comment by Mr A (U12035)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 hours, 44 minutes ago
No one has a reason to go to ground.
Unless you cannot stay on your feet, you should stay on your feet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay... how about 'he had a reason to go to ground'... better?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, that's exactly what you said before!
comment by Phenom (U20037)
posted 3 minutes ago
Refs dont give decisions unless a player falls over though
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe that's because the majority of cases where a player is not knocked over do not involve a foul in the referee's opinion.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
comment by Mr A (U12035)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 hours, 44 minutes ago
No one has a reason to go to ground.
Unless you cannot stay on your feet, you should stay on your feet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay... how about 'he had a reason to go to ground'... better?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, that's exactly what you said before!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, but now in the context of every other player does it and every pundit condones it. Now, I agree it is a way of conning the ref but like Phenom said, players rarely get the foul if they stay on their feet even if a foul has occurred...
Mr A (U12035)
I hear that a lot, but I very rarely see it.
Sounds like an excuse to me. Fact is, players are just trying to win a penalty. It's cheating and the fact that some (very few imo) occasions there are fouls where players don't go down and don't get the decision does not justify it.
No surprises Pool are treated favourably, that`s been going on for years.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 hours, 45 minutes ago
"but yeah Salah dived but then you have claimed he's dived on other occasions when he has been fouled"
TOOR, just because you think the touch on his shoulder vs Newcastle means he was fouled does not make it so and to be fair, it doesn't mean he should not have been retrospectively punished after this weekend.
The fact he hasn't proves that the restrospective punishment system is not working properly - probably because the issue of simulation, and in particular exaggerating contact, is out of control.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well retrospective punishment has never worked properly. Throughout the years the FA are notorious for punishing one person for something somebody else got away with.
However in this case the player didn't successfully deceive the referee and therefore he can't be punished retrospectively. I think they need to change that.
Also as I have said before, in regards to simulating contact, players will do it and get away with it, until referees give fouls without players having to go down. This is even more the case in the box. Outside the box you see fouls being given all the time without the player going down. Referees are perhaps apprehensive to give fouls in the box, when players don't go down, due to the huge reward/punishment. Then you have the mentality that if they do it's labelled as soft. Like pulling at corners etc.
For me I'd have liked Salah to get booked for the latest one as there wasn't enough for a foul and he'd feel that he has to make sure he's fouled before going down or risk punishment.
TOOR, you have said it before - it was wrong then and wrong now.
Players do it to gain advantage, pure and simple. There maybe a handful of occasions where players are penalised for staying on their feet, but it isn’t the main reason players throw themselves to the floor.
It isn’t for players to decide that they have been fouled. It’s down a referee’s opinion and it is literally impossible for a referee to give every decision ‘correctly’ in the eyes of every player, manager and spectator, because we all have different views. Therefore going down because you think you’ve been fouled is entirely flawed.
Also, you claimed that Salah not being retrospectively charged after the Newcastle game was evidence he’d done nothing wrong, yet you claim Kane cheated at Anfield last season and he also wasn’t punished. Just thought I’d raise that contradiction as you didn’t want to address it last time.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 hours, 14 minutes ago
TOOR, you have said it before - it was wrong then and wrong now.
Players do it to gain advantage, pure and simple. There maybe a handful of occasions where players are penalised for staying on their feet, but it isn’t the main reason players throw themselves to the floor.
It isn’t for players to decide that they have been fouled. It’s down a referee’s opinion and it is literally impossible for a referee to give every decision ‘correctly’ in the eyes of every player, manager and spectator, because we all have different views. Therefore going down because you think you’ve been fouled is entirely flawed.
Also, you claimed that Salah not being retrospectively charged after the Newcastle game was evidence he’d done nothing wrong, yet you claim Kane cheated at Anfield last season and he also wasn’t punished. Just thought I’d raise that contradiction as you didn’t want to address it last time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You say there are a handful of occasions and I'd say that is correct. However if players didn't go down when fouled that would increase massively in my opinion.
