|
Post by greyman on Mar 27, 2014 11:18:18 GMT
According to MMLC and the FA, it doesn't matter if it's clumsy or an accident because intent has nothing to do with it. Except when it does. Hence why Charlie Adam is suspended. 1) it's not according to me, it's according to the FA rules you sad little troll and if you'd read my posts you'd see several occasions where i agree they need looking at. just because i actually know what the rules are instead of slagging people off based on your own lack of knowledge of them doesn't mean it's "According to" me 2)you've yet to show me this proof that the FA said intent had anything to do with it...i've seen plenty of you spouting that but nothing issued by the FA to say you're even close to being right...i think it may have been pointed out to you on many many occasions, Violent conduct DOES NOT NEED INTENT!!! but you just keep sticking to your made up "facts" and complete lack of knowledge of what the rules actually are to try to prove your point eh? Leave off the personal abuse. The facts are that the 'rules' vary wildly from one decision to another. Which is why Alan Shearer can kick somebody in the head, Wayne Rooney can elbow Stoke players, Fernando Torres can gouge somebody's eyes etc etc. But if Charlie Adam and Andy Carroll catch an opponent in what may or may not be an accident, then it's a suspension. Whether you choose to see this as evidence of bias is the point to discuss. But what you're arguing is that there is a consistent set of rules, when there clearly isn't. I'm not making up any facts. You're making up some imaginary set of consistent rules.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Mar 27, 2014 8:32:22 GMT
That was miles worse than the challenge Ryan has been vilified over. I've seen it a few times and he actually trips over his own ankle. It was fucking clumsy and worthy of a yellow but nothing more. Fellaini on the other hand should have been sent off and the ref got it badly wrong. I quite like Michael Oliver but he dropped a massive bollock last night. H According to MMLC and the FA, it doesn't matter if it's clumsy or an accident because intent has nothing to do with it. Except when it does. Hence why Charlie Adam is suspended.
|
|
|
Fellaini
Mar 26, 2014 19:33:06 GMT
via mobile
Post by greyman on Mar 26, 2014 19:33:06 GMT
And now you can answer why Charlie Adam was suspended because they thought it was his 'intent' to hurt and why Andy Carroll was done for his 'intent' with Chico Flores whereas rules of intent aren't applied to anybody in the top 6. And yes, it is a leading question. where did the FA state that there was intent in the Adam challenge? the media all jumped on that but the FA simply found him guilty of "Violent conduct" (and in their statement never mentioned intent www.thefa.com/news/governance/2014/mar/charlie-adam-banned-for-three-matches) which, as explained about 30 times so far, does NOT need intent to be present. So you can be banned for accidents can you? Interesting
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Mar 26, 2014 15:53:38 GMT
Can you tell me why an elbow to the face can be seen as a yellow card? erm no but that wasn't the question i answered was it so what relevance to any of my posts does that have? for about the 655th time for the hard of thinking (but will no doubt be ignored)........ i DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE WITH THE RULES THAT ARE THERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!the thread started by saying what the punishment against us would have been (which the OP has absolutely no way of knowing whatsoever, in fact there have been occasions this season where our players have been lucky to stay on the pitch and we got away with them without the threads asking why OUR players weren't sent off...apparently that's fine but when it's another team then we're all outraged!).it then moved onto the question being posed as to why was Adam's treated retrospectively when Fellaini's won't be, i answered that. at no point, anywhere, whatsoever, in any way, shape or form have i said that i thought Fellaini should have only got a yellow for it but that wasn't the issue being discussed! for fuck's sake!!!! And now you can answer why Charlie Adam was suspended because they thought it was his 'intent' to hurt and why Andy Carroll was done for his 'intent' with Chico Flores whereas rules of intent aren't applied to anybody in the top 6. And yes, it is a leading question. And for your bonus question, what was Danny Welbeck's 'intent' when he ploughed into that guy last night?
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Mar 26, 2014 14:28:45 GMT
MMLC
The reason why people are focussing on 'intent' is that it is the only reason Charlie Adam was suspended. So it was applicable in that case but not in others, and the way the FA adjudicates appears to be completely arbitrary, except that Fernando Torres (Chelsea) and Marouane Fellaini (Man Utd) get away with clear cases of violent conduct whereas Charlie Adam (Stoke) and Andy Carroll (West Ham) are banned for incidents that could easily be accidental. There's a clear pattern and it's not paranoid to suggest it. Did you see what Graham poll said about Alex Ferguson and referees last week?
