comment by LordDowlias (U3236)
posted 1 minute ago
And I suggest you take this little bit of info in:-<br abp="388"><br abp="389">"A foul is an unfair act by a player, deemed by the referee to contravene the game's laws. Fouls are punished by the award of a free-kick (direct or indirect depending on the offence) or penalty kick to the opposing team. "<br abp="390">
----------------------------------------------------------------------

That's really useful - I had no idea.

Thanks very much.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 53 seconds ago
LordDowlias (U3236)

Thanks.

If Dier had pulled his shirt, that would be relevant.

But he didn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, and I agree, but Dier clearly put his arm/hand across Joe Allen which is an unfair act, I agree that Allen milked it for all it was worth, but what was the ref supposed to do ? Players are not allowed to raise the hands/arms to obstruct other players, if they do then it's a foul. If this happened outside of the box and a free kick was given, like it is abou twenty times per game, we would not be talking about this now.

LordDowlias (U3236)

You're just making up the rules. None of what you said actually appears in the laws of the game.

We wouldn't be talking about it outside the box because it wouldn't have led to a penalty at 1-0.

Go figure.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 27 seconds ago
LordDowlias (U3236)

You're just making up the rules. None of what you said actually appears in the laws of the game.

We wouldn't be talking about it outside the box because it wouldn't have led to a penalty at 1-0.

Go figure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I think you will find that I am not making up any rules, I psted you a link with the rules on there, did I make that up as well. If you take in what I said, if it happened outside the box and a free kick was given, we would not be talking about it, as we would deem it as a soft free kick, but because it was inside the box it was a pen, and a correct call, anyway I'm out of this, you are too blinkered to see that the only things wrong with the incident was Allen over exagerrating waht happened, anf Die actualy doing what he did, there is no reasoning with you ta-ra.

"Liverpool player dives for penalty" shocker.

" Dier clearly put his arm/hand across Joe Allen which is an unfair act"

Made up.

" Players are not allowed to raise the hands/arms to obstruct other players"

Made up.


Rather than reading Yahoo answers or Wikipedia, try reading the Laws of the Game.

You'll find that the law you're trying to find Dier guilty of is holding an opponent.

Did he hold him? No.

Did he prevent Allen from moving past? No.

So yes, ta-ra, and thanks for the insight.

"Liverpool player dives for penalty" shocker.
=========================================================
Yes, I think that's Winston's real point, if he was being honest, Jimmy.

Liverpool topped the Fair Play league last season, but no doubt that's because the refs and the FA are biased towards Liverpool, and pick on your team. Usual stuff.

( United were 14th)

Wessie Road (U10652)

Please don't go down that road - you seem decent enough, and it's pathetic to suggest it's an anti Liverpool thing.

I happily criticise United players where I think it's necessary.

" no doubt that's because the refs and the FA are biased towards Liverpool, and pick on your team. Usual stuff."

That is absolute nonsense.

Never said anything of the sort, and have even defended Liverpool when such stuff is said.

Grow up.

Admin1 knows

Choose to ignore the reasoning given to the same point earlier on, and then repeat the point...

... I guess it helps make a childish dig on a forum, if that's what you have set out to do.

Don't forget that admin banned you from the Liverpool board princess.

This veneer of impartiality you like to portray, is horribly transparent.

Pâî§Lë¥'š _P䆆ê®ÑëÐ_ÐrÊåm§ (U1541)

Bans from the Liverpool board are issued because it's easier for the admins to deal with the whining coming from some Liverpool fans than it is to investigate every matter independently.

Unfortunately there are a handful of Liverpool fans who are too childish to discuss anything that is remotely negative towards Liverpool.

I'm not impartial - never claimed to be.

But equally, I'm not writing this article, for example, as an attempt to have a dig at Liverpool.

It's just a talking point. It happens to involve a Liverpool player.

One thing I don't do is join threads just to derail the subject and behave like a child.

Sadly, you can't say the same thing at this point.

Please don't go down that road - you seem decent enough, and it's pathetic to suggest it's an anti Liverpool thing.
==========================================================
Winston, I was having a proper debate with you, until you started denying you argued things that were actually quoted from your posts ...at that point, I realised that rational debate was a futile activity on this thread.

( and then you had the cheek to try and patronise me with the view that I “could be capable of a reasonable discussion” )

Your point of view on this has been repeated ad nauseam. You think Dier only tapped Allen on the arm (presumably to ask him where he was going), and that the ref was conned by Allen’s reaction, and anybody who thinks Allen may have been impeded, and that the ref might have seen this for for himself must be “deluded”.

