Toes? lol
Does the number of legs really matter?
Well I did say twice as much contact
No problem. Just wanted a good debate
So do you feel that rooney's dive was justified because he was caught slightly.???
Sir Robert Paisley
So do you feel that rooney's dive was justified because he was caught slightly.???
-----------------------------------------------
So if your saying Rooney was caught slightly then are saying Adam wasn't caught at all.
I never mentioned Adam.
Do you feel that rooney's dive was justified because he was caught slightly.???
Were you talking to me??
As I never mentioned Rooney was caught slightly??
I never said you did!
I just said do you feel that rooney's dive was justified because he was caught slightly.???
He didn't dive and there was quite a bit of contact.
You don't think that a player of his physical stature could stay on his feet after another player brushed against his legs then??
@ Sir Robert Paisley says
Brushed if thats what you want to call it,Im really glad you noticed is was his LEGS and not his little toe, so therefore he must of been entitled to fall down
Yeah, seeing as Rio clipped Adams toe nail - which means he was 'entitled' to fall according to the scousers.
I am sure Rooney could have stayed up but he probably would have given a freekick away, and as it was in the 92nd minute i doubt he could be a$$ed to stay on his feet so he just went down
"...I am sure Rooney could have stayed up..."
So you think he was justified in diving because he was caught slightly.???
Sir Robert Paisley says
Can't you see that Greg was mocking you
You thick scouse muppet, you even said yourself the guy made contact with both his legs
It was a foul therefore it was a penalty, if you change direction and are kicked on your standing leg you go down, have you ever played football?
Why are you arguing something so pointless, we were winning with seconds to go anyway.
There was contact and Rooney went down. It was right in front of the ref who deemed it worthy of a penalty.
Whether it's minimal contact, or a lot of contact is pretty irrelevant these days - most players will go down with any sort of contact, even if they could manage to stay up.
If you want to call it diving, then so be it, but then it's simply a case that most players are diving anyway.
If you have ever played football in your life you will know that if you skip past a defender in their box and they stick their leg over your two legs to stop you from going past, without touching the ball might i add.. its a 100% penalty... Whereas, the Adam incident was the softest pile of cr4p i have ever seen, but even so.. it was our own legendary Giggs fault that your dirty ugly SCHOUSHA Schhtteevie Ghherrard schoored
Sign in if you want to comment
rooney
Page 2 of 2
posted on 18/10/11
Toes? lol
Does the number of legs really matter?
posted on 18/10/11
Well I did say twice as much contact
posted on 18/10/11
No problem. Just wanted a good debate
posted on 18/10/11
Ok fella
posted on 18/10/11
So do you feel that rooney's dive was justified because he was caught slightly.???
posted on 18/10/11
Sir Robert Paisley
So do you feel that rooney's dive was justified because he was caught slightly.???
-----------------------------------------------
So if your saying Rooney was caught slightly then are saying Adam wasn't caught at all.
posted on 18/10/11
I never mentioned Adam.
Do you feel that rooney's dive was justified because he was caught slightly.???
posted on 18/10/11
Were you talking to me??
As I never mentioned Rooney was caught slightly??
posted on 18/10/11
I never said you did!
I just said do you feel that rooney's dive was justified because he was caught slightly.???
posted on 18/10/11
He didn't dive and there was quite a bit of contact.
posted on 18/10/11
You don't think that a player of his physical stature could stay on his feet after another player brushed against his legs then??
posted on 19/10/11
@ Sir Robert Paisley says
Brushed if thats what you want to call it,Im really glad you noticed is was his LEGS and not his little toe, so therefore he must of been entitled to fall down
posted on 19/10/11
Yeah, seeing as Rio clipped Adams toe nail - which means he was 'entitled' to fall according to the scousers.
I am sure Rooney could have stayed up but he probably would have given a freekick away, and as it was in the 92nd minute i doubt he could be a$$ed to stay on his feet so he just went down
posted on 19/10/11
"...I am sure Rooney could have stayed up..."
So you think he was justified in diving because he was caught slightly.???
posted on 19/10/11
Sir Robert Paisley says
Can't you see that Greg was mocking you
You thick scouse muppet, you even said yourself the guy made contact with both his legs
posted on 19/10/11
It was a foul therefore it was a penalty, if you change direction and are kicked on your standing leg you go down, have you ever played football?
Why are you arguing something so pointless, we were winning with seconds to go anyway.
posted on 19/10/11
There was contact and Rooney went down. It was right in front of the ref who deemed it worthy of a penalty.
Whether it's minimal contact, or a lot of contact is pretty irrelevant these days - most players will go down with any sort of contact, even if they could manage to stay up.
If you want to call it diving, then so be it, but then it's simply a case that most players are diving anyway.
posted on 19/10/11
If you have ever played football in your life you will know that if you skip past a defender in their box and they stick their leg over your two legs to stop you from going past, without touching the ball might i add.. its a 100% penalty... Whereas, the Adam incident was the softest pile of cr4p i have ever seen, but even so.. it was our own legendary Giggs fault that your dirty ugly SCHOUSHA Schhtteevie Ghherrard schoored
posted on 19/10/11
Page 2 of 2