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Mar 26, 2014 12:24:12 GMT
I agree with the OP. Yes the game had nothing to do with Stoke, but the governing body of our game has taken retrospective action against Adam recently. Will they take retrospective action against Fellaini and if not, I would like to know why not. Not paranoia, simply attempting to understand their logic and/or adherence to their own laws of the game. well if you're presuming that they're being inconsistent with the 2 examples you state then you obviously aren't aware of the actual laws yourself then Adam could have retrospective action taken because the ref didn't see it at the time the ref DID see the Fellaini incident and gave a yellow, because of that they can't take any further action by their own laws of the game. you may not be happy with those rules (as many aren't and i'm notr either) but that's a case of needing a rule change and nothing whatsoever to do with them being inconsistent as they are absolutely, 100% ARE adhering to their own laws of the game as they currently stand (and have stood for quite a while and before we even got promoted and were implemented like this on many many occasions before we were here in the Prem so this idea of it all being against us is rubbish)...unfortunately it's becoming increasingly obvious recently that very few people on here are actually aware of what those rules are. And the big flaw in your argument is that the ref saw Oxlade-Chamberlain's handball, then gave a red. So the FA overturns it because they've concluded no goal would have come of it, in spite of the fact that Oxlade-Chamberlain's intention was to stop a goal and all of the officials who saw the incident saw it that way too. They won't overturn the Fellaini yellow, however, 'because the ref saw it'. He intended to elbow the guy square in the face because he was looking at him the whole time but in this case intent is irrelevant. They do decide to take action against Charlie Adam however because 'the ref didn't see it' but they can tell from looking at it exactly what Charlie Adam was thinking. Here Adam's 'intent' is the only possible reason for giving the red so they've guessed, basically. The muddled approach to this invites the idea that it's one rule for the likes of Arsenal and Man Utd and one for everybody else.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Mar 26, 2014 11:12:34 GMT
no mate, just fed up of all this "Is that was us then it would have been different" bollocks. no-one knows that for a fact at all and taking a game that has nothing to do with us and desperately trying to shoehorn us into the matter is just that...desperate! Actually it does bear comparison because the FA have already shown they can read the minds of Stoke players in issuing retrospective bans, but won't be doing the same in the case of violent conduct involving a Man Utd player. It's not paranoia. Those are comparable facts. And, before you say 'the ref took action so the FA can't do anything about his decision', I believe they have only just overturned a decision by a ref involving Arsenal.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Mar 26, 2014 7:46:34 GMT
Time and time again. Video evidence is the answer. Even if it is two or three people sat watching it in a room and messaging the ref or officials. It would put a stop to all this. Absolutely. We all see contentious incidents over and over in slo-mo from multiple camera angles but the ref gets to see it once in real time. It's nonsense. By the time the players have surrounded the ref and he's eventually made a decision there's easily enough time to "go upstairs" and ask a 5th official video ref to review it for him. Unfortunately for the ref the modern players try to con the officials and the stakes have become so high in some games that video replay support has to be made available. It won't solve everything on its own. It is used extensively in rugby league and there are still contentious decisions made in every match.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Mar 26, 2014 6:11:36 GMT
If Chamberlain knew the ball was going wide he wouldn't of done it. So it was a Blatent attempt to stop a goal. Which is a red card that's not the rules though...the rule is that it is a red card if he deliberately handles it and it stops a goalscoring opportunity. whether the player committing the offense thinks it is denying a goalscoring opportunity (i.e. whether they think it's going in or going wide) is completely irrelevant, it's purely down to whether it actually IS or not. the ball was going wide so it didn't prevent a goalscoring opportunity so therefore they CAN'T award a red. whether the rule should be changed is a valid point i.e. to ensure that if a player does it specifically because they think they're stopping a goal then it should be a red (and i personally agree with that) but this is not the FA being corrupt at all as they are following the rules of the game, just the usual poor ickle Stoke paranoia creeping in for the 16,326,788th time this season. I see the ref fucked up last night by not sending off Fellaini (and possibly Welbeck). Hopefully the FA will follow this precedent they've set in overturning a ref's supposedly incorrect decision in the Arsenal game with a 3 game ban for Fellaini. Is this just a case of the FA making the rules up as they go along or is it more paranoia?
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Mar 25, 2014 8:30:44 GMT
It's a typical FA fudge. If Marriner had sent the right player off, they wouldn't have overturned the subsequent ban. They keep telling us they will uphold ref's decisions and that would have been the case here in the unlikely event Arsenal would have appealed. Will the flipside now also be true? If a ref doesn't send a player off for handballing a goalbound attempt or denying a clear goalscoring opportunity, will they overturn that decision? Will they fuck?
