Fack me, you still don’t get it.
Not taking retrospective action means they’re satisfied the referee didn’t miss anything, that’s all.
It doesn’t mean they necessarily agree. It’s subjective, so everyone is entitled to their opinion and the FA hasn’t given an opinion. They’ve simply said the ref didn’t miss anything.
I never claimed he missed anything so the FA haven’t contradicted anything I’ve said.
I think he dived. No way did that contact send him over. TOOR agreed.
It certainly wasn’t a foul in my opinion. You think otherwise. So does TOOR.
I’m entitled to my opinion and you’re entitled to yours.
Not sure why you have such an issue with that you’re so desperate to tell me the world disagrees with me when they patently don’t. I remember watching MOTD that weekend and they called it a dive.
I’m comfortable with alternative opinions, if they’re based on the actual laws. You should try it sometime.
Winston
“Not taking retrospective action means they’re satisfied the referee didn’t miss anything, that’s all.
It doesn’t mean they necessarily agree. It’s subjective, so everyone is entitled to their opinion and the FA hasn’t given an opinion. They’ve simply said the ref didn’t miss anything.”
Is this what the FA said when giving their reasons for taking no further action? Erm no. You’ve pulled that out of your rse there Winston.
You don’t even know why they didn’t take action
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 15 minutes ago
Winston
“Not taking retrospective action means they’re satisfied the referee didn’t miss anything, that’s all.
It doesn’t mean they necessarily agree. It’s subjective, so everyone is entitled to their opinion and the FA hasn’t given an opinion. They’ve simply said the ref didn’t miss anything.”
Is this what the FA said when giving their reasons for taking no further action? Erm no. You’ve pulled that out of your rse there Winston.
You don’t even know why they didn’t take action
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn’t say it was what they said, but it’s absolutely correct.
Feel free to try and argue it, I’ll just destroy you again.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 15 minutes ago
Winston
“Not taking retrospective action means they’re satisfied the referee didn’t miss anything, that’s all.
It doesn’t mean they necessarily agree. It’s subjective, so everyone is entitled to their opinion and the FA hasn’t given an opinion. They’ve simply said the ref didn’t miss anything.”
Is this what the FA said when giving their reasons for taking no further action? Erm no. You’ve pulled that out of your rse there Winston.
You don’t even know why they didn’t take action
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn’t say it was what they said, but it’s absolutely correct.
Feel free to try and argue it, I’ll just destroy you again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the reason why they didn’t take further action;
“Liverpool were awarded the penalty two minutes into the second half after referee Graham Scott judged Salah had been pulled back by Paul Dummett.
Sky Sports News understands Salah's reaction to being pulled back did not reach the required threshold for "attempting to deceive the referee" and so the Egyptian will not face retrospective action.”
How many things have you got wrong today?
Not taking retrospective action means they’re satisfied the referee didn’t miss anything, that’s all.
========
Poor logic.
You need to start thinking critically Winston.
Educate yourself starting here
https://books.google.co.ke/books?id=0fVADwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=critical+thinking&hl=sw&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiYiMPZ4OHhAhXqlYsKHZH-B34Q6AEIEDAB
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 53 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 15 minutes ago
Winston
“Not taking retrospective action means they’re satisfied the referee didn’t miss anything, that’s all.
It doesn’t mean they necessarily agree. It’s subjective, so everyone is entitled to their opinion and the FA hasn’t given an opinion. They’ve simply said the ref didn’t miss anything.”
Is this what the FA said when giving their reasons for taking no further action? Erm no. You’ve pulled that out of your rse there Winston.
You don’t even know why they didn’t take action
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn’t say it was what they said, but it’s absolutely correct.
Feel free to try and argue it, I’ll just destroy you again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the reason why they didn’t take further action;
“Liverpool were awarded the penalty two minutes into the second half after referee Graham Scott judged Salah had been pulled back by Paul Dummett.
Sky Sports News understands Salah's reaction to being pulled back did not reach the required threshold for "attempting to deceive the referee" and so the Egyptian will not face retrospective action.”
How many things have you got wrong today?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven’t got anything wrong.
