FIFA Laws of the Game 2014-15
Direct free kick
A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
trips or attempts to trip an opponent
jumps at an opponent
charges an opponent
strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
pushes an opponent
tackles an opponent
A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following three offences:
holds an opponent
spits at an opponent
handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)
A direct free kick is taken from the place where the offence occurred (see Law 13 - Position of free kick).
Penalty kick
A penalty kick is awarded if any of the above ten offences is committed by a player inside his own penalty area, irrespective of the position of the ball, provided it is in play.
Holding is clearly defined as preventing an opponent from passing / getting around him, by use of the arm, hand or body.
=========
Take your advice and read closely. It says including.
Anyway i am out. its not funny anymore. gotten old.
Mamba - Here's one for you to suck on - Real Sosobad (U1282) (U13041)
I think the point you're missing is the definition of holding, as set out by Fifa.
It's not good enough for you to decide what holding is or isn't. It's clearly laid out in the definition I've provided.
I think that's the crux of the point.
Mamba - Here's one for you to suck on - Real Sosobad (U1282) (U13041)
The Fifa definition of holding clearly shows that Dier didn't commit that offence.
Of course, that particular part of the debate ignores the other glaring problem with your view... Dier didn't actually hold Allen.
He didn't grab his shirt, he didn't grab his body. However you define hold, Dier didn't do it.
That's before we even get to the Fifa definition!
I understand you disagree. Fine, but the laws are quite clear for all to read and they clearly don't support your view.
At the very least, you should perhaps accept that your bravado on this thread has been rather misplaced.
Right let's just stick to this foul to make it as simple as possible for you.
http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct
A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following three offences:
1) Holds an opponent.
And no you can't add your definition of holding to the rules it's up to the referee not you.
End of story, end of argument.
Going back to square one wont help us. I cant be laughing so hard again my sides are hurting.
It was not a foul. The rules allow players to do that with their hands. Just let it go now. I understand you have been scarred here but just let it go. My bravado is because I won, again....
Sir Robert Paisley (U3823)
It's not my definition.
It's Fifa's, and is from their web site.
End of argument indeed.
Mamba - Here's one for you to suck on - Real Sosobad (U1282) (U13041)
And back you go to the bravado nonsense when you can't respond to the point.
You must be embarrassed by that.
Wessie accused me of saying things that I haven't said, and then used it as a reason to take the conversation off topic.
===========================================================
Winston, I know I’m wasting my time, here, but I may as well let you know why I’ve decided you’re not worth debating with.
This is the kind of nonsense you were coming up with:
“I haven't decided the referee was influenced by Allen's reaction - I said it's naïve to believe he wasn't.”
WTF kind of argument is that? How can anybody argue with that kind of bullsh.it? You just get yourself wrapped up in pointless semantics about whether it does imply that meaning, and you seem willing to argue the toss about it for months on end.
I gave up debating with you because I can’t be @rsed with that kind of windbaggery, Winston.
“It’s naive to believe he wasn’t influenced, but it’s possible I’m naive, because I haven’t decided”.......it’s pure bullsh.it
“he isn't the first to be conned by a cheat”...how can you decide that he ‘conned’ the referee if you “haven’t decided the referee was influenced by Allen’s reaction?”
It’s all circular horse-sh.it, Winston. You have your own debating rules, which only you know, and which all seem designed to close down any debate. “I did not say that a player has to go to ground for it to be a penalty”....no, and I never accused you of it.
I was illustrating a point, but then you went off on one about how you never said it, I should stick to what you say, I should learn how to debate, etc (which I imagine you say quite a lot because you have your own personal rules for closing down any debate).
When I did reply to something you said, you closed that down by saying it “isn’t part of the debate”. WTF?....once you’ve said it, it’s part of the debate. How do we know which bits we are allowed to reply to? When all else fails, just flatly contradict yourself: “I haven’t decided the referee was influenced by Allen’s reaction”......” I do think he was influenced - I never said otherwise.”
