comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 28 minutes ago
OK let's move on from what you said before and take what you're saying now. If you accept the decision was a valid one but disagree with it, you think it's more valid that it wasn't a penalty. For what reason, considering the law?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tell you what, seeing as you lied about what I said but can't admit it, how about you re-read this thread.
I can't explain it anymore than I have and if you still don't understand, given mine and other people's explanations, then we'll call it a day.
Other people understand it just fine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't lie at all. You said how anybody can view it as a penalty is laughable. If that's not you saying it's incorrect then wow.
Why can't you just say you got it wrong on Saturday but today on this thread you've given your real views?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And there we have TOOR.
Can't admit he's wrong and will literally claim the opposite of what is there in writing.
No point in continuing if people are just going to lie and no admit when they're wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now that comment is genuinely laughable. Accusing me of the very thing you've done.
You called the decision laughable.
You then claimed it's valid to believe it's a penalty. You can't claim both things so one has to be wrong. Admit you got it wrong ffs.
Great stuff lads keep it up
We'll get a 1000 comments yet
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 13 minutes ago
That’s still just an opinion to be fair toor, just a strong one!
Personally, I’ll happily admit I have bigger issues with the current law than I do the interpretation of them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it's an opinion. However that opinion directly contradicts what he has said in this thread. You can't believe something laughable and valid at the same time.
I struggle to believe anybody, using the current law can believe the decision incorrect but laughable? Having the belief the law isn't a good one, I can accept, although I don't think there is much difference in the application. A handball didn't actually have to be deliberate for a foul to occur, although that was in the wording. They used the same type of guidance to determine whether it was deliberate. Now they've got it written down, which should make it easier for some people to accept this type of incident is a penalty, at least according to the law.
I wondered why this three was still going. Why am I not surprised.
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 21 seconds ago
So if for example, the referee did not genuinely interpret that the arms were unnatural, but awarded a penalty regardless then he has incorrectly awarded a penalty because he has not followed the laws.
———————
Has that happened?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It would be impossible to know because because a referee could lie about it afterwards but it is a theoretic possibility.
The point is that even with interpretations of the law, there are correct interpretations and incorrect interpretations. When it comes to games (sport, video, or boardgames) the creators get to actually decide what the laws are and what the purpose of the laws are. They are the authority on it.
This is why guidance is given to referees on how to interpret certain provisions. The fact that guidance is given, suggests that the law creators had certain outcomes in mind when creating the law and so there are interpretations that were not intended and would be considered invalid. This is also why refs have performance reviews - to ensure they are applying the laws properly and that their interpretations are valid and justifiable.
It is very difficult to write laws that can be enforfed without making them too specific and hard to enforce. Look how many people moan at the offside law which is probably one of the most consistent laws. It would be nearly impossible to accurately enforce a handball law where the hand is between the angles of 35 degrees and 90 degrees because you cannot make measurements kn that during play. So you make it more vague and give the refs leeway to interpret, but guidance so that they interpret it in the way that the law creators intended.
So when interpreting laws some interpretations or opinions are more valid than others this is precisely the role a judge or arbiter plays. He listens to the opinions of both sides and decides which one is most valid for the law in question. If a higher arbiter (the PL or the IFAB) feel that this interpretation was not valid then they will overrule it and set precedent.
Winston has been pretty clear his issue is with the law though. That’s partly why he thinks it is laughable but also still currently valid.
I agree with him on the principle, there will be a few handballs that I will think laughable that are allowed under the current law. The law will make it easier for referees to interpret, I’m personally not a fan of players potentially being penalised for something completely out of their own control though.
Personally I’d also like to see them utilise indirect free kicks more rather than just penalties as well, but that’s a different debate.
TOOR, I didn't say the decision was laughable. I said it's laughable that it's considered handball.
I really, really wanted to avoid getting into one of these threads again but I have to make this point.
There's a difference in laughing at the incident because the law is a joke and because the decision is wrong.
This is another comment from the same day:
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 day, 6 hours ago
Speaking personally, my issue is with the law and the referees, not the decision yesterday.
Now, let's get to the point.
You said to me that I called the decision incorrect.
You were wrong.
