|
|
Post by thegift on Dec 28, 2017 18:04:19 GMT
The only debate about this tackle is how on earth do people think it wasn't a penalty Probably better thoughts than those that think it was. Allen gets in between attacker and ball, attacker collides into Allen and expects a penalty Utter rubbish. Allen has absolutely nailed their player. Jesus wept. |
|
|
|
Post by thegift on Dec 28, 2017 18:05:12 GMT
Can anyone get hold of a clip of it? Would love for some people to see it again
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2017 19:17:37 GMT
It's not like a nuanced obstruction where it could go either way, he's just taken the Huddersfield player out completely. He may have slipped but he's still thrown his entire body through their player, almost everyone on this board (and Mark Hughes) would be absolutely up in arms if their player had done it and we didn't get a pen. Absolutely everyone isnt up in arms about diouf not being given his blatant penalty so that isn't true either.  Because Diouf's wasn't as obvious. It was a penalty but at first glance could've looked like he'd slipped. If an opposition player flung himself through a Stoke player there would be uproar. |
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Dec 28, 2017 19:42:57 GMT
Absolutely everyone isnt up in arms about diouf not being given his blatant penalty so that isn't true either. Because Diouf's wasn't as obvious. It was a penalty but at first glance could've looked like he'd slipped. If an opposition player flung himself through a Stoke player there would be uproar. Considering there was split opinion on theirs and unanimous agreement on ours among the pundits that isn't true either. I'll give you one thing...there is a consistency with your posts on this subject in that none of what you actually write is true |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2017 19:48:20 GMT
Because Diouf's wasn't as obvious. It was a penalty but at first glance could've looked like he'd slipped. If an opposition player flung himself through a Stoke player there would be uproar. Considering there was split opinion on theirs and unanimous agreement on ours among the pundits that isn't true either. I'll give you one thing...there is a consistency with your posts on this subject in that none of what you actually write is true Whilst live there wasn't unanimous agreement on Dioufs, because it wasn't as obvious as Joe Allen throwing his entire body through their player. Again I'm not accepting Danny Murphy's opinion as a reference, especially when the rest of the panel laughed at him. |
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Dec 28, 2017 19:59:12 GMT
Considering there was split opinion on theirs and unanimous agreement on ours among the pundits that isn't true either. I'll give you one thing...there is a consistency with your posts on this subject in that none of what you actually write is true Whilst live there wasn't unanimous agreement on Dioufs, because it wasn't as obvious as Joe Allen throwing his entire body through their player. Again I'm not accepting Danny Murphy's opinion as a reference, especially when the rest of the panel laughed at him. Talksport analysts offered up contrasting views as well so yet another assertion of yours (only Danny Murphy disagreed) is also not true. You are consistent if nothing else |
|
|
|
Post by scfc75 on Dec 28, 2017 20:01:02 GMT
Considering there was split opinion on theirs and unanimous agreement on ours among the pundits that isn't true either. I'll give you one thing...there is a consistency with your posts on this subject in that none of what you actually write is true Whilst live there wasn't unanimous agreement on Dioufs, because it wasn't as obvious as Joe Allen throwing his entire body through their player. Again I'm not accepting Danny Murphy's opinion as a reference, especially when the rest of the panel laughed at him. Accepting the opinion of somebody who looks like a heroin addict is never wise. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2017 20:08:16 GMT
Whilst live there wasn't unanimous agreement on Dioufs, because it wasn't as obvious as Joe Allen throwing his entire body through their player. Again I'm not accepting Danny Murphy's opinion as a reference, especially when the rest of the panel laughed at him. Talksport analysts offered up contrasting views as well so yet another assertion of yours (only Danny Murphy disagreed) is also not true. You are consistent if nothing else You quoted MOTD before. On MOTD only Murphy disagrees. You're now using Talksport and Danny Murphy as a reference. Remember when Danny Simpson had his hand above his head against us and MOTD said it was a natural arm position and shouldn't have been a pen for handball? It was blatantly a pen, pundits can be fucking idiots. Joe Allen has thrown himself through their player and I maintain that Stoke fans would be wailing if it was the other way round. |
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Dec 28, 2017 20:12:57 GMT
Talksport analysts offered up contrasting views as well so yet another assertion of yours (only Danny Murphy disagreed) is also not true. You are consistent if nothing else You quoted MOTD before. On MOTD only Murphy disagrees. You're now using Talksport and Danny Murphy as a reference. Remember when Danny Simpson had his hand above his head against us and MOTD said it was a natural arm position and shouldn't have been a pen for handball? It was blatantly a pen, pundits can be fucking idiots. Joe Allen has thrown himself through their player and I maintain that Stoke fans would be wailing if it was the other way round. Of course they can be idiots but universal agreement that ours was a penalty and disagreement that theirs was seems to suggest that the only obvious penalty in the game was the one we didn't get. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2017 20:19:29 GMT
You quoted MOTD before. On MOTD only Murphy disagrees. You're now using Talksport and Danny Murphy as a reference. Remember when Danny Simpson had his hand above his head against us and MOTD said it was a natural arm position and shouldn't have been a pen for handball? It was blatantly a pen, pundits can be fucking idiots. Joe Allen has thrown himself through their player and I maintain that Stoke fans would be wailing if it was the other way round. Of course they can be idiots but universal agreement that ours was a penalty and disagreement that theirs was seems to suggest that the only obvious penalty in the game was the one we didn't get. They were both penalties. I have no idea how the Joe Allen one is being construed any other way. I do understand why the ref might not have given Diouf's, because it looked like he just slipped at first viewing. How anyone can defend the ref when Joe's entire body has crashed through their player without going near the ball is just weird, and probably a little biased. Again, I maintain anything like that against us would have the whole Stoke end in uproar. |
|