As ever, what they have done is make things worse.
And, as people have pointed out, they appear to be mind readers when it comes to clubs like Stoke and West Ham about players' intentions, but are able to make minuscule judgements about goal-scoring opportunities when Arsenal are involved.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Mar 18, 2014 15:41:30 GMT
If the FBI investigations prove that the vote was rigged (and you would think it's pretty likely that they will) then it's going to be very interesting to see what happens next.
Hopefully money grubbing bastards like Jack Warner will end up where they belong followed quickly by the likes of Blatter. It won't stop until somebody ends up in prison. What's remarkable to watch is national associations tiptoeing around the issue.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Mar 18, 2014 12:31:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Mar 18, 2014 12:28:42 GMT
Blatter makes Stalin look like a muddlehead. Still he clings on........... The problem is who is going to either force him out or even rock the boat? The 2022 vote was clearly rigged and now they have to carry through the whole farce of staging an event in a country that is as suited to hosting it as the Antarctic would be. And what do the FA do, even though they and other associations wasted time and money on a bid and were publicly humiliated by this corrupt regime? Until the FA can find their cojones and help to sort this bastard out along with all his cronies, especially Platini, nothing will change.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Mar 14, 2014 13:14:14 GMT
To be fair to them, we do such a shit job with Delilah these days they should be welcome to give it a go.
Who decided we needed to sing it like it was a competition to see who could finish first? It's pathetic compared to the anthem it was 20 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Mar 12, 2014 8:07:26 GMT
Let's just say that at first you're like a stuck record and then it all becomes a bit of a nightmare.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Mar 12, 2014 8:01:11 GMT
Aiming for a top 10 finish isn't the ambition of pie-eyed lunatic, surely? Aiming for a top ten finish is not lunacy - we've been close in the past haven't we? I've always maintained that we could have reached the top 10 last season (if we addressed our wide issues) and even post Pulis..... that a good manager could take the core of the players we have and add the wide players (which Hughes may well have done) and hit the top 10. We could well make it if we keep up the current form. If only he had listened to me sooner and gone direct from the start.... This is you, this is....
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Mar 11, 2014 18:04:35 GMT
end of july/beg of aug....making sure I'm back for the total football. Usually I ignore the Oafcake because of the Pulis threads but at that time of year I'm ignoring it because it's full of people confusing Football Manager with real life and ITKs making stuff up.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Mar 11, 2014 10:33:24 GMT
And the week before. And the week before that. And the week before. Don't expect for moment it won't also be rehashed next week. And the week after. And the week after that... He'll be in Benidorm for two weeks in August so maybe come back then. Ibiza - Holiday Village - slides for the kids and everything. Which dates?
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Mar 11, 2014 9:09:44 GMT
Quite a lot of bullshit being thrown about over the last few days hasn't there? Unfairly judged as dirty or direct as a lasting legacy from Pulis? Smell the coffee wankstains and just admit that Hughes has woken up to what is required and why we are being much more successful as a result of going back to that vein. Hughton said we were physical and direct because...we were physical and direct. I couldn't give a fuck whether we carry a dirty tag or not. I couldn't give a fuck whether we carry a direct tag or not. What I do care about, like every Stoke fan should, is simply having the ability to pick up regular points. Since we played The Shit at home then we have looked a lot more capable of getting points out of games both home and away. Many of our goals are coming from being more direct. Why anyone would want us to change that I have no idea. We've gained many a point from Shawcross 'punts' and we've scored the last 2 out of 3 away goals from throw ins being hurled in the box from the right hand side. Many of the goals we let in are caused by players being out of position as a result of trying to play more open football. Again, this has been far less in the last month or two. The problem for many of the wankstains is that they are so desperate for it to be different from what Pulis produced is that they can't accept some simple truths about our recent upturn. There is much for Hughes to be proud of in that some of the football has been excellent and some of the players that he has brought in have made a clear and positive difference to the squad. All of the core Pulis players look to be playing as well as they ever have - Hughes should take great credit for that especially when we were under real pressure at certain points of the season. Luckily we have many players with big hearts. It might be ugly on the road at times but so what....needs must. It is much better than the poor spell we endured for that spell at the end of last season and has been every bit as good as some of Pulis' best football. Surely it's not too much to ask for a bit of honesty? Repeated for emphasis? I like it. On the subject of this thread, I may be wrong, but I am pretty sure you started the exact same thread last week. Is there any need to rehash this pointless argument? And the week before. And the week before that. And the week before. Don't expect for moment it won't also be rehashed next week. And the week after. And the week after that... He'll be in Benidorm for two weeks in August so maybe come back then.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Mar 7, 2014 16:27:57 GMT
"Please don't take this as a defence of Merkin by the way. The man is a fucking simpleton." Beautiful Crikey. It's Wilbur! These days Wilbur mostly stalks me through the medium of Linkedin. You're supposedly in recruitment. You must be on there all the time, asking other people to do your job for you without pay, like all the other parasites. You should look him up.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Mar 6, 2014 15:40:14 GMT
Is this Jack Wilshere who spent most of our last game before the Cup Final charging around trying to cripple whichever Stoke player he could?
