensure there was contact. He is a young athlete. He could have easily cleared the leg had he wanted to
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But he didn't want to. Why would he want to be put at a disadvantage in the box by a lunging defender? Instead he stood his ground, took the foul and went down. No debate, clear penalty. You can moan and whine all you want but fouls in the box will be penalties whether the player was looking for it, could have got out of the way,l etc etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He altered his stride to initiate contact.
A clear dive.
posted on 8/4/24
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 4 hours, 43 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 31 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 50 seconds ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 23 minutes ago
I'm shocked that TOOR thinks the Liverpool one was a clear penalty. Shocked, I tell you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would you be shocked that someone thinks that a clear penalty was a clear penalty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it wasn't a clear penalty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gets nowhere near the ball and impedes the player in the penalty area. It is pretty textbook.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. Hence why it was given and not a single person whp saw it was surprised.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Imagine thinking it wasn't a clear penalty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Imagine being you.
posted on 9/4/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 hours, 46 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 4 hours, 43 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 31 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 50 seconds ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 23 minutes ago
I'm shocked that TOOR thinks the Liverpool one was a clear penalty. Shocked, I tell you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would you be shocked that someone thinks that a clear penalty was a clear penalty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it wasn't a clear penalty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gets nowhere near the ball and impedes the player in the penalty area. It is pretty textbook.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. Hence why it was given and not a single person whp saw it was surprised.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Imagine thinking it wasn't a clear penalty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Imagine being you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Winston once again messes up an argument and, being incapable of admitting he is wrong, turns to ad hominem attacks to try to deflect and derail the conversation.
posted on 9/4/24
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 30 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 hours, 46 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 4 hours, 43 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 31 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 50 seconds ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 23 minutes ago
I'm shocked that TOOR thinks the Liverpool one was a clear penalty. Shocked, I tell you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would you be shocked that someone thinks that a clear penalty was a clear penalty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it wasn't a clear penalty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gets nowhere near the ball and impedes the player in the penalty area. It is pretty textbook.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. Hence why it was given and not a single person whp saw it was surprised.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Imagine thinking it wasn't a clear penalty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Imagine being you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Winston once again messes up an argument and, being incapable of admitting he is wrong, turns to ad hominem attacks to try to deflect and derail the conversation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, because your contribution to this debate warranted a full response, didn’t it?
Listen, it looked a clear penalty, but video evidence shows it was a dive.
Could it still be given? Of course. The way the laws are these days, you can try and make a case for it.
But there’s no question Elliott initiated the contact and threw himself on the floor.
Is it worth debating it with you? The man who can’t ever admit he’s wrong and sees things in black and white, because he’s a dead end middle manager?
Absolutely not.
Go and have a cry about it elsewhere.
posted on 9/4/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 30 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 hours, 46 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 4 hours, 43 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 31 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 50 seconds ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 23 minutes ago
I'm shocked that TOOR thinks the Liverpool one was a clear penalty. Shocked, I tell you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would you be shocked that someone thinks that a clear penalty was a clear penalty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it wasn't a clear penalty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gets nowhere near the ball and impedes the player in the penalty area. It is pretty textbook.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. Hence why it was given and not a single person whp saw it was surprised.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Imagine thinking it wasn't a clear penalty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Imagine being you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Winston once again messes up an argument and, being incapable of admitting he is wrong, turns to ad hominem attacks to try to deflect and derail the conversation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, because your contribution to this debate warranted a full response, didn’t it?
Listen, it looked a clear penalty, but video evidence shows it was a dive.
Could it still be given? Of course. The way the laws are these days, you can try and make a case for it.
But there’s no question Elliott initiated the contact and threw himself on the floor.
Is it worth debating it with you? The man who can’t ever admit he’s wrong and sees things in black and white, because he’s a dead end middle manager?
Absolutely not.
Go and have a cry about it elsewhere.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Winston once again denying reality. Imagine claiming it was a dive with no evidence to back you up. All because you are upset at a football decision correctly going against you.