Maybe you need to look up what the threshold is based on, and then you can come back and announce I’m right.
But of course you won’t.
You’ll try to argue absolutely anything because it’s me.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 hours, 53 minutes ago
Here are indisputable facts:
- We do not know if the referee would have given a penalty had Salah not have dived.
- That said, it’s a matter of opinion whether he dived. I think he did. TOOR thinks he did. Gallagher seems not so sure.
- Whether it was a foul is a matter of opinion. I base my opinion on the actual law.
- Anyone who says it was 100% a foul is wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a reminder that these are the key points but the debate has been hijacked by Liverpool fans who are desperately trying to prove me wrong and will happily derail the thread in their attempts to do so.
Trying but failing, I might add.
Winston
Of course you haven’t
You only have to scroll up to see you got the reasons further action wasn’t taken wrong for a start.
Maybe you can tell us what the threshold is? You’ve been prattling on about your knowledge of the rules for months. Demonstrate then for us.
No Winston it’s not because it’s you, the arrogance , it’s because in this instance I think your talking out of your hairy hoop.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 34 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 hours, 53 minutes ago
Here are indisputable facts:
- We do not know if the referee would have given a penalty had Salah not have dived.
- That said, it’s a matter of opinion whether he dived. I think he did. TOOR thinks he did. Gallagher seems not so sure.
- Whether it was a foul is a matter of opinion. I base my opinion on the actual law.
- Anyone who says it was 100% a foul is wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a reminder that these are the key points but the debate has been hijacked by Liverpool fans who are desperately trying to prove me wrong and will happily derail the thread in their attempts to do so.
Trying but failing, I might add.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is as desperate as your ‘resorting to making personal insults comment’ earlier. You seem shocked that Liverpool fans would want to discuss the above points.
Derail the thread? The thread was originally about incidents in the City v Spurs CL tie. What has the above got to do with the OP?
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 10 minutes ago
Winston
Of course you haven’t
You only have to scroll up to see you got the reasons further action wasn’t taken wrong for a start.
Maybe you can tell us what the threshold is? You’ve been prattling on about your knowledge of the rules for months. Demonstrate then for us.
No Winston it’s not because it’s you, the arrogance, it’s because in this instance I think your talking out of your hairy hoop.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
None of the reasons for retrospective action not being taken contradict what I have said.
Read that slowly and let me know which part you don’t understand.
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 34 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 hours, 53 minutes ago
Here are indisputable facts:
- We do not know if the referee would have given a penalty had Salah not have dived.
- That said, it’s a matter of opinion whether he dived. I think he did. TOOR thinks he did. Gallagher seems not so sure.
- Whether it was a foul is a matter of opinion. I base my opinion on the actual law.
- Anyone who says it was 100% a foul is wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a reminder that these are the key points but the debate has been hijacked by Liverpool fans who are desperately trying to prove me wrong and will happily derail the thread in their attempts to do so.
Trying but failing, I might add.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is as desperate as your ‘resorting to making personal insults comment’ earlier. You seem shocked that Liverpool fans would want to discuss the above points.
Derail the thread? The thread was originally about incidents in the City v Spurs CL tie. What has the above got to do with the OP?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re not discussing the points though, are you?
You’re trying to dismiss my opinion. And failing.
Winston
“None of the reasons for retrospective action not being taken contradict what I have said.”
They found there wasn’t sufficient evidence of a dive. You are adamant Salah dived. Obviously the FA disagree with you or they would’ve punished him.
Christ
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 23 seconds ago
Winston
“None of the reasons for retrospective action not being taken contradict what I have said.”
They found there wasn’t sufficient evidence of a dive. You are adamant Salah dived. Obviously the FA disagree with you or they would’ve punished him.
Christ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s my opinion that he dived. I have said multiple times that people are entitled to disagree.
Oh dear.
Is that the sound of the penny dropping?
Winston
“You’re not discussing the points though, are you?
You’re trying to dismiss my opinion. And failing.”
I’m not discussing whether Salah dived or not against Newcastle?
No, I’m disagreeing with you, or having a debate. Kind of the whole point of the site. You struggle with this for some reason.
