Comment deleted by Article Creator

Sorry, wrong thread

filter queen

I don't see the problem.

Discuss the topic or leave - it's quite a simple proposition.

Behaving like a child will mean I filter you so that you can't derail the thread. Perfectly reasonable.

Liverpool players, lol, once had t-shirts printed to show support for their team mate, lmao, who they felt was wrongly accused, rofl, and Toor could have printed them lol, pmsl, rofl, lmao.

comment by Robbing_Hoody - If he asked me to I would move to Egypt just to iron Salah's socks. (U6374)
posted 2 minutes ago
Liverpool players, lol, once had t-shirts printed to show support for their team mate, lmao, who they felt was wrongly accused, rofl, and Toor could have printed them lol, pmsl, rofl, lmao.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Blimey, someone got out of bed the wrong side today.

Filtered

Robbing_Hoody - If he asked me to I would move to Egypt just to iron Salah's socks. (U6374)

It would be about time.

Winston (U16525)

You've quoted the rules which is great but there is clearly a degree of interpretation involved here. Perhaps there shouldn't be but there is. The evidence? The fact that referees interpret very similar situations differently.

I'd suggest that in the Stoke example there would be a many referees that would give the decision as well as many that wouldn't.

That's essentially the problem with quoting the rules as the truth. The reality is that the rule book is only as good as those that enforce it and at the moment it's variable.

So was it a penalty? I don't know. Genuinely don't know because the FA refs aren't applying the rules evenly. But I do know that quoting the rules and saying it's definitely not is as unhelpful and shortsighted as those pointing to other examples and saying it definitely is.

Filtering is for weak minded control freaks.

Robbing_Hoody - If he asked me to I would move to Egypt just to iron Salah's socks. (U6374)

For me, it's simply for keeping a thread on topic.

Hoody has a tendency for being a bit a of drama queen

Can Solo (U6997)

Yes - that's my whole point. It's down to interpretation.

My view is just that... my view.

"But I do know that quoting the rules and saying it's definitely not"

I did no such thing so, with respect, please read my article properly before commenting.

comment by Can Solo (U6997)
posted 10 seconds ago
Winston (U16525)

You've quoted the rules which is great but there is clearly a degree of interpretation involved here. Perhaps there shouldn't be but there is. The evidence? The fact that referees interpret very similar situations differently.

I'd suggest that in the Stoke example there would be a many referees that would give the decision as well as many that wouldn't.

That's essentially the problem with quoting the rules as the truth. The reality is that the rule book is only as good as those that enforce it and at the moment it's variable.

So was it a penalty? I don't know. Genuinely don't know because the FA refs aren't applying the rules evenly. But I do know that quoting the rules and saying it's definitely not is as unhelpful and shortsighted as those pointing to other examples and saying it definitely is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

All of that.

Seen them given was pretty much all I thought about it.

comment by dangerdog (U20986)
posted 2 minutes ago
Hoody has a tendency for being a bit a of drama queen
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Why don't you write an article about me again?

comment by Robbing_Hoody - If he asked me to I would move to Egypt just to iron Salah's socks. (U6374)
posted 8 seconds ago
comment by Can Solo (U6997)
posted 10 seconds ago
Winston (U16525)

You've quoted the rules which is great but there is clearly a degree of interpretation involved here. Perhaps there shouldn't be but there is. The evidence? The fact that referees interpret very similar situations differently.

I'd suggest that in the Stoke example there would be a many referees that would give the decision as well as many that wouldn't.

That's essentially the problem with quoting the rules as the truth. The reality is that the rule book is only as good as those that enforce it and at the moment it's variable.

So was it a penalty? I don't know. Genuinely don't know because the FA refs aren't applying the rules evenly. But I do know that quoting the rules and saying it's definitely not is as unhelpful and shortsighted as those pointing to other examples and saying it definitely is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

All of that.

Seen them given was pretty much all I thought about it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Then we are probably in agreement, it seems.

comment by Robbing_Hoody - If he asked me to I would move to Egypt just to iron Salah's socks. (U6374)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by dangerdog (U20986)
posted 2 minutes ago
Hoody has a tendency for being a bit a of drama queen
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Why don't you write an article about me again?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
May do put you may make a drama out of it again

http://www.ja606.co.uk/articles/viewArticle/387473

Has there ever been a more needy article in 606 history?

comment by dangerdog (U20986)
posted 23 seconds ago
comment by Robbing_Hoody - If he asked me to I would move to Egypt just to iron Salah's socks. (U6374)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by dangerdog (U20986)
posted 2 minutes ago
Hoody has a tendency for being a bit a of drama queen
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Why don't you write an article about me again?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
May do put you may make a drama out of it again
----------------------------------------------------------------------

What language is this please? Careful on your keyboard there lad.

Anyway thought Marriner had a great game..like Winston has correctly pointed he applied the rules and I thought despite the fans and players trying to intimidate him he performed exceptionally well

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 seconds ago
Can Solo (U6997)

Yes - that's my whole point. It's down to interpretation.

My view is just that... my view.

"But I do know that quoting the rules and saying it's definitely not"

I did no such thing so, with respect, please read my article properly before commenting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

With respect, I never claimed you did. There are plenty of poster however claiming it definitely wasn't a penalty though on the basis of it not being a deliberate movement towards the ball.

But seeing as you don't want me to comment, I'll leave it there.

Can Solo (U6997)

Fair enough, my misunderstanding - it looked like you were directing that comment at me.

Where did I say I don't want you to comment?

Can you show me the comments on this thread where someone has said it definitely wasn't a penalty?

comment by Can Solo (U6997)
posted 10 minutes ago
Winston (U16525)

You've quoted the rules which is great but there is clearly a degree of interpretation involved here. Perhaps there shouldn't be but there is. The evidence? The fact that referees interpret very similar situations differently.

I'd suggest that in the Stoke example there would be a many referees that would give the decision as well as many that wouldn't.

That's essentially the problem with quoting the rules as the truth. The reality is that the rule book is only as good as those that enforce it and at the moment it's variable.

So was it a penalty? I don't know. Genuinely don't know because the FA refs aren't applying the rules evenly. But I do know that quoting the rules and saying it's definitely not is as unhelpful and shortsighted as those pointing to other examples and saying it definitely is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reviewing your post, you have actually directed it at me - so of course you're implying that is what I said.

Perhaps you made a mistake and you don't want to admit it.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Can Solo (U6997)
posted 10 minutes ago
Winston (U16525)

You've quoted the rules which is great but there is clearly a degree of interpretation involved here. Perhaps there shouldn't be but there is. The evidence? The fact that referees interpret very similar situations differently.

I'd suggest that in the Stoke example there would be a many referees that would give the decision as well as many that wouldn't.

That's essentially the problem with quoting the rules as the truth. The reality is that the rule book is only as good as those that enforce it and at the moment it's variable.

So was it a penalty? I don't know. Genuinely don't know because the FA refs aren't applying the rules evenly. But I do know that quoting the rules and saying it's definitely not is as unhelpful and shortsighted as those pointing to other examples and saying it definitely is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reviewing your post, you have actually directed it at me - so of course you're implying that is what I said.

Perhaps you made a mistake and you don't want to admit it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I was intending to start a conversation with you and used the same post structure you had used on this thread - I.e your name and then a post. Perhaps that was an error because it implied a direct ‘accusation’ as opposed to a conversation.

Given how it’s gone thus far, doesn’t feel like a conversation that’s worthwhile however.

Can Solo (U6997)

Yep, seems about right there.

I'm sure anyone on this thread has said it definitely wasn't a penalty, so you appear to be debating something that no one has argued.