How is that not a contradiction, ffs?
All of this is peppered with insults implying that you are the only one who knows how to debate:“You seem utterly incapable of reading basic sentences”,“throwing your toys as far from your pram as possible”,“You really don’t stop and think before you post”, etc.
That’s when you are not lecturing people on not knowing the Laws of the Game as well as you:
“In footballing context, 'impede' is generally used as part of the obstruction rule”
It hasn’t been called an “obstruction rule” since 1997, Winston, 17 years ago, ffs. (let me guess, that’s not what you meant).
The only point you have is that you’ve seen the incident, declared that it’s not a penalty, and that anybody who disagrees is “deluded”or “naive” (a group that includes Martin Keown, on MOTD, Henry Winter of the Telegraph (a Chelsea fan), Martin Lipton of the Mirror (a Spurs fan).
(I couldn’t find too may sources who cared either way, the consensus seeming to be that it had very little bearing on the result anyway).
What sums it up is this:
“It's a shame that a small section of Liverpool fans highjack any thread that criticises a Liverpool player in anyway, turn it into an argument and then try to blame someone else because the thread is mess.”
What do you mean, “turn it into an argument?”
Did you create an article for debate, or just so that people can agree with you? And “criticises a Liverpool player”...who, on here, is defending Allen?
Just about everybody agrees that he exaggerated his reaction, and nobody's praising him for it, so it has nothing to do with whether you criticised Allen, the debate is about whether it should have been a penalty, which you ought to have some inkling of, since it’s your fackin article, yer eejit
Comment deleted by Article Creator
Winston.
I'm not talking about the wording on paper.
I'm talking about how the referee interprets those words such as 'preventing him from moving past'
As I said...
it's up to the referee not you.
And yes lad,
End of argument indeed.
Wessie
It's called Obfuscation.
You state your belief as fact and then waffle so much convoluted shít that no-one can actually follow the argument so they just give in.
Winston is constantly doing it in most of his threads.
Wessie Road (U10652)
Wow, quite a rant. And all because you got a couple of things badly wrong.
You seem to have an issue with how an opinion works.
I do think the referee was influenced by the dive, and I do think anyone who believes referees aren't influenced by dives like that are naïve.
That doesn't mean I claim it as a fact, does it?
You became fixated on me not knowing whether the referee was influenced or not. Of course I don't know if he was. That kinda goes without saying, unless I change my username to Mystic Winston.
“I did not say that a player has to go to ground for it to be a penalty”....no, and I never accused you of it."
Actually, you implied it quite clearly here:
"You are arguing that the offence wasn't enough to bring Allen to the ground...which I agree with, but that's an irrelevant criterion for deciding a penalty."
I never said anything about a player going to ground as the criterion for a penalty. You made it up, and now you're denying it. Well there it is, in black and white.
Why make the original comment? Given that it bears no relevance to any of my points, what purpose did it serve? If you post a message to me telling me that a player going to ground is not the criterion for a penalty, is that not directly implying that I think it is, and thus need correcting?
The reason the 'instinctive' comment is not part of the debate has been explained to you. It was never part of my reasoning for why it's not a penalty, therefore it has no place in debating whether it was a penalty or not.
You kept going on about it, for no apparent reason.
Someone said Dier was stupid for putting his hand out and asked why he did it. I made a quick remark that it can be instinctive to reach for someone as they came past.
Not a big deal, and absolutely nothing to do with the reasons for why I don't believe it was a foul. Do you get that?
You spend quite a long time moaning about things I've said to you.
Said without a hint of irony. If you read back your original posts and genuinely don't understand why the conversation nosedived, then I can't help you. It's all there.
The criticism of those handful of Liverpool fans was spot on. Some of them have come on the thread and just gone straight for the abuse. No mention of the subject at all.
Are you defending those people?
If you want to get back to the actual subject then let me know, because this feels like a bit of a car crash of a conversation.