I agree it isn't for players to decide they've been fouled, it's for the referee but players aren't going to risk being fouled and not going down as it currently stands. Perhaps VAR may change this but certainly for years this is what has happened and will continue to happen until something changes.
On your last paragraph we've already been over this and I've told you already I'm not going to go over the same thing for days and over several articles.
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
"However if players didn't go down when fouled that would increase massively in my opinion."
Would it increase more than the amount of incidents that are given as fouls that are probably not fouls but the referee has been conned?
I doubt it.
It's rife in the game and it's making a mockery of it.
"but players aren't going to risk being fouled and not going down as it currently stands."
We come back to this - a player does not know he's been fouled, he thinks he has.
If you take the Newcastle game as an example, if he'd stayed on his feet and the referee felt he hadn't been fouled, Salah has no right to decide otherwise. It's the refs call.
The reality is though, of course, that Salah didn;t stop to think whether he'd been fouled or not, did he? He felt the touch and went over because he wanted to win a penalty. That's the truth, which you don't wish to admit because it doesn't fit your narrative of excusing his behaviour.
I wonder if you were so forgiving to Ronaldo.
On the last paragraph, we haven't been over it at all. You ran away when you realised you'd contradicted yourself.
A shame that you can't admit your error.
I'll repeat - you claimed a lack of retrospective action against Salah is evidence that it was not a dive. Yet you claim Kane dived, even after he didn't face retrospective action. A clear contradiction.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 17 minutes ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
"However if players didn't go down when fouled that would increase massively in my opinion."
Would it increase more than the amount of incidents that are given as fouls that are probably not fouls but the referee has been conned?
I doubt it.
It's rife in the game and it's making a mockery of it.
"but players aren't going to risk being fouled and not going down as it currently stands."
We come back to this - a player does not know he's been fouled, he thinks he has.
If you take the Newcastle game as an example, if he'd stayed on his feet and the referee felt he hadn't been fouled, Salah has no right to decide otherwise. It's the refs call.
The reality is though, of course, that Salah didn;t stop to think whether he'd been fouled or not, did he? He felt the touch and went over because he wanted to win a penalty. That's the truth, which you don't wish to admit because it doesn't fit your narrative of excusing his behaviour.
I wonder if you were so forgiving to Ronaldo.
On the last paragraph, we haven't been over it at all. You ran away when you realised you'd contradicted yourself.
A shame that you can't admit your error.
I'll repeat - you claimed a lack of retrospective action against Salah is evidence that it was not a dive. Yet you claim Kane dived, even after he didn't face retrospective action. A clear contradiction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes but he was fouled and the ref most likely wouldn't have given it if he didn't go down. Prime example in a game last season he was fouled and didn't go down and the red didnt give it, luckily he went on and scored.
This is something that is widely accepted in football although I accept nobody likes it but like people keep telling you over numerous articles players go down as they don't get penalties if they don't.
Not last season, earlier in the season*
TOOR
He wasn’t fouled in my opinion.
You see the problem? It’s only the ref’s opinion that counts. If he’d stayed up and the ref decided he wasn’t fouled, the referee would not be wrong.
Regardless of what you or Salah thinks.
Understand?
It’s not widely accepted at all. It’s a common misconception but as I have explained to you, it’s flawed.
I see you’re still ignoring your contradiction as well. Shame, because it adds to the evidence that you can’t admit when you’re wrong, which makes reasonable debate difficult.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 50 seconds ago
TOOR
He wasn’t fouled in my opinion.
You see the problem? It’s only the ref’s opinion that counts. If he’d stayed up and the ref decided he wasn’t fouled, the referee would not be wrong.
Regardless of what you or Salah thinks.
Understand?
It’s not widely accepted at all. It’s a common misconception but as I have explained to you, it’s flawed.
I see you’re still ignoring your contradiction as well. Shame, because it adds to the evidence that you can’t admit when you’re wrong, which makes reasonable debate difficult.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He wasn't fouled <laughed>
And here we reach the crux of the problem.
You think, incorrectly, that you can deduce that incident to be a foul and that any alternative opinion is wrong.
You’re incorrect, and that’s a fact.