YOU’ve decided Allen wasn’t impeded, YOU’ve decided the referee’s decision was influenced by Allen’s reaction, and all you’re doing is repeatedly stating these as facts, and dismissing as “naive”, “deluded”, etc. anybody who tries to argue otherwise.

Once you started adding denials to this slightly familiar cocktail (of things that I could see in black and white you'd written), it was time to give up.

"Talking points" regarding Liverpool players is your chosen specialised subject, as clarified by the admin.

For you (like myself), the majority of your discussions on this forum involve LFC. The difference is that I'm a Liverpool supporter an you are not. This obsession is unhealthy for a rival supporter and detracts from any point you are trying to make.

Liverpool fans are a different breed.

As we know, they would claim a penalty if somebody farted near their attacker and he fell over.

The can not accept that their club is treated more favourably by referees than any other.

Their players are regularly rewarded for diving/cheating, so it is no wonder they continue to do so.

#LFC always the victims.

Billy has

The can not accept that their club is treated more favourably by referees than any other.

Their players are regularly rewarded for diving/cheating, so it is no wonder they continue to do so.
===========================================================
Surely that makes YOU the victims, Billy?
I'm quite happy for the refs to treat us more favourably than any other cub, if that's what they do.

comment by Wessie Road (U10652)
posted 2 minutes ago
The can not accept that their club is treated more favourably by referees than any other.

Their players are regularly rewarded for diving/cheating, so it is no wonder they continue to do so.
===========================================================
Surely that makes YOU the victims, Billy?
I'm quite happy for the refs to treat us more favourably than any other cub, if that's what they do.


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

Liverpool fans will have us believe they are always the victims, when in fact it is quite the opposite.

Liverpool fans will have us believe they are always the victims, when in fact it is quite the opposite.
=======================================================
I don't even think you can see the irony, can you Billy?
Whoosh........

You obviously love a sweeping generalisation Billy.

Perhaps you could be a little more specific?

Winston

So just to be clear. You wrote this article because;

1) You hate diving in the game.

2) It's not all about Liverpool.

So if I trawl through your post history I'll find comment(s), showing the same outrage, about Youngs dive the week before last?

Comment deleted by Article Creator

"YOU’ve decided Allen wasn’t impeded, YOU’ve decided the referee’s decision was influenced by Allen’s reaction, and all you’re doing is repeatedly stating these as facts, and dismissing as “naive”, “deluded”, etc. anybody who tries to argue otherwise."

Watch the gif. Does it look as if Allen is 'impeded'?

If Allen wasn't "impeded", was it a dive?

Would that have influenced the referee?

I truly don't see how Allen has got away with this.

Wessie your posts here are hilarious and quite accurate as well.
This is a funny one because surely the officials cannot be seen to be condoning such use of the hands especially in open play. It is and should be an infringement to use your hands to physically impede or even distract your opponent. Its the rules. When a player does one of those leg breaking studs showing tackles but misses the opponent the referee will still punish that even though no contact at all was made. The player tackled may stay on his feet or feign injury and roll around but the referees first priority will be the illegal act, the studs challenge. You cant start crying about it if the ref takes action. The player knows exactly what he is doing and knows that its not allowed and he intends to impede/distract/put off his opponent in a manner not consistent with football.
Its a foul though a soft one. I certainly wouldn't have shed a tear if it hadn't been given but there you go.

Wessie Road (U10652)

Let me assure you, you are the sole reason our conversation has nosedived.

Go back and read it.

I have repeatedly told you that calling Dier's reaction instinctive was nothing to do with whether it was a penalty or not. It was simply as part of a response to people asking why he did it.

I didn't deny saying it. I denied using it as reasoning for it not being as penalty.

You seem utterly incapable of reading basic sentences.
I haven't decided the referee was influenced by Allen's reaction - I said it's naïve to believe he wasn't.

That's my opinion.

If you disagree, maybe you can explain why, rather than throwing your toys as far from your pram as possible.

You've continually misinterpreted comments and jumped so quickly in a response that you've not had time to realise that what you're saying is nonsense.

You're also making up the laws of the game.

Perhaps read back and look out for your mistakes. Then, when you've realised them, come back and we can have a sensible discussion.

I notice you didn't come back on the point that I did not say that a player has to go to ground for it to be a penalty, as you claim.

Could it be you're getting frustrated as you realise you've made a mistake but don't have the maturity to admit it?

Seems that way.