What have the 4 points you’ve listed got to do with the OP?
The FA don’t re-ref matches. This all comes down to a matter of opinion, which is why they’re not taking any action.
It really isn’t a difficult concept to grasp.
“It’s my opinion that he dived. I have said multiple times that people are entitled to disagree.”
We weren’t discussing that. We were discussing the FA’s ruling on Salah’s ‘dive’ contradicting your claim that’s Salah dived.
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
Winston
“You’re not discussing the points though, are you?
You’re trying to dismiss my opinion. And failing.”
I’m not discussing whether Salah dived or not against Newcastle?
No, I’m disagreeing with you, or having a debate. Kind of the whole point of the site. You struggle with this for some reason.
What have the 4 points you’ve listed got to do with the OP?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, you’re not debating my opinion. You’re trying to dismiss it.
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 0 seconds ago
“It’s my opinion that he dived. I have said multiple times that people are entitled to disagree.”
We weren’t discussing that. We were discussing the FA’s ruling on Salah’s ‘dive’ contradicting your claim that’s Salah dived.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That wasn’t what we were discussing actually, you turned it into that.
But yes, not taking retrospective action absolutely does not contradict my opinion.
Not having proof to charge for diving is different to not having an opinion that he dived.
I don’t think retrospective action should have been taken either ffs.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 35 seconds ago
The FA don’t re-ref matches. This all comes down to a matter of opinion, which is why they’re not taking any action.
It really isn’t a difficult concept to grasp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it’s not why they didn’t take any further action. You pulled that out of your rse again.
We know why they didn’t take any further action.
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 35 seconds ago
The FA don’t re-ref matches. This all comes down to a matter of opinion, which is why they’re not taking any action.
It really isn’t a difficult concept to grasp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it’s not why they didn’t take any further action. You pulled that out of your rse again.
We know why they didn’t take any further action.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fack me. You really are struggling
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 0 seconds ago
“It’s my opinion that he dived. I have said multiple times that people are entitled to disagree.”
We weren’t discussing that. We were discussing the FA’s ruling on Salah’s ‘dive’ contradicting your claim that’s Salah dived.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That wasn’t what we were discussing actually, you turned it into that.
But yes, not taking retrospective action absolutely does not contradict my opinion.
Not having proof to charge for diving is different to not having an opinion that he dived.
I don’t think retrospective action should have been taken either ffs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s what we were discussing when you replied with the above comment
Again you’re speculating about why they didn’t take further action. The evidence we have available states why they didn’t. You claiming what their opinion may or may not have been is a load of shiite.
Where have I said you think retrospective action should’ve been taken?
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 35 seconds ago
The FA don’t re-ref matches. This all comes down to a matter of opinion, which is why they’re not taking any action.
It really isn’t a difficult concept to grasp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it’s not why they didn’t take any further action. You pulled that out of your rse again.
We know why they didn’t take any further action.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fack me. You really are struggling
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Go on then. Use your knowledge of the laws of the game to tell us where you got this from;
“This all comes down to a matter of opinion, which is why they’re not taking any action.”
Usual Winston tactic again. This time I’m ‘struggling’. I was upset etc earlier. More signs you’re losing the debate, lovely stuff.
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 0 seconds ago
“It’s my opinion that he dived. I have said multiple times that people are entitled to disagree.”
We weren’t discussing that. We were discussing the FA’s ruling on Salah’s ‘dive’ contradicting your claim that’s Salah dived.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That wasn’t what we were discussing actually, you turned it into that.
But yes, not taking retrospective action absolutely does not contradict my opinion.
Not having proof to charge for diving is different to not having an opinion that he dived.
I don’t think retrospective action should have been taken either ffs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s what we were discussing when you replied with the above comment
Again you’re speculating about why they didn’t take further action. The evidence we have available states why they didn’t. You claiming what their opinion may or may not have been is a load of shiite.
Where have I said you think retrospective action should’ve been taken?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not speculating anything, it’s a fact.
They wouldn’t take retrospective action in a case like this.
How clear can I make this for you? I don’t think it qualified for retrospective action. Clearly that means that a lack of retrospective action does not contradict my view.