Can you admit it?
Of course you can't. Same old TOOR. It's becoming boring mate.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 54 seconds ago
Winston has been pretty clear his issue is with the law though. That’s partly why he thinks it is laughable but also still currently valid.
I agree with him on the principle, there will be a few handballs that I will think laughable that are allowed under the current law. The law will make it easier for referees to interpret, I’m personally not a fan of players potentially being penalised for something completely out of their own control though.
Personally I’d also like to see them utilise indirect free kicks more rather than just penalties as well, but that’s a different debate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
At least someone understands.
Thank you Melton, you may just have saved my sanity.
comment by Irishred (U2539)
posted 12 minutes ago
Great stuff lads keep it up
We'll get a 1000 comments yet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not from me anyway, those days are gone!
Can't promise I won't chirp in though - there's a lot of mistruths flying around on here.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
TOOR, I didn't say the decision was laughable. I said it's laughable that it's considered handball.
I really, really wanted to avoid getting into one of these threads again but I have to make this point.
There's a difference in laughing at the incident because the law is a joke and because the decision is wrong.
This is another comment from the same day:
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 day, 6 hours ago
Speaking personally, my issue is with the law and the referees, not the decision yesterday.
Now, let's get to the point.
You said to me that I called the decision incorrect.
You were wrong.
Can you admit it?
Of course you can't. Same old TOOR. It's becoming boring mate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough so I finally got my answer. You think it was a penalty but don't like the law. Therefore I apologise for misinterpreting your comment.
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
TOOR, I didn't say the decision was laughable. I said it's laughable that it's considered handball.
I really, really wanted to avoid getting into one of these threads again but I have to make this point.
There's a difference in laughing at the incident because the law is a joke and because the decision is wrong.
This is another comment from the same day:
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 day, 6 hours ago
Speaking personally, my issue is with the law and the referees, not the decision yesterday.
Now, let's get to the point.
You said to me that I called the decision incorrect.
You were wrong.
Can you admit it?
Of course you can't. Same old TOOR. It's becoming boring mate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough so I finally got my answer. You think it was a penalty but don't like the law. Therefore I apologise for misinterpreting your comment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I don't think it was a penalty.
But I didn't call the decision incorrect.
The two things are not mutually exclusive and that has been explained by multiple people on this thread.
If you still don't understand then that's your problem, not mine.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 7 seconds ago
Winston has been pretty clear his issue is with the law though. That’s partly why he thinks it is laughable but also still currently valid.
I agree with him on the principle, there will be a few handballs that I will think laughable that are allowed under the current law. The law will make it easier for referees to interpret, I’m personally not a fan of players potentially being penalised for something completely out of their own control though.
Personally I’d also like to see them utilise indirect free kicks more rather than just penalties as well, but that’s a different debate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes but the issue Winston has had is that he is conflating two separate points into one. He has said he disagrees with the decision rather than just the law. This means he thinks the decision shouldn't have been made under the current laws (he is entitled to do that but he has also called the decision valid which makes an inconsistency).
I'm not sure the current law does penalise players for things completely out of their control. This woild suggest that players arms are completely out of their control. Players are perfectly capable of keeping their arms at their side (or clasped behind their back) when trying to block shots, which shows that it is within their control. Sometimes a shot is hit so fast that it can be hard to react and people say "how can he get his hand out of the way of that" when they could equally say "why was his hand in that position in the first place".
You could make an argument that a player caught offside because the defenders suddenly stepped up was offside outside of his control (because he did not control the defenders) but it was in the players control to not be on the edge of the offside line rather than 5 yards onside.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Irishred (U2539)
posted 12 minutes ago
Great stuff lads keep it up
We'll get a 1000 comments yet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not from me anyway, those days are gone!
Can't promise I won't chirp in though - there's a lot of mistruths flying around on here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Quiet you
I know this is all part of the Fergie controlled conspiracy
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 37 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
TOOR, I didn't say the decision was laughable. I said it's laughable that it's considered handball.
I really, really wanted to avoid getting into one of these threads again but I have to make this point.
There's a difference in laughing at the incident because the law is a joke and because the decision is wrong.
