posted 3 weeks, 1 day ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 6 seconds ago
Defender lunges in, fouls attacker, penalty shock. Whether the player could have stayed up or avoided contact is irrelevant. None of those things are in the laws of the game. You foul in the box, it's a penalty, whatever the attacker coulda, shoulda, woulda, done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re completely ignoring that the challenge wouldn’t have impacted Elliott were it not for the fact that Elliott initiated the contact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Elliott didn't foul the defender though, the defender fouled Elliott.
I understand you don't like this part of the game when attackers look for penalties and go down when fouled but that doesn't take away the fact he was fouled in the box and fouls in the box will be a penalty.
I'm astounded this is even a debate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're just repeating things that aren't true because you can't actually answer the point.
The contact only occurred because Elliott initiated it.
He could have carried on running without being touched.
He chose not to. He cheated.
posted 3 weeks, 1 day ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 6 seconds ago
Defender lunges in, fouls attacker, penalty shock. Whether the player could have stayed up or avoided contact is irrelevant. None of those things are in the laws of the game. You foul in the box, it's a penalty, whatever the attacker coulda, shoulda, woulda, done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re completely ignoring that the challenge wouldn’t have impacted Elliott were it not for the fact that Elliott initiated the contact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Elliott didn't foul the defender though, the defender fouled Elliott.
I understand you don't like this part of the game when attackers look for penalties and go down when fouled but that doesn't take away the fact he was fouled in the box and fouls in the box will be a penalty.
I'm astounded this is even a debate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're just repeating things that aren't true because you can't actually answer the point.
The contact only occurred because Elliott initiated it.
He could have carried on running without being touched.
He chose not to. He cheated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No the contact occurred as the defender lunged in and got nowhere near the ball, taking out the attacker. Why should attackers choose not to be fouled? That's ridiculous. They want a penalty. They're not going to choose not to be fouled.
posted 3 weeks, 1 day ago
'taking out the attacker'
Had Elliott continued his stride, he'd have got past AWB without incident.
He chose to brush his leg against AWB and go down. He had no reason to do it, other than to win a penalty.
posted 3 weeks, 1 day ago
It's a bit like the Vardy of old.
Stick your leg across and initiate contact, but make it look like it's the challenge that caused it.
Cheating.
posted 3 weeks, 1 day ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 2 hours, 16 minutes ago
Both sides are right. Elliot could have very easily ridden that challenge but chose to make sure he got caught.
====
He chose to get caught because his advantage had been lost due to Bissaka's unlawful challenge.
What benefit would it serve to stay on his feet after being fouled and losing the ball or the advantage as a consequence?
If refs gave fouls without players going down then you'd have a point perhaps.
posted 3 weeks, 1 day ago
Had Elliott continued his stride, he'd have got past AWB without incident
=====
The aim of football is to get past the defender with the ball and in a good and advantageous position to score or assist.
If you get past the defender and lose the ball or end up facing away from goal and therefore lose the opportunity to shoot then it's pointless.
Bissaka unfairly impeded Elliott's progress whether you like it or not.
posted 3 weeks, 1 day ago
Elliott wasn't fouled at the point of AWB diving in.
There was plenty of space for Elliott to play in and his natural movement could easily have continued.
He moves the ball to his left and could continue that run he if chooses - AWB wasn't impeding him in the slightest.
He chooses not to do that, and instead to initiate contact that will then lead to him falling over. Players from all teams do it - clear as day.
The only possible argument you could make is that Elliott saw the right foot of AWB coming, thought it would make contacted and adjusted because of it. That contact never came, of course. That would be a very generous interpretation of events, given what Elliott did with his other leg.
posted 3 weeks, 1 day ago
Liverpool fans current argument seems to be that if AWB is between Elliott and the goal, he has to get the ball, otherwise it's a foul.
Laughable.
'Impeding' doesn't mean blocking your path to goal.
posted 3 weeks, 1 day ago
Had Elliott continued his stride, he'd have got past AWB without incident
=====
What sport are you talking about? Kabbadi?
You must consider the ball and the scoring of goals which is the aim of football. It's not as simple as just getting past Bissaka and you know it, but I guess you're enjoying the argument.
posted 3 weeks, 1 day ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson (U1282)
posted 38 seconds ago
Had Elliott continued his stride, he'd have got past AWB without incident
=====
What sport are you talking about? Kabbadi?
You must consider the ball and the scoring of goals which is the aim of football. It's not as simple as just getting past Bissaka and you know it, but I guess you're enjoying the argument.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What on earth are you going on about?
I don't think even you know.
Elliott had already made his turn left to avoid AWB.
posted 3 weeks, 1 day ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 hours, 8 minutes ago
Defender lunges in, fouls attacker, penalty shock. Whether the player could have stayed up or avoided contact is irrelevant. None of those things are in the laws of the game. You foul in the box, it's a penalty, whatever the attacker coulda, shoulda, woulda, done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the foul?
posted 3 weeks, 1 day ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 hour, 34 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 6 seconds ago
Defender lunges in, fouls attacker, penalty shock. Whether the player could have stayed up or avoided contact is irrelevant. None of those things are in the laws of the game. You foul in the box, it's a penalty, whatever the attacker coulda, shoulda, woulda, done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re completely ignoring that the challenge wouldn’t have impacted Elliott were it not for the fact that Elliott initiated the contact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Elliott didn't foul the defender though, the defender fouled Elliott.