Seriously, what part of that don’t you understand?
This is incredible.
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 35 seconds ago
The FA don’t re-ref matches. This all comes down to a matter of opinion, which is why they’re not taking any action.
It really isn’t a difficult concept to grasp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it’s not why they didn’t take any further action. You pulled that out of your rse again.
We know why they didn’t take any further action.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fack me. You really are struggling
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Go on then. Use your knowledge of the laws of the game to tell us where you got this from;
“This all comes down to a matter of opinion, which is why they’re not taking any action.”
Usual Winston tactic again. This time I’m ‘struggling’. I was upset etc earlier. More signs you’re losing the debate, lovely stuff.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You don’t understand why it’s a matter of opinion?
Fack me. Utterly clueless.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 36 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 35 seconds ago
The FA don’t re-ref matches. This all comes down to a matter of opinion, which is why they’re not taking any action.
It really isn’t a difficult concept to grasp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it’s not why they didn’t take any further action. You pulled that out of your rse again.
We know why they didn’t take any further action.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fack me. You really are struggling
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Go on then. Use your knowledge of the laws of the game to tell us where you got this from;
“This all comes down to a matter of opinion, which is why they’re not taking any action.”
Usual Winston tactic again. This time I’m ‘struggling’. I was upset etc earlier. More signs you’re losing the debate, lovely stuff.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You don’t understand why it’s a matter of opinion?
Fack me. Utterly clueless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where did you get ‘it’s a matter of opinion’ from? What facts are you basing this statement on?
You don’t know what the panel said regarding whether it was a dive or not other than the published reasons of insufficient evidence of deceiving the ref.
Do you know whether members of the panel thought it was a dive or not?
Yes or no?
Sign in if you want to comment
Hypocritical media..
Page 6 of 25
7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11
posted on 21/4/19
Fack me, you still don’t get it.
Not taking retrospective action means they’re satisfied the referee didn’t miss anything, that’s all.
It doesn’t mean they necessarily agree. It’s subjective, so everyone is entitled to their opinion and the FA hasn’t given an opinion. They’ve simply said the ref didn’t miss anything.
I never claimed he missed anything so the FA haven’t contradicted anything I’ve said.
I think he dived. No way did that contact send him over. TOOR agreed.
It certainly wasn’t a foul in my opinion. You think otherwise. So does TOOR.
I’m entitled to my opinion and you’re entitled to yours.
Not sure why you have such an issue with that you’re so desperate to tell me the world disagrees with me when they patently don’t. I remember watching MOTD that weekend and they called it a dive.
I’m comfortable with alternative opinions, if they’re based on the actual laws. You should try it sometime.
posted on 21/4/19
Winston
“Not taking retrospective action means they’re satisfied the referee didn’t miss anything, that’s all.
It doesn’t mean they necessarily agree. It’s subjective, so everyone is entitled to their opinion and the FA hasn’t given an opinion. They’ve simply said the ref didn’t miss anything.”
Is this what the FA said when giving their reasons for taking no further action? Erm no. You’ve pulled that out of your rse there Winston.
You don’t even know why they didn’t take action
posted on 21/4/19
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 15 minutes ago
Winston
“Not taking retrospective action means they’re satisfied the referee didn’t miss anything, that’s all.
It doesn’t mean they necessarily agree. It’s subjective, so everyone is entitled to their opinion and the FA hasn’t given an opinion. They’ve simply said the ref didn’t miss anything.”
Is this what the FA said when giving their reasons for taking no further action? Erm no. You’ve pulled that out of your rse there Winston.
You don’t even know why they didn’t take action
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn’t say it was what they said, but it’s absolutely correct.
Feel free to try and argue it, I’ll just destroy you again.
posted on 21/4/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 15 minutes ago
Winston
“Not taking retrospective action means they’re satisfied the referee didn’t miss anything, that’s all.
It doesn’t mean they necessarily agree. It’s subjective, so everyone is entitled to their opinion and the FA hasn’t given an opinion. They’ve simply said the ref didn’t miss anything.”
Is this what the FA said when giving their reasons for taking no further action? Erm no. You’ve pulled that out of your rse there Winston.