I think you completely misinterpreted things that I said and jumped on them too aggressively. I would say I probably reacted a bit over the top to you too.
Sir Robert Paisley (U3823)
How predictable that you don't admit your mistake.
There is a clear definition of holding, as laid out by Fifa.
You're now trying to say that the referee could have interpreted that Dier did indeed stop Allen getting past, by use of his hand?
That is laughable.
People wonder why things become an argument on here, but this is a classic example of when someone just cannot admit the point.
You first claim it's my definition, then backtrack to say we're not talking about the definition 'written down'.
That's the rule.
Plain and simple, and you know it.
'it's up to the referee, not you'
Thus now implying that every refereeing decision is correct, and referees don't make mistakes and aren't influenced by blatant cheating.
End of the argument?
You bet.
comment by Winston (U16525) posted 14 minutes ago
'it's up to the referee, not you'
"Thus now implying that every refereeing decision is correct, and referees don't make mistakes and aren't influenced by blatant cheating."
You can accuse the ref of whatever you want in your childish little rants lad but as I said when it comes down to interpreting the rules and the definition of the rules it's up to the ref.
Don't like that?
Unlucky, get over it.
End of argument?
No that was ages ago, this is just you squirming sunshine.
Sir Robert Paisley (U3823)
haha - you're so desperate, aren't you?
The referee made a mistake, and I suspect that is because of Allen's cheating.
The rule is quite clear, as is the definition of what holding means in a footballing sense. (It's also clear to you, now you realise it's Fifa's definition and not mine!)
Dier did not prevent Allen getting past or around him.
He didn't hold him.
Therefore, it's not a foul.
The referee doesn't decide the definition of the rule. He does interpret the challenge in line with the rules, correct. But the mere fact that he gave the decision is not proof of anything, because referees - by their own admission - make mistakes.
If you had an interview with the referee saying that after seeing the replays, he still thinks he was right, then that would be a bit different.
But the fact is Dier didn't foul Allen, going by Fifa's set of laws. That much is clear, isn't it?
Indeed, the argument never really started. It just took a while for you to learn the rules, and now we're stuck in an endless cycle because you can't admit it.
What's embarrassing is you started out copying and pasting the rules, thinking you were right. You've now been shown why you were wrong, so all you have left is to say that ultimately it's the refs call.
Dear me.
Wow, quite a rant. And all because you got a couple of things badly wrong.
============================================================
I didn’t get anything wrong, Winston, you’re just ball-aching about semantics again.
“"You are arguing that the offence wasn't enough to bring Allen to the ground...which I agree with, but that's an irrelevant criterion for deciding a penalty."
Where in that sentence do I accuse you of saying “that a player has to go to ground for it to be a penalty”? I just made the point that he doesn’t, I didn’t say you said it.
What I did imply was that you don’t believe “the offence was enough to bring Allen to the ground”....am I wrong in assuming that?
So which is it? Do you believe the offence was enough to bring Allen to the ground? (I even said I agreed that it wasn’t)
But this is all part of your desire to get the debate bogged down in ball-aching semantics, again.
So tell me, what are we to make of this? Are you going to argue that you got this right?
“I haven’t decided the referee was influenced by Allen’s reaction”......”
“I do think he was influenced - I never said otherwise.”
No contradiction, there, then?
Wessie Road (U10652)
Yes, you did.
You said I was arguing that the offence wasn't enough to bring Allen to the ground.
I wasn't arguing that point at all.
That's your first mistake.
The second is a little more ambiguous. But as I asked in my previous post - why tell me something I already know? Is that not an implication that you think you need to tell me that, because I don't know?
It was never part of my point as to why it wasn't a penalty, and I genuinely don't know why you raised it.
But, agreed, I was over the top in telling you that, so for that at least - you have my apologies.
I have no desire to get the debate bogged down. That is quite a statement, coming from you, don't you think? Read your posts back!
Regarding the apparent contradiction, I think you miss my point - probably because I didn't make it very well.