I understand you don't like this part of the game when attackers look for penalties and go down when fouled but that doesn't take away the fact he was fouled in the box and fouls in the box will be a penalty.
I'm astounded this is even a debate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're just repeating things that aren't true because you can't actually answer the point.
The contact only occurred because Elliott initiated it.
He could have carried on running without being touched.
He chose not to. He cheated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No the contact occurred as the defender lunged in and got nowhere near the ball, taking out the attacker. Why should attackers choose not to be fouled? That's ridiculous. They want a penalty. They're not going to choose not to be fouled.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
AWB disnt touch elliot.
Elliot tripped over AWB, intentionally,.to win a pen.
posted 3 weeks, 1 day ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 40 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 6 seconds ago
Defender lunges in, fouls attacker, penalty shock. Whether the player could have stayed up or avoided contact is irrelevant. None of those things are in the laws of the game. You foul in the box, it's a penalty, whatever the attacker coulda, shoulda, woulda, done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re completely ignoring that the challenge wouldn’t have impacted Elliott were it not for the fact that Elliott initiated the contact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Elliott didn't foul the defender though, the defender fouled Elliott.
I understand you don't like this part of the game when attackers look for penalties and go down when fouled but that doesn't take away the fact he was fouled in the box and fouls in the box will be a penalty.
I'm astounded this is even a debate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're just repeating things that aren't true because you can't actually answer the point.
The contact only occurred because Elliott initiated it.
He could have carried on running without being touched.
He chose not to. He cheated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you been living under a rock.
This is what players do all the fecking time, many many times a match, go down under little or no contact. Pull someones arm or shoulder, legs give way. Does that happen in real life or only when a footballer gets into a penalty area. Put your hands on someones back, do they fly to the floor...only in football.
Footballer "cheat" probably 50 times a match and individuals like Fernandes are some of the worst at it.
Why are you acting all shocked by Elliot going down after AWB gave him the opportunity to do so, demanding a confession he dived?
More than anything that was total stupidity from AWB because players do not need an invite to look to gain an advantage.
posted 3 weeks, 1 day ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson (U1282)
posted 1 hour, 17 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 2 hours, 16 minutes ago
Both sides are right. Elliot could have very easily ridden that challenge but chose to make sure he got caught.
====
He chose to get caught because his advantage had been lost due to Bissaka's unlawful challenge.
What benefit would it serve to stay on his feet after being fouled and losing the ball or the advantage as a consequence?
If refs gave fouls without players going down then you'd have a point perhaps.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlawful? Since when have slide tackles been unlawful?
posted 3 weeks, 1 day ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 40 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 6 seconds ago
Defender lunges in, fouls attacker, penalty shock. Whether the player could have stayed up or avoided contact is irrelevant. None of those things are in the laws of the game. You foul in the box, it's a penalty, whatever the attacker coulda, shoulda, woulda, done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re completely ignoring that the challenge wouldn’t have impacted Elliott were it not for the fact that Elliott initiated the contact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Elliott didn't foul the defender though, the defender fouled Elliott.
I understand you don't like this part of the game when attackers look for penalties and go down when fouled but that doesn't take away the fact he was fouled in the box and fouls in the box will be a penalty.
I'm astounded this is even a debate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're just repeating things that aren't true because you can't actually answer the point.
The contact only occurred because Elliott initiated it.
He could have carried on running without being touched.
He chose not to. He cheated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you been living under a rock.
This is what players do all the fecking time, many many times a match, go down under little or no contact. Pull someones arm or shoulder, legs give way. Does that happen in real life or only when a footballer gets into a penalty area. Put your hands on someones back, do they fly to the floor...only in football.
Footballer "cheat" probably 50 times a match and individuals like Fernandes are some of the worst at it.
Why are you acting all shocked by Elliot going down after AWB gave him the opportunity to do so, demanding a confession he dived?
More than anything that was total stupidity from AWB because players do not need an invite to look to gain an advantage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, someone from the other side of the argument admits that Elliott took AWBs outstretched leg as an 'oppurtunity' to go doen
posted 3 weeks, 1 day ago
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 40 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 6 seconds ago
Defender lunges in, fouls attacker, penalty shock. Whether the player could have stayed up or avoided contact is irrelevant. None of those things are in the laws of the game. You foul in the box, it's a penalty, whatever the attacker coulda, shoulda, woulda, done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re completely ignoring that the challenge wouldn’t have impacted Elliott were it not for the fact that Elliott initiated the contact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Elliott didn't foul the defender though, the defender fouled Elliott.
I understand you don't like this part of the game when attackers look for penalties and go down when fouled but that doesn't take away the fact he was fouled in the box and fouls in the box will be a penalty.
I'm astounded this is even a debate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're just repeating things that aren't true because you can't actually answer the point.
The contact only occurred because Elliott initiated it.
He could have carried on running without being touched.
He chose not to. He cheated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you been living under a rock.
This is what players do all the fecking time, many many times a match, go down under little or no contact. Pull someones arm or shoulder, legs give way. Does that happen in real life or only when a footballer gets into a penalty area. Put your hands on someones back, do they fly to the floor...only in football.