The funniest thing is that when you tried to explain why it was a foul, you got the wrong law. You said ‘impeded’, which actually occurs without contact.
So not only are you wrong to claim it was 100% a foul, you can’t even back your opinion up about it being a foul with a credible interpretation of the laws.
No I just think it's funny that you think it wasn't a foul.
Here’s another fact for you.
It’s possible for two equally qualified referees to have different opinions regarding a ‘foul’ and for neither to be incorrect.
Until you understand that, you’ll always have an issue with this type of debate I’m afraid.
I often wonder if you’d understand it if someone explained it verbally to you. You seem to have a blind spot with this.
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
No I just think it's funny that you think it wasn't a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it’s laughable that you think it was. Barely touched him.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
Here’s another fact for you.
It’s possible for two equally qualified referees to have different opinions regarding a ‘foul’ and for neither to be incorrect.
Until you understand that, you’ll always have an issue with this type of debate I’m afraid.
I often wonder if you’d understand it if someone explained it verbally to you. You seem to have a blind spot with this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope I would never understand that. Somebody would always be wrong. He was either fouled or he wasn't. I'd agree with the ref who thought he was fouled, like former referee Dermot Gallagher for example who said “I thought it was a penalty – he [Dummett] caught him by the arm and there was enough there.
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 58 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
Here’s another fact for you.
It’s possible for two equally qualified referees to have different opinions regarding a ‘foul’ and for neither to be incorrect.
Until you understand that, you’ll always have an issue with this type of debate I’m afraid.
I often wonder if you’d understand it if someone explained it verbally to you. You seem to have a blind spot with this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope I would never understand that. Somebody would always be wrong. He was either fouled or he wasn't. I'd agree with the ref who thought he was fouled, like former referee Dermot Gallagher for example who said “I thought it was a penalty – he [Dummett] caught him by the arm and there was enough there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And you’re wrong. For laws that come down to opinion, more than one opinion can be valid.
As I said, it’s a blind spot for you.
Funny though that in your justification for claiming it’s 100% a foul you used the wrong law. If ever there were a demonstration that you’ve got no idea what you’re on about, that was it.
Well yes its opinion on whether you think it was a foul but not on whether it was or not. It either was or it wasn't.
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 8 minutes ago
Well yes its opinion on whether you think it was a foul but not on whether it was or not. It either was or it wasn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong.
It’s subjective. Two people can view the same incident, have different opinions and neither be wrong.
I promise you that is a cast iron fact. Go and check it out with any referee, the FA etc if you like.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 8 minutes ago
Well yes its opinion on whether you think it was a foul but not on whether it was or not. It either was or it wasn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong.
It’s subjective. Two people can view the same incident, have different opinions and neither be wrong.
I promise you that is a cast iron fact. Go and check it out with any referee, the FA etc if you like.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So it can be a foul and not a foul at the same time? I wonder what Shrodinger would think about this.
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 8 minutes ago
Well yes its opinion on whether you think it was a foul but not on whether it was or not. It either was or it wasn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong.
It’s subjective. Two people can view the same incident, have different opinions and neither be wrong.
I promise you that is a cast iron fact. Go and check it out with any referee, the FA etc if you like.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So it can be a foul and not a foul at the same time? I wonder what Shrodinger would think about this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s bizarre how closed your mind is to this.
No, it can’t be a foul and not a foul. But one person can view the incident as a foul and another may not.
That’s the beauty of the way the laws of the game work. You interpret the laws and apply them to incidents.
I find it incredible you don’t understand.
You just said neither would be wrong. That means it could be a foul and not a foul at the same time. Surely? Otherwise one would be wrong.
Yes I understand one could view it as a foul and one not. However one would be wrong as it can't be a foul and not a foul at the same time.
Sign in if you want to comment
Time now for some serious questions
Page 3 of 6
6
posted on 22/1/19
comment by Mr A (U12035)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 hours, 44 minutes ago
No one has a reason to go to ground.