This is another comment from the same day:
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 day, 6 hours ago
Speaking personally, my issue is with the law and the referees, not the decision yesterday.
Now, let's get to the point.
You said to me that I called the decision incorrect.
You were wrong.
Can you admit it?
Of course you can't. Same old TOOR. It's becoming boring mate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough so I finally got my answer. You think it was a penalty but don't like the law. Therefore I apologise for misinterpreting your comment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I don't think it was a penalty.
But I didn't call the decision incorrect.
The two things are not mutually exclusive and that has been explained by multiple people on this thread.
If you still don't understand then that's your problem, not mine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you think awarding the penalty was the right decision but you don't think a penalty should have been awarded.
Incredible. Actually laughing now.
It would be impossible to know because because a referee could lie about it afterwards but it is a theoretic possibility.
——————
Sorry Welshpoolfan, but that is you dancing around your own point that you made.
Has it actually happened?
I think you know that the answer is no.
And that answer should hopefully explain the point that is actually being made...
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 37 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
TOOR, I didn't say the decision was laughable. I said it's laughable that it's considered handball.
I really, really wanted to avoid getting into one of these threads again but I have to make this point.
There's a difference in laughing at the incident because the law is a joke and because the decision is wrong.
This is another comment from the same day:
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 day, 6 hours ago
Speaking personally, my issue is with the law and the referees, not the decision yesterday.
Now, let's get to the point.
You said to me that I called the decision incorrect.
You were wrong.
Can you admit it?
Of course you can't. Same old TOOR. It's becoming boring mate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough so I finally got my answer. You think it was a penalty but don't like the law. Therefore I apologise for misinterpreting your comment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I don't think it was a penalty.
But I didn't call the decision incorrect.
The two things are not mutually exclusive and that has been explained by multiple people on this thread.
If you still don't understand then that's your problem, not mine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you think awarding the penalty was the right decision but you don't think a penalty should have been awarded.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn’t argue with an idiot; he’ll beat you with experience.
__19*__ (U22043)
Yeh, I suppose Melton and Ripleys are idiots as well now then, right?
Such a shame that you've stooped to that level.
Strip it all back and it’s really incredibly simple.
I think some posters are just arguing for the sake of it. Turning it into an unnecessary debate about semantics when it’s just really a refusal to see what is actually being said.
Which is quite ironic given the subject matter...
Welshpool,
No, that’s why I said partly. It’s been pretty clear to me all along what Winstons issues are. He doesn’t like the way the current law is written (neither do I) and he doesn’t think that one was a penalty. They’re separate issues. I haven’t seen him conflate the two, I’ve seen others try and do that though by misinterpreting his point.
The issue I have is that the way the laws are written now, you could have someone interpret that as all it needs is for the hand/ arm to be making the body bigger for it to be deemed a penalty. That could happen just in the act of running. Unless the player chooses, like I said earlier, to instead run like someone from the ministry of silly walks, they could be penalised for what for them is a completely natural movement. There’s also the pointless mention of the deflection which, because of how they’ve written the rest of the law, is completely irrelevant when it should have more relevance.
That doesn’t sit right to me, nor do I think a penalty is sometimes a justifiable punishment for it.
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 13 seconds ago
It would be impossible to know because because a referee could lie about it afterwards but it is a theoretic possibility.
——————
Sorry Welshpoolfan, but that is you dancing around your own point that you made.
Has it actually happened?
I think you know that the answer is no.
And that answer should hopefully explain the point that is actually being made...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really. If you read back I never actually claimed anywhere that it has actually happened. It was to highlight that it is entirely possible for a penalty to be awarded incorrectly, even if the ref says it was his interpretation.
The point being that guidance is put to referees specifically to ensure that they interpret decisions in the way that the lawmakers intended them to interpret them. It is entirely possible for an interpretation to be wrong and not what was intended. Otherwise there woild be no need to issue guidance and it would be left entirely up to the referee's to interpret however they saw fit.
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 39 seconds ago
Strip it all back and it’s really incredibly simple.
I think some posters are just arguing for the sake of it. Turning it into an unnecessary debate about semantics when it’s just really a refusal to see what is actually being said.