Footballer "cheat" probably 50 times a match and individuals like Fernandes are some of the worst at it.
Why are you acting all shocked by Elliot going down after AWB gave him the opportunity to do so, demanding a confession he dived?
More than anything that was total stupidity from AWB because players do not need an invite to look to gain an advantage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, someone from the other side of the argument admits that Elliott took AWBs outstretched leg as an 'oppurtunity' to go doen
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You will never hear that from a liverpool fan!
posted 3 weeks, 1 day ago
comment by burghandy (U10383)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 40 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 6 seconds ago
Defender lunges in, fouls attacker, penalty shock. Whether the player could have stayed up or avoided contact is irrelevant. None of those things are in the laws of the game. You foul in the box, it's a penalty, whatever the attacker coulda, shoulda, woulda, done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re completely ignoring that the challenge wouldn’t have impacted Elliott were it not for the fact that Elliott initiated the contact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Elliott didn't foul the defender though, the defender fouled Elliott.
I understand you don't like this part of the game when attackers look for penalties and go down when fouled but that doesn't take away the fact he was fouled in the box and fouls in the box will be a penalty.
I'm astounded this is even a debate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're just repeating things that aren't true because you can't actually answer the point.
The contact only occurred because Elliott initiated it.
He could have carried on running without being touched.
He chose not to. He cheated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you been living under a rock.
This is what players do all the fecking time, many many times a match, go down under little or no contact. Pull someones arm or shoulder, legs give way. Does that happen in real life or only when a footballer gets into a penalty area. Put your hands on someones back, do they fly to the floor...only in football.
Footballer "cheat" probably 50 times a match and individuals like Fernandes are some of the worst at it.
Why are you acting all shocked by Elliot going down after AWB gave him the opportunity to do so, demanding a confession he dived?
More than anything that was total stupidity from AWB because players do not need an invite to look to gain an advantage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, someone from the other side of the argument admits that Elliott took AWBs outstretched leg as an 'oppurtunity' to go doen
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You will never hear that from a liverpool fan!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To channel my inner Keegan, I'd love it, LOVE IT, if we saw Liverpool lose out on the title to a similar pen decision.
posted 3 weeks, 1 day ago
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by burghandy (U10383)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 40 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 6 seconds ago
Defender lunges in, fouls attacker, penalty shock. Whether the player could have stayed up or avoided contact is irrelevant. None of those things are in the laws of the game. You foul in the box, it's a penalty, whatever the attacker coulda, shoulda, woulda, done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re completely ignoring that the challenge wouldn’t have impacted Elliott were it not for the fact that Elliott initiated the contact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Elliott didn't foul the defender though, the defender fouled Elliott.
I understand you don't like this part of the game when attackers look for penalties and go down when fouled but that doesn't take away the fact he was fouled in the box and fouls in the box will be a penalty.
I'm astounded this is even a debate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're just repeating things that aren't true because you can't actually answer the point.
The contact only occurred because Elliott initiated it.
He could have carried on running without being touched.
He chose not to. He cheated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you been living under a rock.
This is what players do all the fecking time, many many times a match, go down under little or no contact. Pull someones arm or shoulder, legs give way. Does that happen in real life or only when a footballer gets into a penalty area. Put your hands on someones back, do they fly to the floor...only in football.
Footballer "cheat" probably 50 times a match and individuals like Fernandes are some of the worst at it.
Why are you acting all shocked by Elliot going down after AWB gave him the opportunity to do so, demanding a confession he dived?
More than anything that was total stupidity from AWB because players do not need an invite to look to gain an advantage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, someone from the other side of the argument admits that Elliott took AWBs outstretched leg as an 'oppurtunity' to go doen
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You will never hear that from a liverpool fan!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To channel my inner Keegan, I'd love it, LOVE IT, if we saw Liverpool lose out on the title to a similar pen decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Liverpool have already had an incorrect penalty not given against them this season (actually incorrect unlike this one whoch was a clear penalty), plus two players incorrectly sent off this season, and a goal incorrectly disallowed.
posted 3 weeks, 1 day ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by burghandy (U10383)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 40 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 6 seconds ago
Defender lunges in, fouls attacker, penalty shock. Whether the player could have stayed up or avoided contact is irrelevant. None of those things are in the laws of the game. You foul in the box, it's a penalty, whatever the attacker coulda, shoulda, woulda, done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re completely ignoring that the challenge wouldn’t have impacted Elliott were it not for the fact that Elliott initiated the contact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Elliott didn't foul the defender though, the defender fouled Elliott.
I understand you don't like this part of the game when attackers look for penalties and go down when fouled but that doesn't take away the fact he was fouled in the box and fouls in the box will be a penalty.
I'm astounded this is even a debate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're just repeating things that aren't true because you can't actually answer the point.
The contact only occurred because Elliott initiated it.
He could have carried on running without being touched.
He chose not to. He cheated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you been living under a rock.
This is what players do all the fecking time, many many times a match, go down under little or no contact. Pull someones arm or shoulder, legs give way. Does that happen in real life or only when a footballer gets into a penalty area. Put your hands on someones back, do they fly to the floor...only in football.