You don’t even know why they didn’t take action
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn’t say it was what they said, but it’s absolutely correct.
Feel free to try and argue it, I’ll just destroy you again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the reason why they didn’t take further action;
“Liverpool were awarded the penalty two minutes into the second half after referee Graham Scott judged Salah had been pulled back by Paul Dummett.
Sky Sports News understands Salah's reaction to being pulled back did not reach the required threshold for "attempting to deceive the referee" and so the Egyptian will not face retrospective action.”
How many things have you got wrong today?
posted on 21/4/19
Not taking retrospective action means they’re satisfied the referee didn’t miss anything, that’s all.
========
Poor logic.
You need to start thinking critically Winston.
Educate yourself starting here
https://books.google.co.ke/books?id=0fVADwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=critical+thinking&hl=sw&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiYiMPZ4OHhAhXqlYsKHZH-B34Q6AEIEDAB
posted on 21/4/19
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 53 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 15 minutes ago
Winston
“Not taking retrospective action means they’re satisfied the referee didn’t miss anything, that’s all.
It doesn’t mean they necessarily agree. It’s subjective, so everyone is entitled to their opinion and the FA hasn’t given an opinion. They’ve simply said the ref didn’t miss anything.”
Is this what the FA said when giving their reasons for taking no further action? Erm no. You’ve pulled that out of your rse there Winston.
You don’t even know why they didn’t take action
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn’t say it was what they said, but it’s absolutely correct.
Feel free to try and argue it, I’ll just destroy you again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the reason why they didn’t take further action;
“Liverpool were awarded the penalty two minutes into the second half after referee Graham Scott judged Salah had been pulled back by Paul Dummett.
Sky Sports News understands Salah's reaction to being pulled back did not reach the required threshold for "attempting to deceive the referee" and so the Egyptian will not face retrospective action.”
How many things have you got wrong today?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven’t got anything wrong.
Maybe you need to look up what the threshold is based on, and then you can come back and announce I’m right.
But of course you won’t.
You’ll try to argue absolutely anything because it’s me.
posted on 21/4/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 hours, 53 minutes ago
Here are indisputable facts:
- We do not know if the referee would have given a penalty had Salah not have dived.
- That said, it’s a matter of opinion whether he dived. I think he did. TOOR thinks he did. Gallagher seems not so sure.
- Whether it was a foul is a matter of opinion. I base my opinion on the actual law.
- Anyone who says it was 100% a foul is wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a reminder that these are the key points but the debate has been hijacked by Liverpool fans who are desperately trying to prove me wrong and will happily derail the thread in their attempts to do so.
Trying but failing, I might add.
posted on 21/4/19
Winston
Of course you haven’t
You only have to scroll up to see you got the reasons further action wasn’t taken wrong for a start.
Maybe you can tell us what the threshold is? You’ve been prattling on about your knowledge of the rules for months. Demonstrate then for us.
No Winston it’s not because it’s you, the arrogance , it’s because in this instance I think your talking out of your hairy hoop.
posted on 21/4/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 34 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 hours, 53 minutes ago
Here are indisputable facts:
- We do not know if the referee would have given a penalty had Salah not have dived.
- That said, it’s a matter of opinion whether he dived. I think he did. TOOR thinks he did. Gallagher seems not so sure.
- Whether it was a foul is a matter of opinion. I base my opinion on the actual law.
- Anyone who says it was 100% a foul is wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a reminder that these are the key points but the debate has been hijacked by Liverpool fans who are desperately trying to prove me wrong and will happily derail the thread in their attempts to do so.
Trying but failing, I might add.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is as desperate as your ‘resorting to making personal insults comment’ earlier. You seem shocked that Liverpool fans would want to discuss the above points.
Derail the thread? The thread was originally about incidents in the City v Spurs CL tie. What has the above got to do with the OP?
posted on 21/4/19
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 10 minutes ago
Winston
Of course you haven’t
You only have to scroll up to see you got the reasons further action wasn’t taken wrong for a start.
Maybe you can tell us what the threshold is? You’ve been prattling on about your knowledge of the rules for months. Demonstrate then for us.