Which is quite ironic given the subject matter...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's really weird - like there's a block on them understanding.
Like Melton said though, it does explain why there's some threads about decisions that go round in circles - some people just cannot fathom that you can disagree with a decision yet understand it and acknowledge its validity at the same time.
Genuinely surprised that people struggle with that concept.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
__19*__ (U22043)
Yeh, I suppose Melton and Ripleys are idiots as well now then, right?
Such a shame that you've stooped to that level.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You set the bar hypocrite. I am only dropping down to your level as you’re incapable of operating any higher.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 39 seconds ago
Strip it all back and it’s really incredibly simple.
I think some posters are just arguing for the sake of it. Turning it into an unnecessary debate about semantics when it’s just really a refusal to see what is actually being said.
Which is quite ironic given the subject matter...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's really weird - like there's a block on them understanding.
Like Melton said though, it does explain why there's some threads about decisions that go round in circles - some people just cannot fathom that you can disagree with a decision yet understand it and acknowledge its validity at the same time.
Genuinely surprised that people struggle with that concept.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I thinks what’s more worrying is that you’re unable to understand a very simple handball rule.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 39 seconds ago
Strip it all back and it’s really incredibly simple.
I think some posters are just arguing for the sake of it. Turning it into an unnecessary debate about semantics when it’s just really a refusal to see what is actually being said.
Which is quite ironic given the subject matter...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's really weird - like there's a block on them understanding.
Like Melton said though, it does explain why there's some threads about decisions that go round in circles - some people just cannot fathom that you can disagree with a decision yet understand it and acknowledge its validity at the same time.
Genuinely surprised that people struggle with that concept.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s been an issue on this site since it’s inception tbh, this debate happens at least twice a season!
Sign in if you want to comment
Penalty nonsense
Page 12 of 14
10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14
posted on 14/9/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 28 minutes ago
OK let's move on from what you said before and take what you're saying now. If you accept the decision was a valid one but disagree with it, you think it's more valid that it wasn't a penalty. For what reason, considering the law?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tell you what, seeing as you lied about what I said but can't admit it, how about you re-read this thread.
I can't explain it anymore than I have and if you still don't understand, given mine and other people's explanations, then we'll call it a day.
Other people understand it just fine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't lie at all. You said how anybody can view it as a penalty is laughable. If that's not you saying it's incorrect then wow.
Why can't you just say you got it wrong on Saturday but today on this thread you've given your real views?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And there we have TOOR.
Can't admit he's wrong and will literally claim the opposite of what is there in writing.
No point in continuing if people are just going to lie and no admit when they're wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now that comment is genuinely laughable. Accusing me of the very thing you've done.
You called the decision laughable.
You then claimed it's valid to believe it's a penalty. You can't claim both things so one has to be wrong. Admit you got it wrong ffs.
posted on 14/9/20
Great stuff lads keep it up
We'll get a 1000 comments yet
posted on 14/9/20
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 13 minutes ago
That’s still just an opinion to be fair toor, just a strong one!
Personally, I’ll happily admit I have bigger issues with the current law than I do the interpretation of them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it's an opinion. However that opinion directly contradicts what he has said in this thread. You can't believe something laughable and valid at the same time.
I struggle to believe anybody, using the current law can believe the decision incorrect but laughable? Having the belief the law isn't a good one, I can accept, although I don't think there is much difference in the application. A handball didn't actually have to be deliberate for a foul to occur, although that was in the wording. They used the same type of guidance to determine whether it was deliberate. Now they've got it written down, which should make it easier for some people to accept this type of incident is a penalty, at least according to the law.
posted on 14/9/20
I wondered why this three was still going. Why am I not surprised.
posted on 14/9/20
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 21 seconds ago
So if for example, the referee did not genuinely interpret that the arms were unnatural, but awarded a penalty regardless then he has incorrectly awarded a penalty because he has not followed the laws.
———————
Has that happened?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It would be impossible to know because because a referee could lie about it afterwards but it is a theoretic possibility.
The point is that even with interpretations of the law, there are correct interpretations and incorrect interpretations. When it comes to games (sport, video, or boardgames) the creators get to actually decide what the laws are and what the purpose of the laws are. They are the authority on it.
