The rule states that holding an opponent includes the act of preventing him from moving past or around using the hands, arms...

Winston's interpretation is holding an opponent is the act of preventing him from moving past or around using the hands, arms...

Two very different things lol. Churn out the semantics lads. That provision itself is not even in the rules themselves. Its in the interpretation of said rules which are an authoritative guide. The rules themselves provide that holding a player using your arms is a foul and punishable by a penalty if in the box.
Winston still cracking me up.

but those views can be - and have been - shown to be wrong, using the actual laws of the game.

--------------

Just an observation, but if you re-phrased the above comment along the lines of "but I have tried to show why I believe such views are wrong, using the actual laws of the game" then you might not be met with the kind of responses you have received.

Mamba - Here's one for you to suck on - Real Sosobad (U1282) (U13041)

'Holding a player using your arms'

How does that work then?

If you're going to have an attempt at getting back in the debate, please at least write something that makes sense.

What you meant to say is that the rules state that preventing someone from getting past you using your arms is a foul.

Dier didn't do that.

He also didn't hold Allen.

Let me know when you catch up.

RipleysCat (U1862)

For me, that's just pandering to people with sensitivity issues.

I have strong opinions, and I don't shy away from that.

But on this occasion, that's not what I've done. I'm not dealing in opinions here - these are facts, aren't they.

And please don't try to justify some of the responses on this thread. There are some Liverpool fans who have no intention of conversation, they are simply here to abuse.

No. The rules state that holding players is a foul. The preventing thing is not in the rules themselves.

Mamba - Here's one for you to suck on - Real Sosobad (U1282) (U13041)

Yes, holding is the general term.

It is then explained that this rule - as well as including holding - includes preventing a player getting past.

Dier didn't hold Allen.

Dier didn't prevent Allen from getting past him.

Which bit don't you understand?

In any case making contact with an opponent before
touching the ball when
tackling an opponent to
gain possession of the
ball is also a foul under the rules.
Churn out the semantics lads!!

Mamba - Here's one for you to suck on - Real Sosobad (U1282) (U13041)

Now you're trying to make out that was a tackle?

This gets better.

I think that's known as desperation.

Sorry, this is getting silly.

Nowhere in the rules does it say that it's okay to scratch your bum three times in a game either, but we can assume that's okay.

----------------

It's taken less than a handful of posts from me for you to become obstinate and condescending as a result. How about scratching bums FOUR times in a game?

"If I bought you a pint, and then said to you 'I don't see the problem with that shape glass', your first reaction would surely be 'I never said there was a problem with that shape glass'."

If you said that, I would probably laugh, then go on to enjoy the pint without ever giving your comment a second thought.

Come to think of it what was it? A tackle? Nope.
Perhaps dier was attempting a nutmeg?

RipleysCat (U1862)

haha - it was a bit of a joke! Calm down.

The point is valid though... everything that's not a foul needs to be stated? Sorry, that's not right.


I'd not really given your comment much of a thought, until you retorted with 'never said you did'.

I think if you read back, you'll see why I felt the need to clarify. The suggestion of 'having a problem' with your comments came out of the blue to me, so felt the need to clarify there was no problem.

Mamba - Here's one for you to suck on - Real Sosobad (U1282) (U13041)

It was Dier looking to get back and in doing so, making a movement with him arm towards the player.

But he pulled out, and no foul was committed.

Allen was free to run on, but chose to cheat.

I have strong opinions, and I don't shy away from that.

-----------------

You're no different from anyone else in that regard. We all have strong opinions. I've never yet seen anyone here shy away from anything they believe. This thread alone is testament to that.

"And please don't try to justify some of the responses on this thread. There are some Liverpool fans who have no intention of conversation, they are simply here to abuse."

When you first joined this site how did people react to you? How are people reacting to you now? The vitriol you've received in this thread isn't just about this thread. It's clearly more than that. You have, whether you like it or not (or simply don't care) got yourself a bad reputation on this site.