Footballer "cheat" probably 50 times a match and individuals like Fernandes are some of the worst at it.
Why are you acting all shocked by Elliot going down after AWB gave him the opportunity to do so, demanding a confession he dived?
More than anything that was total stupidity from AWB because players do not need an invite to look to gain an advantage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, someone from the other side of the argument admits that Elliott took AWBs outstretched leg as an 'oppurtunity' to go doen
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You will never hear that from a liverpool fan!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To channel my inner Keegan, I'd love it, LOVE IT, if we saw Liverpool lose out on the title to a similar pen decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Liverpool have already had an incorrect penalty not given against them this season (actually incorrect unlike this one whoch was a clear penalty), plus two players incorrectly sent off this season, and a goal incorrectly disallowed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope there is an identical situation to this one so we can see you all do a 180 and argue its a dive. 🤞🏻
posted 3 weeks, 1 day ago
I hope there is an identical situation to this one so we can see you all do a 180 and argue its not a dive.
posted 3 weeks, 1 day ago
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 50 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by burghandy (U10383)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 40 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 6 seconds ago
Defender lunges in, fouls attacker, penalty shock. Whether the player could have stayed up or avoided contact is irrelevant. None of those things are in the laws of the game. You foul in the box, it's a penalty, whatever the attacker coulda, shoulda, woulda, done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re completely ignoring that the challenge wouldn’t have impacted Elliott were it not for the fact that Elliott initiated the contact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Elliott didn't foul the defender though, the defender fouled Elliott.
I understand you don't like this part of the game when attackers look for penalties and go down when fouled but that doesn't take away the fact he was fouled in the box and fouls in the box will be a penalty.
I'm astounded this is even a debate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're just repeating things that aren't true because you can't actually answer the point.
The contact only occurred because Elliott initiated it.
He could have carried on running without being touched.
He chose not to. He cheated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you been living under a rock.
This is what players do all the fecking time, many many times a match, go down under little or no contact. Pull someones arm or shoulder, legs give way. Does that happen in real life or only when a footballer gets into a penalty area. Put your hands on someones back, do they fly to the floor...only in football.
Footballer "cheat" probably 50 times a match and individuals like Fernandes are some of the worst at it.
Why are you acting all shocked by Elliot going down after AWB gave him the opportunity to do so, demanding a confession he dived?
More than anything that was total stupidity from AWB because players do not need an invite to look to gain an advantage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, someone from the other side of the argument admits that Elliott took AWBs outstretched leg as an 'oppurtunity' to go doen
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You will never hear that from a liverpool fan!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To channel my inner Keegan, I'd love it, LOVE IT, if we saw Liverpool lose out on the title to a similar pen decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Liverpool have already had an incorrect penalty not given against them this season (actually incorrect unlike this one whoch was a clear penalty), plus two players incorrectly sent off this season, and a goal incorrectly disallowed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope there is an identical situation to this one so we can see you all do a 180 and argue its a dive. 🤞🏻
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just discovered you're RDD. It makes sense now.
Carry on.
posted 3 weeks, 1 day ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson (U1282)
posted 54 minutes ago
I hope there is an identical situation to this one so we can see you all do a 180 and argue its not a dive.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would we care? Dive or not, if mitsubishis.cost you, it's funny
posted 3 weeks, 1 day ago
If.it
posted 3 weeks, 1 day ago
Wow. That typo is on steroids.
posted 3 weeks, 1 day ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 5 hours, 17 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 40 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 6 seconds ago
Defender lunges in, fouls attacker, penalty shock. Whether the player could have stayed up or avoided contact is irrelevant. None of those things are in the laws of the game. You foul in the box, it's a penalty, whatever the attacker coulda, shoulda, woulda, done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re completely ignoring that the challenge wouldn’t have impacted Elliott were it not for the fact that Elliott initiated the contact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Elliott didn't foul the defender though, the defender fouled Elliott.
I understand you don't like this part of the game when attackers look for penalties and go down when fouled but that doesn't take away the fact he was fouled in the box and fouls in the box will be a penalty.
I'm astounded this is even a debate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're just repeating things that aren't true because you can't actually answer the point.
The contact only occurred because Elliott initiated it.
He could have carried on running without being touched.
He chose not to. He cheated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you been living under a rock.
This is what players do all the fecking time, many many times a match, go down under little or no contact. Pull someones arm or shoulder, legs give way. Does that happen in real life or only when a footballer gets into a penalty area. Put your hands on someones back, do they fly to the floor...only in football.
Footballer "cheat" probably 50 times a match and individuals like Fernandes are some of the worst at it.
Why are you acting all shocked by Elliot going down after AWB gave him the opportunity to do so, demanding a confession he dived?
More than anything that was total stupidity from AWB because players do not need an invite to look to gain an advantage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not acting shocked and I’m well aware of how frequent the problem is.
My post below demonstrates that, so wind your neck in.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 day, 23 hours ago
It’s funny that we all know what Elliott did, yet there are still some people saying it’s not clear and obvious.
Modern football. Cheating is accepted now.
United are no better of course. Bruno would do it, 100%.
But today, the result was a draw because Elliott dived. There’s no escaping that.