Once again getting personal because you aren't able to make a coherent point without contradicting yourself. It's pretty embarrassing.
posted on 9/4/24
No evidence apart from video footage, you mean.
And getting personal?
If you look above, you’ll see that’s what you did. So desperate to argue, you had to reply to a smiley.
You are, indeed, an embarrassment. And you’re intent on derailing this thread, clearly.
posted on 9/4/24
It was a pen. Let it go.
posted on 9/4/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
No evidence apart from video footage, you mean.
And getting personal?
If you look above, you’ll see that’s what you did. So desperate to argue, you had to reply to a smiley.
You are, indeed, an embarrassment. And you’re intent on derailing this thread, clearly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. All the video footage shows contact. If you are watching it and refusing to see it then that's nobody else's fault.
2. If you look above and actually read the thread, you would see that all my contributions were specifically about the topic and then you responded with "imagine being you".
It isnt a huge shock to find that objective evidence once again proves Winston is lying. Imagine trying to claim someone else derailed the thread when the evidence is literally there showing it was you.
Winston resorts to personal attacks and outright lies whenever he realises he has embarrassed himself and is too insecure to admit it.
posted on 9/4/24
He was just looking for someone to argue with.
posted on 9/4/24
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
No evidence apart from video footage, you mean.
And getting personal?
If you look above, you’ll see that’s what you did. So desperate to argue, you had to reply to a smiley.
You are, indeed, an embarrassment. And you’re intent on derailing this thread, clearly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. All the video footage shows contact. If you are watching it and refusing to see it then that's nobody else's fault.
2. If you look above and actually read the thread, you would see that all my contributions were specifically about the topic and then you responded with "imagine being you".
It isnt a huge shock to find that objective evidence once again proves Winston is lying. Imagine trying to claim someone else derailed the thread when the evidence is literally there showing it was you.
Winston resorts to personal attacks and outright lies whenever he realises he has embarrassed himself and is too insecure to admit it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact that Elliott initiated.
If you look above, you’ll find I have you short answers because I could tell you just wanted to argue with me, with your black and white view on the world.
You then replied to a smiley, when clearly there was no need.
As usual you’re wrong and can’t admit it.
posted on 9/4/24
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
He was just looking for someone to argue with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He replied to me, and then continued to reply to a smiley.
Doesn’t fit with your narrative, does it?
posted on 9/4/24
There’s not many on here that think it wasn’t a penalty, and I think the ones that do are giving Elliot FAR too much credit for his reaction times, speed of thought, balance and quick feet. I’d also have a look at who those posters are in the main.
The ref, pundits, VAR team and Utd manager all thought it was a penalty. Most on here thought it was a penalty too. I’ve not met a single person in RL that didn’t think it was a penalty either.
Each to their own though.
posted on 9/4/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 35 seconds ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
No evidence apart from video footage, you mean.
And getting personal?
If you look above, you’ll see that’s what you did. So desperate to argue, you had to reply to a smiley.
You are, indeed, an embarrassment. And you’re intent on derailing this thread, clearly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. All the video footage shows contact. If you are watching it and refusing to see it then that's nobody else's fault.
2. If you look above and actually read the thread, you would see that all my contributions were specifically about the topic and then you responded with "imagine being you".
It isnt a huge shock to find that objective evidence once again proves Winston is lying. Imagine trying to claim someone else derailed the thread when the evidence is literally there showing it was you.
Winston resorts to personal attacks and outright lies whenever he realises he has embarrassed himself and is too insecure to admit it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact that Elliott initiated.
If you look above, you’ll find I have you short answers because I could tell you just wanted to argue with me, with your black and white view on the world.
You then replied to a smiley, when clearly there was no need.
As usual you’re wrong and can’t admit it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. So there was contact that impeded Elliott. Glad you finally admit it was a clear penalty.