“I haven’t decided the referee was influenced by Allen’s reaction"
This was a response to you saying that I have just decided that the ref was influenced by Allen's reaction and used it as part of my argument (or words to that effect).
What I was trying to say was that I haven't 'just decided' anything. I'm just giving my opinion as to what contributed to the referee getting it wrong.
Hope that helps explain it. Sometimes words online can be more difficult than saying something, where tone is required.
"But this is all part of your desire to get the debate bogged down in ball-aching semantics, again."
Just on this point... you make a lot of points in your posts.
To my detriment, I am usually quite keen to address them all, specifically.
This can then make the debate a bit long winded.
It's not an attempt to make anything about semantics, but I appreciate why it can become like that.
However, I don't think you're completely innocent of that one either!
Oh dear still sticking to the made up lies and verbal diareoah.
No surprise there then.
Maybe when you grow up you'll realise that how one person reads something and interprets a definition and how another person does aren't always going to be the same.
But I doubt it.
Really you already know that but admitting it would be the same as admitting how much you've been made to look a fool on these pages.
Yes lad the definition of the rule is quite clear. I'll even paste it here for you.
'Holding an opponent includes the act of preventing him from moving past or around using the hands, the arms or the body'
The fact that you're too stupid to realise that the referee has interpreted the defenders actions as having prevented him from moving past is your problem not mine.
Clearly he feels Allen was, however temporarily, prevented from moving past.
That's his interpretation of the rules and the incident.
The fact that it isn't your interpretation doesn't matter.
That's because you don't matter.
The ref made the decision and no he isn't wrong because that's how he interpreted it.
No-one gives a fúck about you lad.
the only embarrassing thing, the glaringly embarrassing thing about all this is you and your petty little anti-LFC spite (" Boo Hoo but the world doesn't revolve around Liverpool" - Put it in for you lad ) coming on here, a manu fan commenting on a spurs board to have a dig at LFC because you've been banned, quite rightly from our board.
(Note to self - Don't forget to add condescending little 'dear me' on end of comment to try and make me look cleverer )
You said I was arguing that the offence wasn't enough to bring Allen to the ground.
I wasn't arguing that point at all.
==========================================================
So what is your criterion for arguing that Allen “conned the ref”? How did he “con the ref”?
By going to ground when there wasn’t enough force in the contact, perhaps?
==========================================================
It was never part of my point as to why it wasn't a penalty, and I genuinely don't know why you raised it.
==========================================================
No I know you don’t. It was part of a wider point, but you missed it.
==========================================================
What I was trying to say was that I haven't 'just decided' anything. I'm just giving my opinion as to what contributed to the referee getting it wrong.
==========================================================
How can you have an opinion about something before you’ve decided? It’s not an “apparent contradiction” at all, is it?
This is what I mean about semantics, you’re splitting hairs about the difference between having decided something and having an opinion about it, as if there’s some massive gulf in difference.
==========================================================
I have no desire to get the debate bogged down. That is quite a statement, coming from you, don't you think? Read your posts back!
==========================================================
You mean my posts are long?
That’s not what I accused you of, I accused you of getting bogged down in ball-aching semantics. The only time I’ve done that is to show you where you’ve done it.
A flat contradiction is not semantics, it’s a demonstration that you’re just making stuff up as you go along, which makes debate all but impossible.
comment by Pâî§Lë¥'š _P䆆ê®ÑëÐ_ÐrÊåm§ (U1541)
posted 1 hour ago
Comment deleted by Article Creator
=======
If Dier did not hold Allen perhap he was giving him a chest massage.
Sign in if you want to comment
Joe Allen's dive
Page 10 of 16
11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15
posted on 3/9/14
FIFA Laws of the Game 2014-15
Direct free kick
A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
trips or attempts to trip an opponent
jumps at an opponent
charges an opponent
strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
pushes an opponent
tackles an opponent
A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following three offences:
holds an opponent
spits at an opponent
handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)
A direct free kick is taken from the place where the offence occurred (see Law 13 - Position of free kick).