Sign in if you want to comment
Weekend Decisions
Page 7 of 8
6 | 7 | 8
posted 3 weeks, 1 day ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 6 seconds ago
Defender lunges in, fouls attacker, penalty shock. Whether the player could have stayed up or avoided contact is irrelevant. None of those things are in the laws of the game. You foul in the box, it's a penalty, whatever the attacker coulda, shoulda, woulda, done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re completely ignoring that the challenge wouldn’t have impacted Elliott were it not for the fact that Elliott initiated the contact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Elliott didn't foul the defender though, the defender fouled Elliott.
I understand you don't like this part of the game when attackers look for penalties and go down when fouled but that doesn't take away the fact he was fouled in the box and fouls in the box will be a penalty.
I'm astounded this is even a debate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're just repeating things that aren't true because you can't actually answer the point.
The contact only occurred because Elliott initiated it.
He could have carried on running without being touched.
He chose not to. He cheated.
posted 3 weeks, 1 day ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 6 seconds ago
Defender lunges in, fouls attacker, penalty shock. Whether the player could have stayed up or avoided contact is irrelevant. None of those things are in the laws of the game. You foul in the box, it's a penalty, whatever the attacker coulda, shoulda, woulda, done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re completely ignoring that the challenge wouldn’t have impacted Elliott were it not for the fact that Elliott initiated the contact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Elliott didn't foul the defender though, the defender fouled Elliott.
I understand you don't like this part of the game when attackers look for penalties and go down when fouled but that doesn't take away the fact he was fouled in the box and fouls in the box will be a penalty.
I'm astounded this is even a debate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're just repeating things that aren't true because you can't actually answer the point.
The contact only occurred because Elliott initiated it.
He could have carried on running without being touched.
He chose not to. He cheated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No the contact occurred as the defender lunged in and got nowhere near the ball, taking out the attacker. Why should attackers choose not to be fouled? That's ridiculous. They want a penalty. They're not going to choose not to be fouled.
posted 3 weeks, 1 day ago
'taking out the attacker'
Had Elliott continued his stride, he'd have got past AWB without incident.
He chose to brush his leg against AWB and go down. He had no reason to do it, other than to win a penalty.
posted 3 weeks, 1 day ago
It's a bit like the Vardy of old.
Stick your leg across and initiate contact, but make it look like it's the challenge that caused it.
Cheating.
posted 3 weeks, 1 day ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 2 hours, 16 minutes ago
Both sides are right. Elliot could have very easily ridden that challenge but chose to make sure he got caught.
====
He chose to get caught because his advantage had been lost due to Bissaka's unlawful challenge.
What benefit would it serve to stay on his feet after being fouled and losing the ball or the advantage as a consequence?
If refs gave fouls without players going down then you'd have a point perhaps.
posted 3 weeks, 1 day ago
Had Elliott continued his stride, he'd have got past AWB without incident
=====
The aim of football is to get past the defender with the ball and in a good and advantageous position to score or assist.
If you get past the defender and lose the ball or end up facing away from goal and therefore lose the opportunity to shoot then it's pointless.
Bissaka unfairly impeded Elliott's progress whether you like it or not.
posted 3 weeks, 1 day ago
Elliott wasn't fouled at the point of AWB diving in.
There was plenty of space for Elliott to play in and his natural movement could easily have continued.
He moves the ball to his left and could continue that run he if chooses - AWB wasn't impeding him in the slightest.
He chooses not to do that, and instead to initiate contact that will then lead to him falling over. Players from all teams do it - clear as day.
The only possible argument you could make is that Elliott saw the right foot of AWB coming, thought it would make contacted and adjusted because of it. That contact never came, of course. That would be a very generous interpretation of events, given what Elliott did with his other leg.
posted 3 weeks, 1 day ago
Liverpool fans current argument seems to be that if AWB is between Elliott and the goal, he has to get the ball, otherwise it's a foul.
Laughable.
'Impeding' doesn't mean blocking your path to goal.
posted 3 weeks, 1 day ago
Had Elliott continued his stride, he'd have got past AWB without incident
=====
What sport are you talking about? Kabbadi?
You must consider the ball and the scoring of goals which is the aim of football. It's not as simple as just getting past Bissaka and you know it, but I guess you're enjoying the argument.
posted 3 weeks, 1 day ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson (U1282)
posted 38 seconds ago
Had Elliott continued his stride, he'd have got past AWB without incident
=====
What sport are you talking about? Kabbadi?
You must consider the ball and the scoring of goals which is the aim of football. It's not as simple as just getting past Bissaka and you know it, but I guess you're enjoying the argument.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What on earth are you going on about?
I don't think even you know.
Elliott had already made his turn left to avoid AWB.
posted 3 weeks, 1 day ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 hours, 8 minutes ago
Defender lunges in, fouls attacker, penalty shock. Whether the player could have stayed up or avoided contact is irrelevant. None of those things are in the laws of the game. You foul in the box, it's a penalty, whatever the attacker coulda, shoulda, woulda, done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the foul?
posted 3 weeks, 1 day ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 hour, 34 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 6 seconds ago
Defender lunges in, fouls attacker, penalty shock. Whether the player could have stayed up or avoided contact is irrelevant. None of those things are in the laws of the game. You foul in the box, it's a penalty, whatever the attacker coulda, shoulda, woulda, done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re completely ignoring that the challenge wouldn’t have impacted Elliott were it not for the fact that Elliott initiated the contact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Elliott didn't foul the defender though, the defender fouled Elliott.