This is why guidance is given to referees on how to interpret certain provisions. The fact that guidance is given, suggests that the law creators had certain outcomes in mind when creating the law and so there are interpretations that were not intended and would be considered invalid. This is also why refs have performance reviews - to ensure they are applying the laws properly and that their interpretations are valid and justifiable.
It is very difficult to write laws that can be enforfed without making them too specific and hard to enforce. Look how many people moan at the offside law which is probably one of the most consistent laws. It would be nearly impossible to accurately enforce a handball law where the hand is between the angles of 35 degrees and 90 degrees because you cannot make measurements kn that during play. So you make it more vague and give the refs leeway to interpret, but guidance so that they interpret it in the way that the law creators intended.
So when interpreting laws some interpretations or opinions are more valid than others this is precisely the role a judge or arbiter plays. He listens to the opinions of both sides and decides which one is most valid for the law in question. If a higher arbiter (the PL or the IFAB) feel that this interpretation was not valid then they will overrule it and set precedent.
posted on 14/9/20
Winston has been pretty clear his issue is with the law though. That’s partly why he thinks it is laughable but also still currently valid.
I agree with him on the principle, there will be a few handballs that I will think laughable that are allowed under the current law. The law will make it easier for referees to interpret, I’m personally not a fan of players potentially being penalised for something completely out of their own control though.
Personally I’d also like to see them utilise indirect free kicks more rather than just penalties as well, but that’s a different debate.
posted on 14/9/20
TOOR, I didn't say the decision was laughable. I said it's laughable that it's considered handball.
I really, really wanted to avoid getting into one of these threads again but I have to make this point.
There's a difference in laughing at the incident because the law is a joke and because the decision is wrong.
This is another comment from the same day:
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 day, 6 hours ago
Speaking personally, my issue is with the law and the referees, not the decision yesterday.
Now, let's get to the point.
You said to me that I called the decision incorrect.
You were wrong.
Can you admit it?
Of course you can't. Same old TOOR. It's becoming boring mate.
posted on 14/9/20
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 54 seconds ago
Winston has been pretty clear his issue is with the law though. That’s partly why he thinks it is laughable but also still currently valid.
I agree with him on the principle, there will be a few handballs that I will think laughable that are allowed under the current law. The law will make it easier for referees to interpret, I’m personally not a fan of players potentially being penalised for something completely out of their own control though.
Personally I’d also like to see them utilise indirect free kicks more rather than just penalties as well, but that’s a different debate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
At least someone understands.
Thank you Melton, you may just have saved my sanity.
posted on 14/9/20
comment by Irishred (U2539)
posted 12 minutes ago
Great stuff lads keep it up
We'll get a 1000 comments yet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not from me anyway, those days are gone!
Can't promise I won't chirp in though - there's a lot of mistruths flying around on here.
posted on 14/9/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
TOOR, I didn't say the decision was laughable. I said it's laughable that it's considered handball.
I really, really wanted to avoid getting into one of these threads again but I have to make this point.
There's a difference in laughing at the incident because the law is a joke and because the decision is wrong.
This is another comment from the same day:
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 day, 6 hours ago
Speaking personally, my issue is with the law and the referees, not the decision yesterday.
Now, let's get to the point.
You said to me that I called the decision incorrect.
You were wrong.
Can you admit it?
Of course you can't. Same old TOOR. It's becoming boring mate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough so I finally got my answer. You think it was a penalty but don't like the law. Therefore I apologise for misinterpreting your comment.
posted on 14/9/20
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
TOOR, I didn't say the decision was laughable. I said it's laughable that it's considered handball.
I really, really wanted to avoid getting into one of these threads again but I have to make this point.
There's a difference in laughing at the incident because the law is a joke and because the decision is wrong.
This is another comment from the same day:
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 day, 6 hours ago
Speaking personally, my issue is with the law and the referees, not the decision yesterday.
Now, let's get to the point.
You said to me that I called the decision incorrect.
You were wrong.
Can you admit it?
Of course you can't. Same old TOOR. It's becoming boring mate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough so I finally got my answer. You think it was a penalty but don't like the law. Therefore I apologise for misinterpreting your comment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I don't think it was a penalty.