Penalty kick
A penalty kick is awarded if any of the above ten offences is committed by a player inside his own penalty area, irrespective of the position of the ball, provided it is in play.
posted on 3/9/14
Holding is clearly defined as preventing an opponent from passing / getting around him, by use of the arm, hand or body.
=========
Take your advice and read closely. It says including.
posted on 3/9/14
Anyway i am out. its not funny anymore. gotten old.
posted on 3/9/14
Mamba - Here's one for you to suck on - Real Sosobad (U1282) (U13041)
I think the point you're missing is the definition of holding, as set out by Fifa.
It's not good enough for you to decide what holding is or isn't. It's clearly laid out in the definition I've provided.
I think that's the crux of the point.
posted on 3/9/14
Mamba - Here's one for you to suck on - Real Sosobad (U1282) (U13041)
The Fifa definition of holding clearly shows that Dier didn't commit that offence.
Of course, that particular part of the debate ignores the other glaring problem with your view... Dier didn't actually hold Allen.
He didn't grab his shirt, he didn't grab his body. However you define hold, Dier didn't do it.
That's before we even get to the Fifa definition!
I understand you disagree. Fine, but the laws are quite clear for all to read and they clearly don't support your view.
At the very least, you should perhaps accept that your bravado on this thread has been rather misplaced.
posted on 3/9/14
Right let's just stick to this foul to make it as simple as possible for you.
http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct
A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following three offences:
1) Holds an opponent.
And no you can't add your definition of holding to the rules it's up to the referee not you.
End of story, end of argument.
posted on 3/9/14
Going back to square one wont help us. I cant be laughing so hard again my sides are hurting.
It was not a foul. The rules allow players to do that with their hands. Just let it go now. I understand you have been scarred here but just let it go. My bravado is because I won, again....
posted on 3/9/14
Sir Robert Paisley (U3823)
It's not my definition.
It's Fifa's, and is from their web site.
End of argument indeed.
posted on 3/9/14
Mamba - Here's one for you to suck on - Real Sosobad (U1282) (U13041)
And back you go to the bravado nonsense when you can't respond to the point.
You must be embarrassed by that.
posted on 3/9/14
Wessie accused me of saying things that I haven't said, and then used it as a reason to take the conversation off topic.
===========================================================
Winston, I know I’m wasting my time, here, but I may as well let you know why I’ve decided you’re not worth debating with.
This is the kind of nonsense you were coming up with:
“I haven't decided the referee was influenced by Allen's reaction - I said it's naïve to believe he wasn't.”
WTF kind of argument is that? How can anybody argue with that kind of bullsh.it? You just get yourself wrapped up in pointless semantics about whether it does imply that meaning, and you seem willing to argue the toss about it for months on end.
I gave up debating with you because I can’t be @rsed with that kind of windbaggery, Winston.
“It’s naive to believe he wasn’t influenced, but it’s possible I’m naive, because I haven’t decided”.......it’s pure bullsh.it
“he isn't the first to be conned by a cheat”...how can you decide that he ‘conned’ the referee if you “haven’t decided the referee was influenced by Allen’s reaction?”
It’s all circular horse-sh.it, Winston. You have your own debating rules, which only you know, and which all seem designed to close down any debate. “I did not say that a player has to go to ground for it to be a penalty”....no, and I never accused you of it.
I was illustrating a point, but then you went off on one about how you never said it, I should stick to what you say, I should learn how to debate, etc (which I imagine you say quite a lot because you have your own personal rules for closing down any debate).
When I did reply to something you said, you closed that down by saying it “isn’t part of the debate”. WTF?....once you’ve said it, it’s part of the debate. How do we know which bits we are allowed to reply to? When all else fails, just flatly contradict yourself: “I haven’t decided the referee was influenced by Allen’s reaction”......” I do think he was influenced - I never said otherwise.”
How is that not a contradiction, ffs?