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Mar 6, 2014 13:49:28 GMT
Did he though ? I thought for the rest of that season and until the Blackpool cup game in October the following season he was disappointing ......from then on he was immense Beattie yeah .....Ethers nah Is it just me ? He got better and better has time went on but I still thought he was better than what we had and improved things. Will go down a Stoke legend For once , merk is right. The shame is that over his last couple of years he wasn't able to keep up the exceptional standards we'd enjoyed before. One of the signings that lifted the club to a whole new level.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Mar 6, 2014 11:40:11 GMT
Same name, different bloke. Dave Frith is probably out for a light lunch right now with Freddie Knuckles and Shirl. He was always avidly pro Pulis. Not like this arse Dave Forrester.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Mar 6, 2014 11:33:19 GMT
It's when I read through threads like this that I understand exactly why Smudge and DaveF decided to wash their hands of it, take the fortune they'd made from publishing the Oatcake for the gullible and cash-strapped, and move into adjoining villas on the Costa Blanca.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Mar 5, 2014 11:41:01 GMT
He's a freelancer, not employed.
I don't think he accused anybody of child abuse. He suggested it as a tasteless, cack-handed joke. He's clearly rattled, has had at least some sort of run-in with one of his clients and has made himself look a complete arse in a public forum. in doing so, he will have damaged his reputation and so any clients who are aware of it may be wary of employing him in one way or another.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Mar 5, 2014 6:31:03 GMT
I'm told by a friend of mine who knows Nigel Bidmead and works with him that he's actually an OK bloke but he likes to get into rows online, enjoys winding people up then doesn't know when to leave things well alone or where to draw the line. Sounds like a lot of people on here, so maybe it's time to leave this now. He's clearly been rattled by it all.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Mar 4, 2014 13:01:01 GMT
It's not a grey area at all. You're not allowed to libel people. Most gets left but the law says you can't do it You're right about it not being a grey area but for the wrong reason. It's not a grey area because it's definitely not libel. There was a strong implication there but he didn't specifically accuse him of anything. He might be a twat of the highest order and I would have been hugely offended but in law he has no case to answer. As you point out further down, his continual reference to Ryan Shawcross as a "thug" is more libelous than his highly offensive but not specific tweet implying that something untoward my be going on. Suggesting somebody is sexually abusing their own child isn't libel? Right. Take it from me, that if anybody else used exactly those words that he used in a newspaper about somebody litigious like Alan Sugar, the case would already be going ahead.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Mar 4, 2014 8:59:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Mar 4, 2014 8:53:29 GMT
No. I think that would be deemed an opinion not a statement of fact. But it would be a very odd thing to say. It's like if I say to you: 'You come across as if you actually believe the shit you come out with sometimes'
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Mar 4, 2014 7:46:24 GMT
It's not a grey area at all. You're not allowed to libel people. Most gets left but the law says you can't do it Correct. The right of free speech does not extend to accusing people, no matter in what context, of crime. The right of free speech gives you the right to express opinion, such as 'I think you're full of shit', 'I don't like you' etc. comments to the effect of 'You abuse your children and your father abused you' goes far above and beyond any opinion or any form of acceptable banter. If anybody thinks they do have the right to make such comments they might want to read this... www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/lord-mcalpine-libel-row-with-sally-bercow-settled-in-high-court-8896773.htmlSurely everybody can see the clear and fundamental difference between the above examples, or a complete accident on a football pitch...surely!? Speaking as a journalist I'd also suggest that him repeatedly describing Ryan Shawcross as a 'thug' is potentially libellous. He could describe how what he does is 'thuggish' but he's crossing the line when he talks about his character. I find it amazing that a professional journalist wouldn't know this. Personally i think the whole thing should be dropped now but I hope he's learned his lesson. He comes across as a complete cock.
|
|