No Winston it’s not because it’s you, the arrogance, it’s because in this instance I think your talking out of your hairy hoop.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
None of the reasons for retrospective action not being taken contradict what I have said.
Read that slowly and let me know which part you don’t understand.
posted on 21/4/19
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 34 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 hours, 53 minutes ago
Here are indisputable facts:
- We do not know if the referee would have given a penalty had Salah not have dived.
- That said, it’s a matter of opinion whether he dived. I think he did. TOOR thinks he did. Gallagher seems not so sure.
- Whether it was a foul is a matter of opinion. I base my opinion on the actual law.
- Anyone who says it was 100% a foul is wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a reminder that these are the key points but the debate has been hijacked by Liverpool fans who are desperately trying to prove me wrong and will happily derail the thread in their attempts to do so.
Trying but failing, I might add.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is as desperate as your ‘resorting to making personal insults comment’ earlier. You seem shocked that Liverpool fans would want to discuss the above points.
Derail the thread? The thread was originally about incidents in the City v Spurs CL tie. What has the above got to do with the OP?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re not discussing the points though, are you?
You’re trying to dismiss my opinion. And failing.
posted on 21/4/19
Winston
“None of the reasons for retrospective action not being taken contradict what I have said.”
They found there wasn’t sufficient evidence of a dive. You are adamant Salah dived. Obviously the FA disagree with you or they would’ve punished him.
Christ
posted on 21/4/19
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 23 seconds ago
Winston
“None of the reasons for retrospective action not being taken contradict what I have said.”
They found there wasn’t sufficient evidence of a dive. You are adamant Salah dived. Obviously the FA disagree with you or they would’ve punished him.
Christ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s my opinion that he dived. I have said multiple times that people are entitled to disagree.
Oh dear.
Is that the sound of the penny dropping?
posted on 21/4/19
Winston
“You’re not discussing the points though, are you?
You’re trying to dismiss my opinion. And failing.”
I’m not discussing whether Salah dived or not against Newcastle?
No, I’m disagreeing with you, or having a debate. Kind of the whole point of the site. You struggle with this for some reason.
What have the 4 points you’ve listed got to do with the OP?
posted on 21/4/19
The FA don’t re-ref matches. This all comes down to a matter of opinion, which is why they’re not taking any action.
It really isn’t a difficult concept to grasp.
posted on 21/4/19
“It’s my opinion that he dived. I have said multiple times that people are entitled to disagree.”
We weren’t discussing that. We were discussing the FA’s ruling on Salah’s ‘dive’ contradicting your claim that’s Salah dived.
posted on 21/4/19
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
Winston
“You’re not discussing the points though, are you?
You’re trying to dismiss my opinion. And failing.”
I’m not discussing whether Salah dived or not against Newcastle?
No, I’m disagreeing with you, or having a debate. Kind of the whole point of the site. You struggle with this for some reason.
What have the 4 points you’ve listed got to do with the OP?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, you’re not debating my opinion. You’re trying to dismiss it.
posted on 21/4/19
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 0 seconds ago
“It’s my opinion that he dived. I have said multiple times that people are entitled to disagree.”
We weren’t discussing that. We were discussing the FA’s ruling on Salah’s ‘dive’ contradicting your claim that’s Salah dived.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That wasn’t what we were discussing actually, you turned it into that.
But yes, not taking retrospective action absolutely does not contradict my opinion.
Not having proof to charge for diving is different to not having an opinion that he dived.
I don’t think retrospective action should have been taken either ffs.
posted on 21/4/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 35 seconds ago
The FA don’t re-ref matches. This all comes down to a matter of opinion, which is why they’re not taking any action.
It really isn’t a difficult concept to grasp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it’s not why they didn’t take any further action. You pulled that out of your rse again.
We know why they didn’t take any further action.
posted on 21/4/19
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 35 seconds ago
The FA don’t re-ref matches. This all comes down to a matter of opinion, which is why they’re not taking any action.
It really isn’t a difficult concept to grasp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it’s not why they didn’t take any further action. You pulled that out of your rse again.