Unless you cannot stay on your feet, you should stay on your feet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay... how about 'he had a reason to go to ground'... better?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, that's exactly what you said before!
posted on 22/1/19
comment by Phenom (U20037)
posted 3 minutes ago
Refs dont give decisions unless a player falls over though
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe that's because the majority of cases where a player is not knocked over do not involve a foul in the referee's opinion.
posted on 22/1/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
comment by Mr A (U12035)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 hours, 44 minutes ago
No one has a reason to go to ground.
Unless you cannot stay on your feet, you should stay on your feet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay... how about 'he had a reason to go to ground'... better?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, that's exactly what you said before!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, but now in the context of every other player does it and every pundit condones it. Now, I agree it is a way of conning the ref but like Phenom said, players rarely get the foul if they stay on their feet even if a foul has occurred...
posted on 22/1/19
Mr A (U12035)
I hear that a lot, but I very rarely see it.
Sounds like an excuse to me. Fact is, players are just trying to win a penalty. It's cheating and the fact that some (very few imo) occasions there are fouls where players don't go down and don't get the decision does not justify it.
posted on 22/1/19
No surprises Pool are treated favourably, that`s been going on for years.
posted on 22/1/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 hours, 45 minutes ago
"but yeah Salah dived but then you have claimed he's dived on other occasions when he has been fouled"
TOOR, just because you think the touch on his shoulder vs Newcastle means he was fouled does not make it so and to be fair, it doesn't mean he should not have been retrospectively punished after this weekend.
The fact he hasn't proves that the restrospective punishment system is not working properly - probably because the issue of simulation, and in particular exaggerating contact, is out of control.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well retrospective punishment has never worked properly. Throughout the years the FA are notorious for punishing one person for something somebody else got away with.
However in this case the player didn't successfully deceive the referee and therefore he can't be punished retrospectively. I think they need to change that.
Also as I have said before, in regards to simulating contact, players will do it and get away with it, until referees give fouls without players having to go down. This is even more the case in the box. Outside the box you see fouls being given all the time without the player going down. Referees are perhaps apprehensive to give fouls in the box, when players don't go down, due to the huge reward/punishment. Then you have the mentality that if they do it's labelled as soft. Like pulling at corners etc.
For me I'd have liked Salah to get booked for the latest one as there wasn't enough for a foul and he'd feel that he has to make sure he's fouled before going down or risk punishment.
posted on 23/1/19
TOOR, you have said it before - it was wrong then and wrong now.
Players do it to gain advantage, pure and simple. There maybe a handful of occasions where players are penalised for staying on their feet, but it isn’t the main reason players throw themselves to the floor.
It isn’t for players to decide that they have been fouled. It’s down a referee’s opinion and it is literally impossible for a referee to give every decision ‘correctly’ in the eyes of every player, manager and spectator, because we all have different views. Therefore going down because you think you’ve been fouled is entirely flawed.
Also, you claimed that Salah not being retrospectively charged after the Newcastle game was evidence he’d done nothing wrong, yet you claim Kane cheated at Anfield last season and he also wasn’t punished. Just thought I’d raise that contradiction as you didn’t want to address it last time.
posted on 23/1/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 hours, 14 minutes ago
TOOR, you have said it before - it was wrong then and wrong now.
Players do it to gain advantage, pure and simple. There maybe a handful of occasions where players are penalised for staying on their feet, but it isn’t the main reason players throw themselves to the floor.
It isn’t for players to decide that they have been fouled. It’s down a referee’s opinion and it is literally impossible for a referee to give every decision ‘correctly’ in the eyes of every player, manager and spectator, because we all have different views. Therefore going down because you think you’ve been fouled is entirely flawed.
Also, you claimed that Salah not being retrospectively charged after the Newcastle game was evidence he’d done nothing wrong, yet you claim Kane cheated at Anfield last season and he also wasn’t punished. Just thought I’d raise that contradiction as you didn’t want to address it last time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You say there are a handful of occasions and I'd say that is correct. However if players didn't go down when fouled that would increase massively in my opinion.
I agree it isn't for players to decide they've been fouled, it's for the referee but players aren't going to risk being fouled and not going down as it currently stands. Perhaps VAR may change this but certainly for years this is what has happened and will continue to happen until something changes.