But I didn't call the decision incorrect.
The two things are not mutually exclusive and that has been explained by multiple people on this thread.
If you still don't understand then that's your problem, not mine.
posted on 14/9/20
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 7 seconds ago
Winston has been pretty clear his issue is with the law though. That’s partly why he thinks it is laughable but also still currently valid.
I agree with him on the principle, there will be a few handballs that I will think laughable that are allowed under the current law. The law will make it easier for referees to interpret, I’m personally not a fan of players potentially being penalised for something completely out of their own control though.
Personally I’d also like to see them utilise indirect free kicks more rather than just penalties as well, but that’s a different debate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes but the issue Winston has had is that he is conflating two separate points into one. He has said he disagrees with the decision rather than just the law. This means he thinks the decision shouldn't have been made under the current laws (he is entitled to do that but he has also called the decision valid which makes an inconsistency).
I'm not sure the current law does penalise players for things completely out of their control. This woild suggest that players arms are completely out of their control. Players are perfectly capable of keeping their arms at their side (or clasped behind their back) when trying to block shots, which shows that it is within their control. Sometimes a shot is hit so fast that it can be hard to react and people say "how can he get his hand out of the way of that" when they could equally say "why was his hand in that position in the first place".
You could make an argument that a player caught offside because the defenders suddenly stepped up was offside outside of his control (because he did not control the defenders) but it was in the players control to not be on the edge of the offside line rather than 5 yards onside.
posted on 14/9/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Irishred (U2539)
posted 12 minutes ago
Great stuff lads keep it up
We'll get a 1000 comments yet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not from me anyway, those days are gone!
Can't promise I won't chirp in though - there's a lot of mistruths flying around on here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Quiet you
I know this is all part of the Fergie controlled conspiracy
posted on 14/9/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 37 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
TOOR, I didn't say the decision was laughable. I said it's laughable that it's considered handball.
I really, really wanted to avoid getting into one of these threads again but I have to make this point.
There's a difference in laughing at the incident because the law is a joke and because the decision is wrong.
This is another comment from the same day:
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 day, 6 hours ago
Speaking personally, my issue is with the law and the referees, not the decision yesterday.
Now, let's get to the point.
You said to me that I called the decision incorrect.
You were wrong.
Can you admit it?
Of course you can't. Same old TOOR. It's becoming boring mate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough so I finally got my answer. You think it was a penalty but don't like the law. Therefore I apologise for misinterpreting your comment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I don't think it was a penalty.
But I didn't call the decision incorrect.
The two things are not mutually exclusive and that has been explained by multiple people on this thread.
If you still don't understand then that's your problem, not mine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you think awarding the penalty was the right decision but you don't think a penalty should have been awarded.
posted on 14/9/20
Incredible. Actually laughing now.
posted on 14/9/20
It would be impossible to know because because a referee could lie about it afterwards but it is a theoretic possibility.
——————
Sorry Welshpoolfan, but that is you dancing around your own point that you made.
Has it actually happened?
I think you know that the answer is no.
And that answer should hopefully explain the point that is actually being made...
posted on 14/9/20
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 37 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
TOOR, I didn't say the decision was laughable. I said it's laughable that it's considered handball.
I really, really wanted to avoid getting into one of these threads again but I have to make this point.
There's a difference in laughing at the incident because the law is a joke and because the decision is wrong.
This is another comment from the same day:
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 day, 6 hours ago
Speaking personally, my issue is with the law and the referees, not the decision yesterday.
Now, let's get to the point.
You said to me that I called the decision incorrect.
You were wrong.
Can you admit it?
Of course you can't. Same old TOOR. It's becoming boring mate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough so I finally got my answer. You think it was a penalty but don't like the law. Therefore I apologise for misinterpreting your comment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I don't think it was a penalty.
But I didn't call the decision incorrect.
The two things are not mutually exclusive and that has been explained by multiple people on this thread.