I understand you don't like this part of the game when attackers look for penalties and go down when fouled but that doesn't take away the fact he was fouled in the box and fouls in the box will be a penalty.
I'm astounded this is even a debate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're just repeating things that aren't true because you can't actually answer the point.
The contact only occurred because Elliott initiated it.
He could have carried on running without being touched.
He chose not to. He cheated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No the contact occurred as the defender lunged in and got nowhere near the ball, taking out the attacker. Why should attackers choose not to be fouled? That's ridiculous. They want a penalty. They're not going to choose not to be fouled.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
AWB disnt touch elliot.
Elliot tripped over AWB, intentionally,.to win a pen.
posted 3 weeks, 1 day ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 40 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 6 seconds ago
Defender lunges in, fouls attacker, penalty shock. Whether the player could have stayed up or avoided contact is irrelevant. None of those things are in the laws of the game. You foul in the box, it's a penalty, whatever the attacker coulda, shoulda, woulda, done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re completely ignoring that the challenge wouldn’t have impacted Elliott were it not for the fact that Elliott initiated the contact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Elliott didn't foul the defender though, the defender fouled Elliott.
I understand you don't like this part of the game when attackers look for penalties and go down when fouled but that doesn't take away the fact he was fouled in the box and fouls in the box will be a penalty.
I'm astounded this is even a debate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're just repeating things that aren't true because you can't actually answer the point.
The contact only occurred because Elliott initiated it.
He could have carried on running without being touched.
He chose not to. He cheated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you been living under a rock.
This is what players do all the fecking time, many many times a match, go down under little or no contact. Pull someones arm or shoulder, legs give way. Does that happen in real life or only when a footballer gets into a penalty area. Put your hands on someones back, do they fly to the floor...only in football.
Footballer "cheat" probably 50 times a match and individuals like Fernandes are some of the worst at it.
Why are you acting all shocked by Elliot going down after AWB gave him the opportunity to do so, demanding a confession he dived?
More than anything that was total stupidity from AWB because players do not need an invite to look to gain an advantage.
posted 3 weeks, 1 day ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson (U1282)
posted 1 hour, 17 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 2 hours, 16 minutes ago
Both sides are right. Elliot could have very easily ridden that challenge but chose to make sure he got caught.
====
He chose to get caught because his advantage had been lost due to Bissaka's unlawful challenge.
What benefit would it serve to stay on his feet after being fouled and losing the ball or the advantage as a consequence?
If refs gave fouls without players going down then you'd have a point perhaps.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlawful? Since when have slide tackles been unlawful?
posted 3 weeks, 1 day ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 40 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 6 seconds ago
Defender lunges in, fouls attacker, penalty shock. Whether the player could have stayed up or avoided contact is irrelevant. None of those things are in the laws of the game. You foul in the box, it's a penalty, whatever the attacker coulda, shoulda, woulda, done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re completely ignoring that the challenge wouldn’t have impacted Elliott were it not for the fact that Elliott initiated the contact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Elliott didn't foul the defender though, the defender fouled Elliott.
I understand you don't like this part of the game when attackers look for penalties and go down when fouled but that doesn't take away the fact he was fouled in the box and fouls in the box will be a penalty.
I'm astounded this is even a debate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're just repeating things that aren't true because you can't actually answer the point.
The contact only occurred because Elliott initiated it.
He could have carried on running without being touched.
He chose not to. He cheated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you been living under a rock.
This is what players do all the fecking time, many many times a match, go down under little or no contact. Pull someones arm or shoulder, legs give way. Does that happen in real life or only when a footballer gets into a penalty area. Put your hands on someones back, do they fly to the floor...only in football.
Footballer "cheat" probably 50 times a match and individuals like Fernandes are some of the worst at it.
Why are you acting all shocked by Elliot going down after AWB gave him the opportunity to do so, demanding a confession he dived?
More than anything that was total stupidity from AWB because players do not need an invite to look to gain an advantage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, someone from the other side of the argument admits that Elliott took AWBs outstretched leg as an 'oppurtunity' to go doen
posted 3 weeks, 1 day ago
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 40 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 6 seconds ago
Defender lunges in, fouls attacker, penalty shock. Whether the player could have stayed up or avoided contact is irrelevant. None of those things are in the laws of the game. You foul in the box, it's a penalty, whatever the attacker coulda, shoulda, woulda, done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re completely ignoring that the challenge wouldn’t have impacted Elliott were it not for the fact that Elliott initiated the contact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Elliott didn't foul the defender though, the defender fouled Elliott.
I understand you don't like this part of the game when attackers look for penalties and go down when fouled but that doesn't take away the fact he was fouled in the box and fouls in the box will be a penalty.
I'm astounded this is even a debate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're just repeating things that aren't true because you can't actually answer the point.
The contact only occurred because Elliott initiated it.
He could have carried on running without being touched.
He chose not to. He cheated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you been living under a rock.
This is what players do all the fecking time, many many times a match, go down under little or no contact. Pull someones arm or shoulder, legs give way. Does that happen in real life or only when a footballer gets into a penalty area. Put your hands on someones back, do they fly to the floor...only in football.