All of this is peppered with insults implying that you are the only one who knows how to debate:“You seem utterly incapable of reading basic sentences”,“throwing your toys as far from your pram as possible”,“You really don’t stop and think before you post”, etc.
That’s when you are not lecturing people on not knowing the Laws of the Game as well as you:
“In footballing context, 'impede' is generally used as part of the obstruction rule”
It hasn’t been called an “obstruction rule” since 1997, Winston, 17 years ago, ffs. (let me guess, that’s not what you meant).
The only point you have is that you’ve seen the incident, declared that it’s not a penalty, and that anybody who disagrees is “deluded”or “naive” (a group that includes Martin Keown, on MOTD, Henry Winter of the Telegraph (a Chelsea fan), Martin Lipton of the Mirror (a Spurs fan).
(I couldn’t find too may sources who cared either way, the consensus seeming to be that it had very little bearing on the result anyway).
What sums it up is this:
“It's a shame that a small section of Liverpool fans highjack any thread that criticises a Liverpool player in anyway, turn it into an argument and then try to blame someone else because the thread is mess.”
What do you mean, “turn it into an argument?”
Did you create an article for debate, or just so that people can agree with you? And “criticises a Liverpool player”...who, on here, is defending Allen?
Just about everybody agrees that he exaggerated his reaction, and nobody's praising him for it, so it has nothing to do with whether you criticised Allen, the debate is about whether it should have been a penalty, which you ought to have some inkling of, since it’s your fackin article, yer eejit
posted on 3/9/14
Comment deleted by Article Creator
posted on 3/9/14
Winston.
I'm not talking about the wording on paper.
I'm talking about how the referee interprets those words such as 'preventing him from moving past'
As I said...
it's up to the referee not you.
And yes lad,
End of argument indeed.
posted on 3/9/14
Wessie
It's called Obfuscation.
You state your belief as fact and then waffle so much convoluted shít that no-one can actually follow the argument so they just give in.
Winston is constantly doing it in most of his threads.
posted on 3/9/14
Wessie Road (U10652)
Wow, quite a rant. And all because you got a couple of things badly wrong.
You seem to have an issue with how an opinion works.
I do think the referee was influenced by the dive, and I do think anyone who believes referees aren't influenced by dives like that are naïve.
That doesn't mean I claim it as a fact, does it?
You became fixated on me not knowing whether the referee was influenced or not. Of course I don't know if he was. That kinda goes without saying, unless I change my username to Mystic Winston.
“I did not say that a player has to go to ground for it to be a penalty”....no, and I never accused you of it."
Actually, you implied it quite clearly here:
"You are arguing that the offence wasn't enough to bring Allen to the ground...which I agree with, but that's an irrelevant criterion for deciding a penalty."
I never said anything about a player going to ground as the criterion for a penalty. You made it up, and now you're denying it. Well there it is, in black and white.
Why make the original comment? Given that it bears no relevance to any of my points, what purpose did it serve? If you post a message to me telling me that a player going to ground is not the criterion for a penalty, is that not directly implying that I think it is, and thus need correcting?
The reason the 'instinctive' comment is not part of the debate has been explained to you. It was never part of my reasoning for why it's not a penalty, therefore it has no place in debating whether it was a penalty or not.
You kept going on about it, for no apparent reason.
Someone said Dier was stupid for putting his hand out and asked why he did it. I made a quick remark that it can be instinctive to reach for someone as they came past.
Not a big deal, and absolutely nothing to do with the reasons for why I don't believe it was a foul. Do you get that?
You spend quite a long time moaning about things I've said to you.
Said without a hint of irony. If you read back your original posts and genuinely don't understand why the conversation nosedived, then I can't help you. It's all there.
The criticism of those handful of Liverpool fans was spot on. Some of them have come on the thread and just gone straight for the abuse. No mention of the subject at all.
Are you defending those people?
If you want to get back to the actual subject then let me know, because this feels like a bit of a car crash of a conversation.
