MovieChat Forums > sokar > Replies
sokar's Replies
As far as I was aware Spurs was in London unless of course my knowledge of my own country is wrong somehow.
You don't think London rags have a bias towards London clubs? Hmmm
<blockquote>Where was the advantage in that clip?</blockquote>
I never said there was. I said i'll show you a 1000 examples of that same arm movement being used to show advatage or play on. You are the one saying he weas celebrating which you can't prove. I don't have to do anything.
<blockquote>The "may" doesn't mean it's up to the referee if he chooses to add the time.</blockquote>
That is literally what it means. Under his discretion and no one elses.
<blockquote>I see you're now excusing corruption</blockquote>
I'm not excusing anything. Please quote me where is said i excuse corruption. It might take you a while. You are the one who has implied corruption it is on you to prove it not me to deny it.
<blockquote>What? It says right there and I even put it in bold</blockquote>
Again for the final time as you Americans seem to have trouble reading. Under his discretion.
Post as many paper and website articles as you want. Only proves what he said. Doesn't prove corruption or any wrong doing. Like previously said again. I have seen those same tackles not even get a foul let alone a card. So what. Refs interpret the rules as they see them. Just proves incompetence more than anything but not corruption.
All refs have a gameplan on how they are going to officiate. That isn't really news. If spurs were not in a title race no one would have even mentioned the game. With or without the players being sent off the outcome didn't chnage, they didn't win the league and lost the next 2 games. Is claterburg at fault for them as well.
The independant. Really. Up there with the worst of our rags. You might as well have copied a dialy mail article
And finally because I do seem to have to keep repeating myself.
It is also the responsibilty of the on field ref to keep the game flowing as much as possible.
The go and write to all the countries football association and governing bodies. Crack on
We don't need to see it. We have watches, eyes and brains and can addd and subtract.
Not everything has to be spoonfed to you like American sports.
We haven't needed to know in the 160 years the game has been about. Why would we need to now.
Again it is just a loose time based off a few criteria. It has never been spot on and never will be. No one really cares except yourself for some reason.
So arms in the air i snow only for celebration. Do you want me to show you a 1000 examples of that same arms in the air to mean "play on" or "advantage being played"
Doesn't prove anything. Again jumping on the sport also doesn't prove anything. Even if he was celbrating doesn't prove corruption.
<blockquote>The additional time may be increased by the referee but not reduced.</blockquote>
The very important word in that line "MAY". He does at his own discretion.
As said not for celebration, throw ins, freekicks. You just proved my point. Thank You
<blockquote>So you're okay with him admitting that he should have sent off multiple Tottenham players for violent conduct, but didn't because he didn't want fans to blame him for a possible loss?</blockquote>
Did the spurs players committ the fouls? Yes. Clatternburg didn't make that happen. He is right. If he had sent off 3 players the game was over and leicester win the league. Spurs imploded on there own and didn't need his help. He isn't wrong. If he sent them off the headlines would be that he cost them league and shift the blame to him instead of the players themsleves. By allowing them to stay on, the game came to its natural conclusion which was a draw and spurs didn't win the league. The ref also has a repsonibilty to keep the game flowing.
Now should he have sent them off. Maybe. I watched the game live. I've seen the given, I've seen those same tackles not receive evena yellow or a foul before. Again it is under the discretion of the Ref and the Ref only. But to try and imply corruption of some kind is a stretch.
Finally what does it matter what I think. My opinion on this matter doesn't change anything so why bring it up
I notice how you also pick a spurs paper which of course will be in favout and bias towards Spurs.
<blockquote>Every referee in the EPL is English</blockquote>
Well its a good job they are not all from the same town or cir=ty then isn't it.
<blockquote>Look at Mike Dean and Tottenham.</blockquote>
Mike dean was born in the Wirral, which is LIverpool. Are you suggesting he is corrupt. Better get onto the Premier League and tell them then.
<blockquote>They are corrupt. Go to Google and type in "Mike Clattenburg Chelsea Tottenham" and see what comes up.</blockquote>
Doesn't prove corruption of any kind. I didn't need to look it up. I watched the game. I live in the country these games are played.
<blockquote>I'm no. They do it because they don't know if the referee is going to count the celebration time. </blockquote>
Everybody knows except you. They grab the ball to start as quickly as possible because the clock is running constantly.
