youre being a bit rosco, oncy
Palace Post Match
- Thread starter 6TimesaRed
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
That's a very good point. It would be like that Suarez advert he did in an office. I wouldn't mind seeing that actually.
No, it isn't. The player throwing himself to the ground has naff all to do with whether it's a foul or not.
I'm with you, bruvva. Thrilled that we got the rub, but no foul for me.
They're given but I'd be furious if it was given against us.
If the contact causes him to go to ground or otherwise impedes him, then it is a foul. The problem is that players fall over in order to demonstrate that they were impeded, when 99% of the time they could have simply continued on unimpeded.
You have posted in the name of Cockpiss Pardew, haven't you Cloggy?
I'm fucking outraged.
Wow, there are a lot of mongs out there..
Including at the FA
Hey, the Mongs are dobbing each other in now
I seriously doubt it's anything like 99% and, if they were impeded, I for one have no problem with them underlining the fact, whoever they play for. Why should the defender get away with it?
I dont know if you've ever listened to this mug talk, but he's no where near intelligent enough, and far too bitter to play that game.
That is the point, when the player is in the penalty area or just outside it, they fall over to gain an advantage. When they're in midfield or at the back, they don't fall over anymore because the advantage now is to continue running past the player you've just beat and look to create a chance. So the players are choosing when to be impeded and when not to. That defeats the definition of being impeded. Unless there is some gravitational anomaly caused by their proximity to the goal posts, it's diving.
That's simply not true. A foul is an action which the referee deems unfair. The effect which it does or doesn't have is irrelevant. Strikers are every bit as entitled to emphasise the fact that they've been fouled as midfielders or defenders are to ignore it.
"A lot of work has gone into his signing and I’d like to pay tribute to my staff, in particular Graham [Carr] and myself, Lee [Charnley], Mike and everyone on the board."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...ted-complete-10m-signing-of-Remy-Cabella.html
Alan Pardew has taken the unusual step of paying tribute to himself for completing the £10m signing of France international Remy Cabella.
Haha, that about sums up the fucking dick.
That's sounds about right for the FA to protect their useless selves from litigation.
In reality a foul cannot be subject to a referees opinion, its an objective fact whether or not the player is impeded.
You know perfectly well that I have no more love for the sweet FA than you do. This has bugger all to do with them.
And yes, a player is either impeded or he isn't. Unfortunately for the point you're trying to make, that has no bearing on the question whether a foul has been committed.
And yes, a player is either impeded or he isn't. Unfortunately for the point you're trying to make, that has no bearing on the question whether a foul has been committed.
the comments are good
But you used their definition of a foul to say that it is a foul. To me that's circular... the referee deemed it a foul because he gave it, and so it was a foul by the laws of the game, and so Benteke was right to go down.
That avoids the entire point of whether it was objectively a foul.
When a defender wins the ball, then the striker falls over their leg, its not a foul. Obviously because there is no harm done and no advantage lost.
So flip that around. When a defender's knee brushes the striker, and it doesn't cause him to fall over, again no advantage lost and no foul. But when the player falls over of his own voilition, its a dive for me. There would have been no harm had he simply continued to play.
Its exactly the same as contributory negligence defences in court. If you're responsible for your own loss, tough shit you lose.
So flip that around. When a defender's knee brushes the striker, and it doesn't cause him to fall over, again no advantage lost and no foul. But when the player falls over of his own voilition, its a dive for me. There would have been no harm had he simply continued to play.
Its exactly the same as contributory negligence defences in court. If you're responsible for your own loss, tough shit you lose.
No apologies whatsoever for what you describe in your first para.
Your second para.is confused. What you actually mean is "whether it should have been a foul", which is a different (and irrelevant) matter. There is no standard outside the rules of the game by which an action can validly be judged to be "objectively a foul".
Who gives a fuck to what pardew thinks. The twat is bringing the timing of the penalty as unjust, he is looking for any excuse to mitigate his own teams poor performance against a 10 men team with no shots on target whilst playing them at home. I hope the cunts go down
What caused this is players used to stumble then regain their balance. If that was unfair, all the referees had to do was give the foul.
For some reason, maybe mental weakness, they stopped giving decisions in those cases. So that's why the players have all of a suddened stopped stumbling and immediately fall over. Now it is near enough impossible to judge when to give a free kick or not. There's no clear clues, and so you get inconsistent decisions.
For some reason, maybe mental weakness, they stopped giving decisions in those cases. So that's why the players have all of a suddened stopped stumbling and immediately fall over. Now it is near enough impossible to judge when to give a free kick or not. There's no clear clues, and so you get inconsistent decisions.
The bolded bit is where your argument goes off the rails. There is a foul committed whether it causes the striker to fall over or not.
Semantics. I mean fall over or otherwise be impeded.
- Status