I think you completely misinterpreted things that I said and jumped on them too aggressively. I would say I probably reacted a bit over the top to you too.
posted on 3/9/14
Sir Robert Paisley (U3823)
How predictable that you don't admit your mistake.
There is a clear definition of holding, as laid out by Fifa.
You're now trying to say that the referee could have interpreted that Dier did indeed stop Allen getting past, by use of his hand?
That is laughable.
People wonder why things become an argument on here, but this is a classic example of when someone just cannot admit the point.
You first claim it's my definition, then backtrack to say we're not talking about the definition 'written down'.
That's the rule.
Plain and simple, and you know it.
posted on 3/9/14
'it's up to the referee, not you'
Thus now implying that every refereeing decision is correct, and referees don't make mistakes and aren't influenced by blatant cheating.
End of the argument?
You bet.
posted on 3/9/14
comment by Winston (U16525) posted 14 minutes ago
'it's up to the referee, not you'
"Thus now implying that every refereeing decision is correct, and referees don't make mistakes and aren't influenced by blatant cheating."
You can accuse the ref of whatever you want in your childish little rants lad but as I said when it comes down to interpreting the rules and the definition of the rules it's up to the ref.
Don't like that?
Unlucky, get over it.
End of argument?
No that was ages ago, this is just you squirming sunshine.
posted on 3/9/14
Sir Robert Paisley (U3823)
haha - you're so desperate, aren't you?
The referee made a mistake, and I suspect that is because of Allen's cheating.
The rule is quite clear, as is the definition of what holding means in a footballing sense. (It's also clear to you, now you realise it's Fifa's definition and not mine!)
Dier did not prevent Allen getting past or around him.
He didn't hold him.
Therefore, it's not a foul.
The referee doesn't decide the definition of the rule. He does interpret the challenge in line with the rules, correct. But the mere fact that he gave the decision is not proof of anything, because referees - by their own admission - make mistakes.
If you had an interview with the referee saying that after seeing the replays, he still thinks he was right, then that would be a bit different.
But the fact is Dier didn't foul Allen, going by Fifa's set of laws. That much is clear, isn't it?
Indeed, the argument never really started. It just took a while for you to learn the rules, and now we're stuck in an endless cycle because you can't admit it.
What's embarrassing is you started out copying and pasting the rules, thinking you were right. You've now been shown why you were wrong, so all you have left is to say that ultimately it's the refs call.
Dear me.
posted on 3/9/14
Oh my days
posted on 3/9/14
Wow, quite a rant. And all because you got a couple of things badly wrong.
============================================================
I didn’t get anything wrong, Winston, you’re just ball-aching about semantics again.
“"You are arguing that the offence wasn't enough to bring Allen to the ground...which I agree with, but that's an irrelevant criterion for deciding a penalty."
Where in that sentence do I accuse you of saying “that a player has to go to ground for it to be a penalty”? I just made the point that he doesn’t, I didn’t say you said it.
What I did imply was that you don’t believe “the offence was enough to bring Allen to the ground”....am I wrong in assuming that?
So which is it? Do you believe the offence was enough to bring Allen to the ground? (I even said I agreed that it wasn’t)
But this is all part of your desire to get the debate bogged down in ball-aching semantics, again.
So tell me, what are we to make of this? Are you going to argue that you got this right?
“I haven’t decided the referee was influenced by Allen’s reaction”......”
“I do think he was influenced - I never said otherwise.”
No contradiction, there, then?
posted on 3/9/14
Wessie Road (U10652)
Yes, you did.
You said I was arguing that the offence wasn't enough to bring Allen to the ground.
I wasn't arguing that point at all.
That's your first mistake.
The second is a little more ambiguous. But as I asked in my previous post - why tell me something I already know? Is that not an implication that you think you need to tell me that, because I don't know?
It was never part of my point as to why it wasn't a penalty, and I genuinely don't know why you raised it.