<blockquote>Seriously, what reason is there for referees to allow time to continue and then add it up at the end?</blockquote>
The literal rules. It is a suggested time, not a time set in stone, hence why in this world cup they are trialling adding extra for subs which is why we are now getting 10 mins. But the clock has and probabaly never will stop for throw ins, celebrations, freekicks or anything like that. Only really stops for injuries which was its original term. Injury time, now changed to stoppage time.
He blows the whistle and under his discretion stops or doen's stop his watch.
You seem to have a problem with this concept of someone having a stop watch on there wrist.
He will then confer with the 4th official to then tell the stadium how much stoppage time is to be played.
More insults i see.
<blockquote>Find me examples of consistant pens being taken in this fashion from 5 years plus ago</blockquote>
Yakubu. 40 penalties scored, never ran and only ttok 2 paces. Want anymore.
<blockquote>70s with Paneka but it was very rarely used</blockquote>
Did you google that. Im honouored. So again not a recent trend then. Do you even remember what you write?
<blockquote>It's a fanny way to take a pen</blockquote>
Your opinion again and not held by professional footballers.
<blockquote>but i am sure you have some survay or stat from somewhere to prove me wrong</blockquote>
Yeh its called google and you can see how many penalties are scored by any player anywhere in the owrld which disproves your entire arguement. Which of course isn't an arguement it is just your bias opinion which you do seem to like to make out as fact.
<blockquote>Why not just call it as you see it and have your own opinion rather than leaning on Data or things you have read</blockquote>
So ignore actual stats and go by some rando on the web. Are you for real. Stats don't lie. YOu do quite often but stats don't lie. You seem to have an issue with the truth. Why is that, oh thats right you don't like being wrong.
<blockquote>the referee doesn't have a clock</blockquote>
He literally does. It's this great invention called a watch
<blockquote>Yeah, but I said that they have too much power to control the game</blockquote>
Thats because they are the ref.
<blockquote>It's an easy way for a referee to play favourites for a team.</blockquote>
You cannot ref a team from which you are born or support. So unless you are trying to say that the refs are corrupt then no they don't. Time is added on quite evenly in all games.
<blockquote>Of course they do</blockquote>
It doesn't
<blockquote>Why do you think you see teams who are down score a goal and quickly take the ball out of the net?</blockquote>
Because the clock is still running and though don't want to waste time. As I said i doesn't stop for that. Thank you for proving my point
<blockquote>the game has changed and it now more physically based rather than skill based</blockquote>
No it isn't. Maybe in the crappy MLS but not Europe. Again nothing stop pushing your opinion as fact.
<blockquote>you prefer the modern game and i prefer it when it was more off the cuff</blockquote>
You have zero way to quantify that bar your own bias which means literally zero
You explicitly said they were better and then say in the same breath they wouldn't survive today. So they are not better then based on your own predefined definition. If they were then they would be able to play in the modern game which you admit they can't. So yes it negates your entire agurment.
Thank you for playing
I'm just gonna keep copying and pasting this reply to make things easier.
Football. The time keepers are the on field refs
<blockquote>No one is supposed to be controlling it. A referee is supposed to make calls to ensure they abide by the rulebook.</blockquote>
So in control. Got it
<blockquote>I saw a Premier League game this year that had 4 goals in the opening half and there was 1 minute injury time</blockquote>
Were there any subs or injuries. No. Then thats why it was a min.
The clock doesn't stop for throw ins, celebrations, freekicks or anything like that
<blockquote>It gives the referee too much power to control a game</blockquote>
He is the ref, who else is supposed to be controlling the game?
He keeps a rough track of time and it gets added on, somtimes its a lot and sometimes it isn't. No real issue tbh
30 secs to a min for every sub. 10 subs = 5 to 10 mins then add on injury time and time wasting and hence 10+ mins per game.
Don't need a clock to understand that
You explicitly said they were better and then say in the same breath they wouldn't survive today. So they are not better then based on your own predefined definition. If they were then they would be able to play in the modern game which you admit they can't. So yes it negates your entire agurment.
Thank you for playing
I'm just gonna keep copying and pasting this reply to make things easier.