Footballer "cheat" probably 50 times a match and individuals like Fernandes are some of the worst at it.
Why are you acting all shocked by Elliot going down after AWB gave him the opportunity to do so, demanding a confession he dived?
More than anything that was total stupidity from AWB because players do not need an invite to look to gain an advantage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, someone from the other side of the argument admits that Elliott took AWBs outstretched leg as an 'oppurtunity' to go doen
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You will never hear that from a liverpool fan!
posted 3 weeks, 1 day ago
comment by burghandy (U10383)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 40 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 6 seconds ago
Defender lunges in, fouls attacker, penalty shock. Whether the player could have stayed up or avoided contact is irrelevant. None of those things are in the laws of the game. You foul in the box, it's a penalty, whatever the attacker coulda, shoulda, woulda, done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re completely ignoring that the challenge wouldn’t have impacted Elliott were it not for the fact that Elliott initiated the contact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Elliott didn't foul the defender though, the defender fouled Elliott.
I understand you don't like this part of the game when attackers look for penalties and go down when fouled but that doesn't take away the fact he was fouled in the box and fouls in the box will be a penalty.
I'm astounded this is even a debate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're just repeating things that aren't true because you can't actually answer the point.
The contact only occurred because Elliott initiated it.
He could have carried on running without being touched.
He chose not to. He cheated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you been living under a rock.
This is what players do all the fecking time, many many times a match, go down under little or no contact. Pull someones arm or shoulder, legs give way. Does that happen in real life or only when a footballer gets into a penalty area. Put your hands on someones back, do they fly to the floor...only in football.
Footballer "cheat" probably 50 times a match and individuals like Fernandes are some of the worst at it.
Why are you acting all shocked by Elliot going down after AWB gave him the opportunity to do so, demanding a confession he dived?
More than anything that was total stupidity from AWB because players do not need an invite to look to gain an advantage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, someone from the other side of the argument admits that Elliott took AWBs outstretched leg as an 'oppurtunity' to go doen
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You will never hear that from a liverpool fan!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To channel my inner Keegan, I'd love it, LOVE IT, if we saw Liverpool lose out on the title to a similar pen decision.
posted 3 weeks, 1 day ago
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by burghandy (U10383)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 40 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 6 seconds ago
Defender lunges in, fouls attacker, penalty shock. Whether the player could have stayed up or avoided contact is irrelevant. None of those things are in the laws of the game. You foul in the box, it's a penalty, whatever the attacker coulda, shoulda, woulda, done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re completely ignoring that the challenge wouldn’t have impacted Elliott were it not for the fact that Elliott initiated the contact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Elliott didn't foul the defender though, the defender fouled Elliott.
I understand you don't like this part of the game when attackers look for penalties and go down when fouled but that doesn't take away the fact he was fouled in the box and fouls in the box will be a penalty.
I'm astounded this is even a debate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're just repeating things that aren't true because you can't actually answer the point.
The contact only occurred because Elliott initiated it.
He could have carried on running without being touched.
He chose not to. He cheated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you been living under a rock.
This is what players do all the fecking time, many many times a match, go down under little or no contact. Pull someones arm or shoulder, legs give way. Does that happen in real life or only when a footballer gets into a penalty area. Put your hands on someones back, do they fly to the floor...only in football.
Footballer "cheat" probably 50 times a match and individuals like Fernandes are some of the worst at it.
Why are you acting all shocked by Elliot going down after AWB gave him the opportunity to do so, demanding a confession he dived?
More than anything that was total stupidity from AWB because players do not need an invite to look to gain an advantage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, someone from the other side of the argument admits that Elliott took AWBs outstretched leg as an 'oppurtunity' to go doen
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You will never hear that from a liverpool fan!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To channel my inner Keegan, I'd love it, LOVE IT, if we saw Liverpool lose out on the title to a similar pen decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Liverpool have already had an incorrect penalty not given against them this season (actually incorrect unlike this one whoch was a clear penalty), plus two players incorrectly sent off this season, and a goal incorrectly disallowed.
posted 3 weeks, 1 day ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by burghandy (U10383)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 40 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 6 seconds ago
Defender lunges in, fouls attacker, penalty shock. Whether the player could have stayed up or avoided contact is irrelevant. None of those things are in the laws of the game. You foul in the box, it's a penalty, whatever the attacker coulda, shoulda, woulda, done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re completely ignoring that the challenge wouldn’t have impacted Elliott were it not for the fact that Elliott initiated the contact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Elliott didn't foul the defender though, the defender fouled Elliott.
I understand you don't like this part of the game when attackers look for penalties and go down when fouled but that doesn't take away the fact he was fouled in the box and fouls in the box will be a penalty.
I'm astounded this is even a debate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're just repeating things that aren't true because you can't actually answer the point.
The contact only occurred because Elliott initiated it.
He could have carried on running without being touched.
He chose not to. He cheated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you been living under a rock.
This is what players do all the fecking time, many many times a match, go down under little or no contact. Pull someones arm or shoulder, legs give way. Does that happen in real life or only when a footballer gets into a penalty area. Put your hands on someones back, do they fly to the floor...only in football.