But, agreed, I was over the top in telling you that, so for that at least - you have my apologies.
I have no desire to get the debate bogged down. That is quite a statement, coming from you, don't you think? Read your posts back!
Regarding the apparent contradiction, I think you miss my point - probably because I didn't make it very well.
“I haven’t decided the referee was influenced by Allen’s reaction"
This was a response to you saying that I have just decided that the ref was influenced by Allen's reaction and used it as part of my argument (or words to that effect).
What I was trying to say was that I haven't 'just decided' anything. I'm just giving my opinion as to what contributed to the referee getting it wrong.
Hope that helps explain it. Sometimes words online can be more difficult than saying something, where tone is required.
posted on 3/9/14
"But this is all part of your desire to get the debate bogged down in ball-aching semantics, again."
Just on this point... you make a lot of points in your posts.
To my detriment, I am usually quite keen to address them all, specifically.
This can then make the debate a bit long winded.
It's not an attempt to make anything about semantics, but I appreciate why it can become like that.
However, I don't think you're completely innocent of that one either!
posted on 3/9/14
Oh dear still sticking to the made up lies and verbal diareoah.
No surprise there then.
Maybe when you grow up you'll realise that how one person reads something and interprets a definition and how another person does aren't always going to be the same.
But I doubt it.
Really you already know that but admitting it would be the same as admitting how much you've been made to look a fool on these pages.
Yes lad the definition of the rule is quite clear. I'll even paste it here for you.
'Holding an opponent includes the act of preventing him from moving past or around using the hands, the arms or the body'
The fact that you're too stupid to realise that the referee has interpreted the defenders actions as having prevented him from moving past is your problem not mine.
Clearly he feels Allen was, however temporarily, prevented from moving past.
That's his interpretation of the rules and the incident.
The fact that it isn't your interpretation doesn't matter.
That's because you don't matter.
The ref made the decision and no he isn't wrong because that's how he interpreted it.
No-one gives a fúck about you lad.
the only embarrassing thing, the glaringly embarrassing thing about all this is you and your petty little anti-LFC spite (" Boo Hoo but the world doesn't revolve around Liverpool" - Put it in for you lad ) coming on here, a manu fan commenting on a spurs board to have a dig at LFC because you've been banned, quite rightly from our board.
(Note to self - Don't forget to add condescending little 'dear me' on end of comment to try and make me look cleverer )
posted on 3/9/14
You said I was arguing that the offence wasn't enough to bring Allen to the ground.
I wasn't arguing that point at all.
==========================================================
So what is your criterion for arguing that Allen “conned the ref”? How did he “con the ref”?
By going to ground when there wasn’t enough force in the contact, perhaps?
==========================================================
It was never part of my point as to why it wasn't a penalty, and I genuinely don't know why you raised it.
==========================================================
No I know you don’t. It was part of a wider point, but you missed it.
==========================================================
What I was trying to say was that I haven't 'just decided' anything. I'm just giving my opinion as to what contributed to the referee getting it wrong.
==========================================================
How can you have an opinion about something before you’ve decided? It’s not an “apparent contradiction” at all, is it?
This is what I mean about semantics, you’re splitting hairs about the difference between having decided something and having an opinion about it, as if there’s some massive gulf in difference.
==========================================================
I have no desire to get the debate bogged down. That is quite a statement, coming from you, don't you think? Read your posts back!
==========================================================
You mean my posts are long?
That’s not what I accused you of, I accused you of getting bogged down in ball-aching semantics. The only time I’ve done that is to show you where you’ve done it.
A flat contradiction is not semantics, it’s a demonstration that you’re just making stuff up as you go along, which makes debate all but impossible.
posted on 3/9/14
comment by Pâî§Lë¥'š _P䆆ê®ÑëÐ_ÐrÊåm§ (U1541)
posted 1 hour ago
Comment deleted by Article Creator
=======
If Dier did not hold Allen perhap he was giving him a chest massage.
Page 10 of 16
11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15