On your last paragraph we've already been over this and I've told you already I'm not going to go over the same thing for days and over several articles.
posted on 23/1/19
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
"However if players didn't go down when fouled that would increase massively in my opinion."
Would it increase more than the amount of incidents that are given as fouls that are probably not fouls but the referee has been conned?
I doubt it.
It's rife in the game and it's making a mockery of it.
"but players aren't going to risk being fouled and not going down as it currently stands."
We come back to this - a player does not know he's been fouled, he thinks he has.
If you take the Newcastle game as an example, if he'd stayed on his feet and the referee felt he hadn't been fouled, Salah has no right to decide otherwise. It's the refs call.
The reality is though, of course, that Salah didn;t stop to think whether he'd been fouled or not, did he? He felt the touch and went over because he wanted to win a penalty. That's the truth, which you don't wish to admit because it doesn't fit your narrative of excusing his behaviour.
I wonder if you were so forgiving to Ronaldo.
On the last paragraph, we haven't been over it at all. You ran away when you realised you'd contradicted yourself.
A shame that you can't admit your error.
I'll repeat - you claimed a lack of retrospective action against Salah is evidence that it was not a dive. Yet you claim Kane dived, even after he didn't face retrospective action. A clear contradiction.
posted on 23/1/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 17 minutes ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
"However if players didn't go down when fouled that would increase massively in my opinion."
Would it increase more than the amount of incidents that are given as fouls that are probably not fouls but the referee has been conned?
I doubt it.
It's rife in the game and it's making a mockery of it.
"but players aren't going to risk being fouled and not going down as it currently stands."
We come back to this - a player does not know he's been fouled, he thinks he has.
If you take the Newcastle game as an example, if he'd stayed on his feet and the referee felt he hadn't been fouled, Salah has no right to decide otherwise. It's the refs call.
The reality is though, of course, that Salah didn;t stop to think whether he'd been fouled or not, did he? He felt the touch and went over because he wanted to win a penalty. That's the truth, which you don't wish to admit because it doesn't fit your narrative of excusing his behaviour.
I wonder if you were so forgiving to Ronaldo.
On the last paragraph, we haven't been over it at all. You ran away when you realised you'd contradicted yourself.
A shame that you can't admit your error.
I'll repeat - you claimed a lack of retrospective action against Salah is evidence that it was not a dive. Yet you claim Kane dived, even after he didn't face retrospective action. A clear contradiction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes but he was fouled and the ref most likely wouldn't have given it if he didn't go down. Prime example in a game last season he was fouled and didn't go down and the red didnt give it, luckily he went on and scored.
This is something that is widely accepted in football although I accept nobody likes it but like people keep telling you over numerous articles players go down as they don't get penalties if they don't.
posted on 23/1/19
Not last season, earlier in the season*
posted on 23/1/19
TOOR
He wasn’t fouled in my opinion.
You see the problem? It’s only the ref’s opinion that counts. If he’d stayed up and the ref decided he wasn’t fouled, the referee would not be wrong.
Regardless of what you or Salah thinks.
Understand?
It’s not widely accepted at all. It’s a common misconception but as I have explained to you, it’s flawed.
I see you’re still ignoring your contradiction as well. Shame, because it adds to the evidence that you can’t admit when you’re wrong, which makes reasonable debate difficult.
posted on 23/1/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 50 seconds ago
TOOR
He wasn’t fouled in my opinion.
You see the problem? It’s only the ref’s opinion that counts. If he’d stayed up and the ref decided he wasn’t fouled, the referee would not be wrong.
Regardless of what you or Salah thinks.
Understand?
It’s not widely accepted at all. It’s a common misconception but as I have explained to you, it’s flawed.
I see you’re still ignoring your contradiction as well. Shame, because it adds to the evidence that you can’t admit when you’re wrong, which makes reasonable debate difficult.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He wasn't fouled <laughed>
posted on 23/1/19
And here we reach the crux of the problem.
You think, incorrectly, that you can deduce that incident to be a foul and that any alternative opinion is wrong.