Footballer "cheat" probably 50 times a match and individuals like Fernandes are some of the worst at it.
Why are you acting all shocked by Elliot going down after AWB gave him the opportunity to do so, demanding a confession he dived?
More than anything that was total stupidity from AWB because players do not need an invite to look to gain an advantage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, someone from the other side of the argument admits that Elliott took AWBs outstretched leg as an 'oppurtunity' to go doen
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You will never hear that from a liverpool fan!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To channel my inner Keegan, I'd love it, LOVE IT, if we saw Liverpool lose out on the title to a similar pen decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Liverpool have already had an incorrect penalty not given against them this season (actually incorrect unlike this one whoch was a clear penalty), plus two players incorrectly sent off this season, and a goal incorrectly disallowed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope there is an identical situation to this one so we can see you all do a 180 and argue its a dive. 🤞🏻
posted 3 weeks, 1 day ago
I hope there is an identical situation to this one so we can see you all do a 180 and argue its not a dive.
posted 3 weeks, 1 day ago
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 50 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by burghandy (U10383)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 40 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 6 seconds ago
Defender lunges in, fouls attacker, penalty shock. Whether the player could have stayed up or avoided contact is irrelevant. None of those things are in the laws of the game. You foul in the box, it's a penalty, whatever the attacker coulda, shoulda, woulda, done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re completely ignoring that the challenge wouldn’t have impacted Elliott were it not for the fact that Elliott initiated the contact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Elliott didn't foul the defender though, the defender fouled Elliott.
I understand you don't like this part of the game when attackers look for penalties and go down when fouled but that doesn't take away the fact he was fouled in the box and fouls in the box will be a penalty.
I'm astounded this is even a debate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're just repeating things that aren't true because you can't actually answer the point.
The contact only occurred because Elliott initiated it.
He could have carried on running without being touched.
He chose not to. He cheated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you been living under a rock.
This is what players do all the fecking time, many many times a match, go down under little or no contact. Pull someones arm or shoulder, legs give way. Does that happen in real life or only when a footballer gets into a penalty area. Put your hands on someones back, do they fly to the floor...only in football.
Footballer "cheat" probably 50 times a match and individuals like Fernandes are some of the worst at it.
Why are you acting all shocked by Elliot going down after AWB gave him the opportunity to do so, demanding a confession he dived?
More than anything that was total stupidity from AWB because players do not need an invite to look to gain an advantage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, someone from the other side of the argument admits that Elliott took AWBs outstretched leg as an 'oppurtunity' to go doen
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You will never hear that from a liverpool fan!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To channel my inner Keegan, I'd love it, LOVE IT, if we saw Liverpool lose out on the title to a similar pen decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Liverpool have already had an incorrect penalty not given against them this season (actually incorrect unlike this one whoch was a clear penalty), plus two players incorrectly sent off this season, and a goal incorrectly disallowed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope there is an identical situation to this one so we can see you all do a 180 and argue its a dive. 🤞🏻
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just discovered you're RDD. It makes sense now.
Carry on.
posted 3 weeks, 1 day ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson (U1282)
posted 54 minutes ago
I hope there is an identical situation to this one so we can see you all do a 180 and argue its not a dive.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would we care? Dive or not, if mitsubishis.cost you, it's funny
posted 3 weeks, 1 day ago
If.it
posted 3 weeks, 1 day ago
Wow. That typo is on steroids.
posted 3 weeks, 1 day ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 5 hours, 17 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 40 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 6 seconds ago
Defender lunges in, fouls attacker, penalty shock. Whether the player could have stayed up or avoided contact is irrelevant. None of those things are in the laws of the game. You foul in the box, it's a penalty, whatever the attacker coulda, shoulda, woulda, done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re completely ignoring that the challenge wouldn’t have impacted Elliott were it not for the fact that Elliott initiated the contact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Elliott didn't foul the defender though, the defender fouled Elliott.
I understand you don't like this part of the game when attackers look for penalties and go down when fouled but that doesn't take away the fact he was fouled in the box and fouls in the box will be a penalty.
I'm astounded this is even a debate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're just repeating things that aren't true because you can't actually answer the point.
The contact only occurred because Elliott initiated it.
He could have carried on running without being touched.
He chose not to. He cheated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you been living under a rock.
This is what players do all the fecking time, many many times a match, go down under little or no contact. Pull someones arm or shoulder, legs give way. Does that happen in real life or only when a footballer gets into a penalty area. Put your hands on someones back, do they fly to the floor...only in football.
Footballer "cheat" probably 50 times a match and individuals like Fernandes are some of the worst at it.
Why are you acting all shocked by Elliot going down after AWB gave him the opportunity to do so, demanding a confession he dived?
More than anything that was total stupidity from AWB because players do not need an invite to look to gain an advantage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not acting shocked and I’m well aware of how frequent the problem is.
My post below demonstrates that, so wind your neck in.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 day, 23 hours ago
It’s funny that we all know what Elliott did, yet there are still some people saying it’s not clear and obvious.
Modern football. Cheating is accepted now.
United are no better of course. Bruno would do it, 100%.
But today, the result was a draw because Elliott dived. There’s no escaping that.
Page 7 of 8
6 | 7 | 8