What I see on here more and more is peoples complete inability to see others points of view, especially on match situations. For me it was a red card, wasn't a penalty and Burnley were far better than I thought they would be. Others completely disagree and they're more than entitled to be wrong. My point being that going on and on that your point of view is correct and not even bothering to look at a things from a different point of view is a bit sad.
BREAKING NEWS: Watford have appealed against the red card on Saturday. That will be very interesting to see if it's overturned.
The club are appealing the against red card. Ooops.....you better tell the club it was a "reckless challenge and a potential leg breaker". Maybe the club needs its nappy changed? Alternatively you could just be completely wrong with your view and have made a complete t1t of yourself......again. No surprise there.
HB1 - he’s not wrong in his view and nor are you. That tackle had the “potential” to be a leg breaker but actually ended up being fairly harmless What, I presume, we can all agree on is that Marvin did not need to go in with two feet when there was no real threat and give the referee a decision to make
I'd have waited until after the appeal decision before accusing others of being completely wrong. Though it is interesting that a poster who over the years has consistently complained of an FA and referee conspiracy against our club is now putting all their trust within that same system in order to 'win' an opinion based argument with another poster. 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend' I guess.
What I saw is when Zeegelaar goes into the tackle one foot is planted on the floor, so it's not a two footed lunge. There is a moment when it comes off the floor, but he is not flying through the air with both feet towards the player. He's clearly going for the ball and he actually kicks the ball away. The foot that kicks the ball away then kicks his opponent, but the other foot is on the ground by then. This is why I believe the club have appealed. One foot is showing studs but not going at any real force. He had to have been sent off for "serious foul play". The definition of this is "serious foul play occurs when a player challenges for the ball or tackles an opponent with excessive force or brutality when the ball is in play. In order for this to occur, the offence must be committed by a player who is challenging for the ball while it is in play." Of course it is open to interpretation, but I do not consider what he did as anything different to a number of tackles you see all the time in every game.
It's actually you and a few others that constantly promote this lie about conspiracy. I guess if you say it enough, mud sticks. If you care to read what I actually write, you will see I only think there's a few bad eggs in the game, that do things for their own personal reasons. We are unfortunately the type of club that you can dump on without too much of a consequence. I am entitled to respond to someone who has been abusive for no apparent reason. The fact the club has appealed, clearly shows that the challenge was not as bad as he made out. It's irrelevant if the appeal is upheld or not. It just goes to show even the club think it was a harsh red card. So my original view did not merit the sort of abuse it was given.
My view is that he was out of control when he made that challenge. It ended up OK but as he launched himself it was dangerous. If the club have appealed it then they must be fairly confident it will be overturned, but I'm not so sure.
Yeah, it's different to modern Hellenic. Latin, however, is not extinct and is spoken all over Latin America.
American Latin, like American English is a bit different from the original. Eg Caesar non supra grammaticos. They use Cesar.
It makes no difference what the verdict will be. The fact it's even being appealed is enough to tell you it's not as reckless and a leg breaker as you described. If it was then it clearly wouldn't be appealed. Did they appeal the Britos dismissal? Of course not as that WAS reckless. Just accept you got this one wrong, and I will accept an apology for the unfair abuse you dished out in good grace, if you're big enough to offer one.
Anyway hb1, prior to me suggesting that you needed to change your nappy you'd launched into a diatribe suggesting that the sending off was a conspiracy between Probert and Clattenburg and suggested that 'the tackle' wasn't even a foul. And you've done that sort of stuff for yonks. Every club's got their top dog conspiracy 'it's always the ref what done it' theorist. All subjective to a fault. Unfortunately, you're our one. You were doing an hb1 on the Shoutbox too.
Don't be a tw.t hb1. I'll make a list of your inconsistencies over the last couple of days if I can be arsed.
Think you've answered your own question there - what was Zeegelaar supposed to do under those circumstances under pressure? As for Rich's supposedly excessive diving - haven't seen anything there to merit such criticism. Would any of you be complaining if it won us the odd free kick? It's hardly on the level of Zaha or some of Muff's worst play-acting.
More abuse and no apology. Why am I surprised. Do you realise, constantly calling someone a c*** in every post doesn’t make you look very bright?
Just watched extended highlights. Probert giving a foul in the second half giving Burnley a free kick centre of goal 25 yards out (76 minutes) is the most laughable decision of all. No contact, Arfield falling backwards before Kabasele got anywhere near him, Probert 5 yards away. The ****. So blatant that a reasonable person could only conclude that he was determined to hand it to Burnley. Or he is medically blind.
As far as I'm aware you're the only one that's used the c word on this thread. But make it up as you go along why don't you? I'm used to the modus operandi now. Why not make up a doppelganger account to back you up because no-one else will? Hb1. The gift that keeps on digging.
How old are you two - presumably over school age!? You can always PM each other to continue this "debate"...
Why's it petty? It's about the need for football fans (juveniles) always needing to blame someone else (refs and linos) for their misfortunes despite those who they regail against being the best professionals available versus amateurish, subjective little wimps with f.ck all badges whatsoever.
Well you might be right - just like managers and players fans will look for somebody else to blame when things go wrong but clearly you aren't going to agree with each other on this matter and the name calling won't help very much.
www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-5168261/Marco-Silva-asks-referees-not-make-example-Watford.html http://www.skysports.com/watch/vide.../refereeing-standards-different-for-big-games I'm assuming you are speaking about Marco Silva, as he is placing blame at referees. I'm pretty sure he's got the correct badges though.
I very much doubt that. So why are you so against Silva? I think he's going a very good job. Was it because he wanted to speak with Everton? I think you need to get over that.