You’re incorrect, and that’s a fact.
The funniest thing is that when you tried to explain why it was a foul, you got the wrong law. You said ‘impeded’, which actually occurs without contact.
So not only are you wrong to claim it was 100% a foul, you can’t even back your opinion up about it being a foul with a credible interpretation of the laws.
posted on 23/1/19
No I just think it's funny that you think it wasn't a foul.
posted on 23/1/19
Here’s another fact for you.
It’s possible for two equally qualified referees to have different opinions regarding a ‘foul’ and for neither to be incorrect.
Until you understand that, you’ll always have an issue with this type of debate I’m afraid.
I often wonder if you’d understand it if someone explained it verbally to you. You seem to have a blind spot with this.
posted on 23/1/19
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
No I just think it's funny that you think it wasn't a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it’s laughable that you think it was. Barely touched him.
posted on 23/1/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
Here’s another fact for you.
It’s possible for two equally qualified referees to have different opinions regarding a ‘foul’ and for neither to be incorrect.
Until you understand that, you’ll always have an issue with this type of debate I’m afraid.
I often wonder if you’d understand it if someone explained it verbally to you. You seem to have a blind spot with this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope I would never understand that. Somebody would always be wrong. He was either fouled or he wasn't. I'd agree with the ref who thought he was fouled, like former referee Dermot Gallagher for example who said “I thought it was a penalty – he [Dummett] caught him by the arm and there was enough there.
posted on 23/1/19
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 58 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
Here’s another fact for you.
It’s possible for two equally qualified referees to have different opinions regarding a ‘foul’ and for neither to be incorrect.
Until you understand that, you’ll always have an issue with this type of debate I’m afraid.
I often wonder if you’d understand it if someone explained it verbally to you. You seem to have a blind spot with this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope I would never understand that. Somebody would always be wrong. He was either fouled or he wasn't. I'd agree with the ref who thought he was fouled, like former referee Dermot Gallagher for example who said “I thought it was a penalty – he [Dummett] caught him by the arm and there was enough there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And you’re wrong. For laws that come down to opinion, more than one opinion can be valid.
As I said, it’s a blind spot for you.
Funny though that in your justification for claiming it’s 100% a foul you used the wrong law. If ever there were a demonstration that you’ve got no idea what you’re on about, that was it.
posted on 23/1/19
Well yes its opinion on whether you think it was a foul but not on whether it was or not. It either was or it wasn't.
posted on 23/1/19
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 8 minutes ago
Well yes its opinion on whether you think it was a foul but not on whether it was or not. It either was or it wasn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong.
It’s subjective. Two people can view the same incident, have different opinions and neither be wrong.
I promise you that is a cast iron fact. Go and check it out with any referee, the FA etc if you like.
posted on 23/1/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 8 minutes ago
Well yes its opinion on whether you think it was a foul but not on whether it was or not. It either was or it wasn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong.
It’s subjective. Two people can view the same incident, have different opinions and neither be wrong.
I promise you that is a cast iron fact. Go and check it out with any referee, the FA etc if you like.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So it can be a foul and not a foul at the same time? I wonder what Shrodinger would think about this.
posted on 23/1/19
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 8 minutes ago
Well yes its opinion on whether you think it was a foul but not on whether it was or not. It either was or it wasn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong.
It’s subjective. Two people can view the same incident, have different opinions and neither be wrong.
I promise you that is a cast iron fact. Go and check it out with any referee, the FA etc if you like.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So it can be a foul and not a foul at the same time? I wonder what Shrodinger would think about this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s bizarre how closed your mind is to this.
No, it can’t be a foul and not a foul. But one person can view the incident as a foul and another may not.
That’s the beauty of the way the laws of the game work. You interpret the laws and apply them to incidents.
I find it incredible you don’t understand.
posted on 23/1/19
You just said neither would be wrong. That means it could be a foul and not a foul at the same time. Surely? Otherwise one would be wrong.
posted on 23/1/19
Yes I understand one could view it as a foul and one not. However one would be wrong as it can't be a foul and not a foul at the same time.
Page 3 of 6
6