We know why they didn’t take any further action.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fack me. You really are struggling
posted on 21/4/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 0 seconds ago
“It’s my opinion that he dived. I have said multiple times that people are entitled to disagree.”
We weren’t discussing that. We were discussing the FA’s ruling on Salah’s ‘dive’ contradicting your claim that’s Salah dived.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That wasn’t what we were discussing actually, you turned it into that.
But yes, not taking retrospective action absolutely does not contradict my opinion.
Not having proof to charge for diving is different to not having an opinion that he dived.
I don’t think retrospective action should have been taken either ffs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s what we were discussing when you replied with the above comment
Again you’re speculating about why they didn’t take further action. The evidence we have available states why they didn’t. You claiming what their opinion may or may not have been is a load of shiite.
Where have I said you think retrospective action should’ve been taken?
posted on 21/4/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 35 seconds ago
The FA don’t re-ref matches. This all comes down to a matter of opinion, which is why they’re not taking any action.
It really isn’t a difficult concept to grasp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it’s not why they didn’t take any further action. You pulled that out of your rse again.
We know why they didn’t take any further action.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fack me. You really are struggling
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Go on then. Use your knowledge of the laws of the game to tell us where you got this from;
“This all comes down to a matter of opinion, which is why they’re not taking any action.”
Usual Winston tactic again. This time I’m ‘struggling’. I was upset etc earlier. More signs you’re losing the debate, lovely stuff.
posted on 21/4/19
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 0 seconds ago
“It’s my opinion that he dived. I have said multiple times that people are entitled to disagree.”
We weren’t discussing that. We were discussing the FA’s ruling on Salah’s ‘dive’ contradicting your claim that’s Salah dived.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That wasn’t what we were discussing actually, you turned it into that.
But yes, not taking retrospective action absolutely does not contradict my opinion.
Not having proof to charge for diving is different to not having an opinion that he dived.
I don’t think retrospective action should have been taken either ffs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s what we were discussing when you replied with the above comment
Again you’re speculating about why they didn’t take further action. The evidence we have available states why they didn’t. You claiming what their opinion may or may not have been is a load of shiite.
Where have I said you think retrospective action should’ve been taken?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not speculating anything, it’s a fact.
They wouldn’t take retrospective action in a case like this.
How clear can I make this for you? I don’t think it qualified for retrospective action. Clearly that means that a lack of retrospective action does not contradict my view.
Seriously, what part of that don’t you understand?
This is incredible.
posted on 21/4/19
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 35 seconds ago
The FA don’t re-ref matches. This all comes down to a matter of opinion, which is why they’re not taking any action.
It really isn’t a difficult concept to grasp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it’s not why they didn’t take any further action. You pulled that out of your rse again.
We know why they didn’t take any further action.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fack me. You really are struggling
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Go on then. Use your knowledge of the laws of the game to tell us where you got this from;
“This all comes down to a matter of opinion, which is why they’re not taking any action.”
Usual Winston tactic again. This time I’m ‘struggling’. I was upset etc earlier. More signs you’re losing the debate, lovely stuff.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You don’t understand why it’s a matter of opinion?
Fack me. Utterly clueless.
posted on 21/4/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 36 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 35 seconds ago
The FA don’t re-ref matches. This all comes down to a matter of opinion, which is why they’re not taking any action.
It really isn’t a difficult concept to grasp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it’s not why they didn’t take any further action. You pulled that out of your rse again.
We know why they didn’t take any further action.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fack me. You really are struggling
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Go on then. Use your knowledge of the laws of the game to tell us where you got this from;
“This all comes down to a matter of opinion, which is why they’re not taking any action.”
Usual Winston tactic again. This time I’m ‘struggling’. I was upset etc earlier. More signs you’re losing the debate, lovely stuff.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You don’t understand why it’s a matter of opinion?
Fack me. Utterly clueless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where did you get ‘it’s a matter of opinion’ from? What facts are you basing this statement on?
You don’t know what the panel said regarding whether it was a dive or not other than the published reasons of insufficient evidence of deceiving the ref.
Do you know whether members of the panel thought it was a dive or not?
Yes or no?
Page 6 of 25
7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11