Colo 3 game ban

Sauce is usually an intentional misspelling, also brown sauce belongs nowhere near bacon, or any other foodstuff.

 

To be honest it would be more likely Cabaye getting one than Colo

 

They can't do anthing because a free kick wasn't awarded. This is why De Jong got away scot free for breaking Bennys legs. I tell you what Mr **** you man, the next time you try an piss me off get up a little earlier voles teeth.

 

Brown sauce is brilliant for getting rust and grime off metal. So knowing that you are right shouldn't go anywhere near food.

 

Actually De Jong couldn't be charged because the ref claimed to have seen the incident and thought it a fair tackle and therefore was deemed to have dealt with it.

Retrospective action is supposed to be used when the ref hasn't seen the incident.

 

please log in to view this image

 

Which is exactly why the freekick wasn't given smooth brain.

 

No you stated that not awarding a free kick is the crucial point. I'm pointing that it is whether the ref has seen and therefore judged the incident is the salient point. They are different.

 

If he had seen it he would have sent him off. Only a man deprived of omega 3 would not calculate that in their brain and put 2 and 2 together. I'm tired of you constantly getting at me Donkey.

 

The point is that he did see the challenge and didn't deem it a foul or worthy of a free-kick, and acknowledged that this was the case in his match report, which stops retrospective action.

 

You scared the ****ing **** out of me.

 

You just proved my point. He can't give a free kick if he didn't see it but might decide not to if he did (including the elbow) but didn't consider it a foul (therefore retrospective can't take place). However, if he states in his report that he saw a coming together but considered it accidental ... but then acknowledges that he had not seen that it was Colo's elbow that was the point of contact then the FA can because they can claim he did not have a full view of the incident. It might seem like nit picking but it makes all the difference.

As for the last point grow up ffs. I only give you stick when you claim your opinions are facts or you make claim to knowing the future ... and when you do that I am one of many saying the same thing.

 

Your actaully agreeing with me in the first place so wtf is the point you preventual putts.

 

Ok i'll use small words and short sentences just for you

Option 1 - He didn't see it. Therefore no free kick. Retrospective action can be taken because he didn't see it.
Option 2 - He saw it including the elbow but thought it was accidental. No freekick. Says so in report. Dealt with so no retrospective allowed.
Option 3 - He saw something, but didnt see the elbow. Decided it wasn't a freekick. Report doesn't mention elbow and he admits to the FA that he didn't see it. Retrospective action therefore allowed.

You claimed that everything was fine because he didn't award the freekick. I said it wasn't that simple. Two options where no freekick was given still give rise to potential retrospective action. Does that make my point any clearer?

 

So you agree with me then. ha all 3 options involeve no free kick. Hilrious in it's entirety.

 

You really are too stupid for words.

 

Ha you are.

 

Your claim was that retrospective action can't be taken if no freekick is awarded. I have pointed out that out of three possible reasons for not awarding a freekick retrospective action can be taken with two of them and you think I agree with you!

You are a ****wit of monumental proportions!

 

Pleased you agree.

 

Calm it ladies!