<blockquote>This is a recent trend</blockquote>
<blockquote>it's not a trend</blockquote>
Make your mind up. Both your quotes
<blockquote>Fuck off then you pest no asked you to jump in and try to police the forum</blockquote>
Oh i'm sorry do you not understand how forums and the internet works when you make post. You don't get to control who replies to them. So no i won't as you say "fuck off"
<blockquote>I am giving an opinion based on what i see</blockquote>
And your opoinion is once again false. There is no right way to take a penalty. Never has and never will be. If there was they would all do it. The fact they don't once again negates your incorrect opinion.
<blockquote>you are a nause</blockquote>
Oh boo hoo. Then don't post inaccurate points based on a very little knowledge base. You just don't like being wrong.
<blockquote>There is definitely a right way to take a pen, hard and into the corner if GK guesses right then unlucky</blockquote>
Then that by your own defintion is the wrong way to take a penalty as it was saved. So i refer you back to the beginning. There is no right and wrong way. There is scoring and not scoring, it is irrelevant how the penalty is scored.
<blockquote>Countries hopes on your shoulders no faffing around just head down and blast into the corners if the goaly chances a dive and saves at least you did it right</blockquote>
No you didn't do it right at all as you didn't score, there is no right and wrong way to take a penalty. If it is saved then no matter how you took it then you didn't do it right. Once again you are pushing opinion as fact.
And I can't be bothered to reply to the other post you put but you are wrong in that it its a recent trend. Gary Linekar in the 90's used to slowly chip it down the middle. Yakubu literally walked 2 steps and rolled it in.
Your whole arguement is based off a couple of world cup games. Just stop. PLease for the love of god just stop.
<blockquote>No it doesn't disprove it it's just highlighting my point even more</blockquote>
You explicitly said they were better and then say in the same breath they wouldn't survive today. So they are not better then based on your own predefined definition. If they were then they would be able to play in the modern game which you admit they can't. So yes it negates your entire agurment.
Thank you for playing
I'm just gonna keep copying and pasting this reply to make things easier.
<blockquote>They wouldn't survive today because the universal soldiers of today all compressed together would run them out out of the game and not allow them to play</blockquote>
So then they are not better then. Disproves your entire argumentdoes it not
<blockquote>The game is chess played by Super athletes but the Skill creative genuis is not the same as it was</blockquote>
Another bias oopinion. Todays game is light years ahead of what it once was. Literal lightyears. Players of yeteryear couldn't dream of doing what some players can do today. You are a joke if you believe that
<blockquote>You like sidewards passing to feet, no tackles and no imagination from the players who have zero personality and i don't </blockquote>
Which shows once again you don't watch a single second of actual football. Are you seriously sugegsting that never happened before today. Infact it was worse because up until 1992 when the backpass rule was introduced they would pass it back all the time. The keeper would play it out and pick back up for mins at a time. Again your lack of knowledge is astounding.
<blockquote>Good for you must be great to be right all the time</blockquote>
No I just like proving silly Americans wrong on a sport they really know very little about.
Any more false info you want to give?
So you ignore everything Gary Neville says. The player under fergie but you an American has all the knowledge. Oh ok then.
<blockquote>Your not really embarassing me tbh you are just coming off as a bit of a Cock
And you are actually showing yourself up a little because you are clearly not reading what i wrote, or twisting things to 'Win an argument' what geek
Been thinking it for a while sometime in the last 10 years what with the conditioning of the players and the cautious chess like tactics employed now theres no room for mavericks anymore, no true stars
The best players have to be pace freaks and just relentless machines grinding away, wheres the artistry gone, it's not the beautiful game anymore for me
I think Football peaked around 15 years ago </blockquote>
Your original point which you have flipped flopped at every turn.
And here come the insults. A sign of someone who is losing. I have corrected in every point becuased your points are innacurate or based on "your opinion only" not based on any facts or stats in any way. I have given you stats, i have given you counter points which you ignore and then change your arguement.
<blockquote>Then Fergie was forced into it as late as 07 to compete with Barca and since then basically everyone uses it now, so the 10 Doesn' exist in the same way anymore, that's fact.</blockquote>
fact? Then prove it. Fergie wasn't forced into anything. The man was a tactical genius. If he did anything is because it was better, thats what a good manager does. But please show what he was forced to do. go ahead. Prove force?
But please try and keep schooling an Englishman on his national sport. I'm enjoying this. Please carry on.