If you still don't understand then that's your problem, not mine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you think awarding the penalty was the right decision but you don't think a penalty should have been awarded.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn’t argue with an idiot; he’ll beat you with experience.
posted on 14/9/20
__19*__ (U22043)
Yeh, I suppose Melton and Ripleys are idiots as well now then, right?
Such a shame that you've stooped to that level.
posted on 14/9/20
Strip it all back and it’s really incredibly simple.
I think some posters are just arguing for the sake of it. Turning it into an unnecessary debate about semantics when it’s just really a refusal to see what is actually being said.
Which is quite ironic given the subject matter...
posted on 14/9/20
Welshpool,
No, that’s why I said partly. It’s been pretty clear to me all along what Winstons issues are. He doesn’t like the way the current law is written (neither do I) and he doesn’t think that one was a penalty. They’re separate issues. I haven’t seen him conflate the two, I’ve seen others try and do that though by misinterpreting his point.
The issue I have is that the way the laws are written now, you could have someone interpret that as all it needs is for the hand/ arm to be making the body bigger for it to be deemed a penalty. That could happen just in the act of running. Unless the player chooses, like I said earlier, to instead run like someone from the ministry of silly walks, they could be penalised for what for them is a completely natural movement. There’s also the pointless mention of the deflection which, because of how they’ve written the rest of the law, is completely irrelevant when it should have more relevance.
That doesn’t sit right to me, nor do I think a penalty is sometimes a justifiable punishment for it.
posted on 14/9/20
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 13 seconds ago
It would be impossible to know because because a referee could lie about it afterwards but it is a theoretic possibility.
——————
Sorry Welshpoolfan, but that is you dancing around your own point that you made.
Has it actually happened?
I think you know that the answer is no.
And that answer should hopefully explain the point that is actually being made...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really. If you read back I never actually claimed anywhere that it has actually happened. It was to highlight that it is entirely possible for a penalty to be awarded incorrectly, even if the ref says it was his interpretation.
The point being that guidance is put to referees specifically to ensure that they interpret decisions in the way that the lawmakers intended them to interpret them. It is entirely possible for an interpretation to be wrong and not what was intended. Otherwise there woild be no need to issue guidance and it would be left entirely up to the referee's to interpret however they saw fit.
posted on 14/9/20
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 39 seconds ago
Strip it all back and it’s really incredibly simple.
I think some posters are just arguing for the sake of it. Turning it into an unnecessary debate about semantics when it’s just really a refusal to see what is actually being said.
Which is quite ironic given the subject matter...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's really weird - like there's a block on them understanding.
Like Melton said though, it does explain why there's some threads about decisions that go round in circles - some people just cannot fathom that you can disagree with a decision yet understand it and acknowledge its validity at the same time.
Genuinely surprised that people struggle with that concept.
posted on 14/9/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
__19*__ (U22043)
Yeh, I suppose Melton and Ripleys are idiots as well now then, right?
Such a shame that you've stooped to that level.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You set the bar hypocrite. I am only dropping down to your level as you’re incapable of operating any higher.
posted on 14/9/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 39 seconds ago
Strip it all back and it’s really incredibly simple.
I think some posters are just arguing for the sake of it. Turning it into an unnecessary debate about semantics when it’s just really a refusal to see what is actually being said.
Which is quite ironic given the subject matter...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's really weird - like there's a block on them understanding.
Like Melton said though, it does explain why there's some threads about decisions that go round in circles - some people just cannot fathom that you can disagree with a decision yet understand it and acknowledge its validity at the same time.
Genuinely surprised that people struggle with that concept.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I thinks what’s more worrying is that you’re unable to understand a very simple handball rule.
posted on 14/9/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 39 seconds ago
Strip it all back and it’s really incredibly simple.
I think some posters are just arguing for the sake of it. Turning it into an unnecessary debate about semantics when it’s just really a refusal to see what is actually being said.
Which is quite ironic given the subject matter...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's really weird - like there's a block on them understanding.
Like Melton said though, it does explain why there's some threads about decisions that go round in circles - some people just cannot fathom that you can disagree with a decision yet understand it and acknowledge its validity at the same time.
Genuinely surprised that people struggle with that concept.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s been an issue on this site since it’s inception tbh, this debate happens at least twice a season!
Page 12 of 14
10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14