2. Short answers? Every single one of my comments to you was a single sentence (or one one occasion two sentences where one sentence was "yes." before you then replied with a 10 sentence response spread over 7 paragraphs. Winston lying again.
3. A smiley is still a comment furthering a conversation it can be replied to. You could have also not replied at any point...
4. I'm very much correct and when the entirety of the argument you have left is literally copying what I've said and projecting your own failings then it's clear you don't have anything left to say.
So at this point I'm going to make it easy. I have proven that you have lied multiple times in this thread and so have no credibility left, therefore everyone can disregard anything you have to say.
Therefore, I am going to stop replying to you on this thread. Much like you are too insecure to admit you are wrong (or too limited to recognise it) we all know you are too insecure to let anyone else have the last word. So I'm going to let you have it here. Cheerio.
posted on 9/4/24
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson (U1282)
posted 9 minutes ago
He was just looking for someone to argue with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, unfortunately for him, he just embarrasses himself whenever he tries to argue with people.
posted on 9/4/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 15 hours, 51 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 23 minutes ago
I'm shocked that TOOR thinks the Liverpool one was a clear penalty. Shocked, I tell you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Somebody needs to go to Specsavers.
posted on 9/4/24
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 35 seconds ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
No evidence apart from video footage, you mean.
And getting personal?
If you look above, you’ll see that’s what you did. So desperate to argue, you had to reply to a smiley.
You are, indeed, an embarrassment. And you’re intent on derailing this thread, clearly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. All the video footage shows contact. If you are watching it and refusing to see it then that's nobody else's fault.
2. If you look above and actually read the thread, you would see that all my contributions were specifically about the topic and then you responded with "imagine being you".
It isnt a huge shock to find that objective evidence once again proves Winston is lying. Imagine trying to claim someone else derailed the thread when the evidence is literally there showing it was you.
Winston resorts to personal attacks and outright lies whenever he realises he has embarrassed himself and is too insecure to admit it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact that Elliott initiated.
If you look above, you’ll find I have you short answers because I could tell you just wanted to argue with me, with your black and white view on the world.
You then replied to a smiley, when clearly there was no need.
As usual you’re wrong and can’t admit it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. So there was contact that impeded Elliott. Glad you finally admit it was a clear penalty.
2. Short answers? Every single one of my comments to you was a single sentence (or one one occasion two sentences where one sentence was "yes."before you then replied with a 10 sentence response spread over 7 paragraphs. Winston lying again.
3. A smiley is still a comment furthering a conversation it can be replied to. You could have also not replied at any point...
4. I'm very much correct and when the entirety of the argument you have left is literally copying what I've said and projecting your own failings then it's clear you don't have anything left to say.
So at this point I'm going to make it easy. I have proven that you have lied multiple times in this thread and so have no credibility left, therefore everyone can disregard anything you have to say.
Therefore, I am going to stop replying to you on this thread. Much like you are too insecure to admit you are wrong (or too limited to recognise it) we all know you are too insecure to let anyone else have the last word. So I'm going to let you have it here. Cheerio.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. There wouldn’t have been contact had Elliott not initiated, so it didn’t impede him.
2. What? I said I gave you short answers, is that not correct?
3. There was no need to reply at that point. You just wanted to argue.
4. You’re wrong and you can’t admit it.
As usual, you start something you can’t finish and you have to try and make it all about me.
It’s half 8 in the morning and you’re a raging mess already.
posted on 9/4/24
There wouldn’t have been contact had Elliott not initiated, so it didn’t impede him.
=====
posted on 9/4/24
Imagine purposely dragging your leg to ensure you can throw yourself on the floor, to then claim you've been impeded.
posted on 9/4/24
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
There wouldn’t have been contact had Elliott not initiated, so it didn’t impede him.
=====
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Funny that Winston is berating me for responding to emojis when he has then responded to your comment which was an emoji, isn't it?
Page 5 of 8
6 | 7 | 8