Why would anyone drafting a law use the word 'include'?
Now think about this. If it was meant to be conclusive in the manner you suggest, why then is it not conclusive the way you delude yourself into thinking it is? It would have taken the use of around two different words to make it mean what you want it to mean. Unfortunately for you it says 'includes' which leaves it open for further interpretation. Try doing some research on atleast the three major theories of interpretation of laws then come back child.

RipleysCat (U1862)

Wrong.

I've got myself a bad reputation amongst a handful of people - mainly Liverpool fans - who I believe were initially too childish to debate their club unless it was from a positive angle.

I'm not really bothered about that.

There are plenty of decent people on this site, and plenty of good conversations and debates. And there's the wonderful filter button.

There's no justification for joining a thread with the sole intention of abusing someone. The blame for that behaviour lies solely with the person being abusive, and no one else.

Mamba - Here's one for you to suck on - Real Sosobad (U1282) (U13041)

Why?

Because the basic law is 'holding'.

We all know what holding means, don't we?

The reason they have added 'includes...' into it, is because it's the most suitable place for fouls where a player isn't being held literally, but is being prevented from advancing, illegally.

So, child, read that a few times and see if it sinks in.

Then, perhaps return to insults and bravado - it seems you're better at that than you are basic understanding of the laws of football.

I think if you read back, you'll see why I felt the need to clarify. The suggestion of 'having a problem' with your comments

---------------

I never said that you have a problem with my comments. My intention with my comment was to state that *I* don't have a problem with how I responded to you. My "don't have a problem" comment was said in relation to me posting what *I* want to, not said in relation to anything you've wrote.

RipleysCat (U1862)

No, but by raising the issue of having a problem, I felt you implied that I'd done so.

You've clarified that now, so let's put it down to a misinterpretation on my part.

Not really important, is it?

Do you now accept the point re: holding?

The blame for that behaviour lies solely with the person being abusive, and no one else.

---------------

I agree. The person being abusive however probably doesn't see it as a problem for them. They just probably want to get at you because you've riled them in the past.

That's the problem with having a reputation I guess. If someone doesn't like you, then no matter how valid your opinion is, they'll express a dislike towards it. The problem for you in that respect will only ever be to have your threads continuously derailed.

Do you now accept the point re: holding?

-----------------

Remind me, I got sidetracked!!

But Allen was not being held literally but was prevented from advancing illegally. As I said a day or so ago if you do not think so then fair enough but only Allen knows. I think there was slight tug at his shoulder/chest. We know it doesn't take much contact for players to go down in the box. Dier knew this. I agree with the ref in the end because Dier attempted to gain an illegal advantage and was punished. I'm sure he will be if he does it again.

It is behaviour that referees should clamp down upon even at set pieces in my opinion. We cant have players thinking they can have a sly or cheeky tug or pull all the time.

RipleysCat (U1862)

Well, not really, because anyone who does it is filtered, and can't do so again.

I think that's what adults do.

The filter button makes it even more ridiculous. These people bleat and moan about my posts etc. yet don't just filter me.

Surely, if you don't want to read what one person has to say, don't read it? Not that difficult!

That for me sums up whether someone just enjoys arguing, insulting and generally acting like a child or not. The Internet does tend to bring that out in some people.

RipleysCat (U1862)

haha no worries.

Well firstly, attempted holding is not a foul. If it was, it would say so in the rules, as it does for kicking, tripping and striking.

Secondly, it's not interpretation to say Allen wasn't held, and he wasn't prevented from getting past Dier?

Mamba - Here's one for you to suck on - Real Sosobad (U1282) (U13041)

"but was prevented from advancing illegally"

The video evidence shows clearly that Allen wasn't prevented from getting past Dier.

I honestly don't know how you can make such a statement when the video proves that's not the case.

There was no tug. No grab.