Premier League Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
The law is an ass. Tom is right, but the rules about retrospective punishment are complete bollocks. And whichever way you look at it the linesman should be given an indefinite holiday.
 
  • Like
Reactions: st_brendy
st_brendy said:
I've not seen what Le Tiss has said, but I would say that Tom is correct here but it's just that things have been lost in translation (so to speak).

The decision not to charge Sterling is 100% correct, as per FA rules (or actually, it might even be UEFA/FIFA rules, I'm not 100% sure). Nothing to do with Sterling's nationality. The linesman saw it, and he choose not to do anything. Book closed.

The FA rule which say 'book closed' though is what is wrong - together with the linesman, who failed in his job. When an official sees an incident and doesn't punish it correctly, it should be possible to retrospectively punish it correctly. It is stupid that they can't. Only in extreme circumstances can such a decision be retrospectively dealt with differently. SF4L is exactly right to say that it shouldn't matter and that they should have the power. But right now, they don't.

But yes, based on the framework to go by, it was correct not to charge Sterling.
Click to expand...

I, and Le Tiss, are not discussing what is right by the rule book .... Tom introduced the rules. I know what the rules say. He was saying it is wrong and also suggested some "favourtism" and backed that up by mentioning the Shearer/Lennon incident a few years back, just before a big tournament.
 
ChilcoSaint said:
The law is an ass. Tom is right, but the rules about retrospective punishment are complete bollocks. And whichever way you look at it the linesman should be given an indefinite holiday.
Click to expand...

Good summary of my post, and better put too!

All these people focusing on the FA, rather than the linesman. Considering his view, it's one of the most inept pieces of officiating I have seen.
 
fatletiss said:
and as I said on other thread, this is a revised view ... down from 20 points a couple of weeks back.
Click to expand...

He admitted the very thing himself.
Honestly, I don't know how he gets away with his views. He's meant to be unbiased and talks about how brilliant Saints have been, and then says Saints will fail.
Tbf, I think his colleagues see his Saints stance as something of a joke, there are so many holes in his point of view.
 
TheSecondStain said:
He admitted the very thing himself.
Honestly, I don't know how he gets away with his views. He's meant to be unbiased and talks about how brilliant Saints have been, and then says Saints will fail.
Tbf, I think his colleagues see his Saints stance as something of a joke, there are so many holes in his point of view.
Click to expand...

He also has such a low level of intelligence it is almost insulting he has that job.
 
Gavyn Davies was BBC Chairman up until the mid 2000s, and he's a Saints fan.
 
fatletiss said:
He also has such a low level of intelligence it is almost insulting he has that job.
Click to expand...
During the week, the team included a black guy called Matt (sorry, didn't recognise him, but think he was a goalie). He was intelligent, humorous and clearly stated his opinion. A disgrace that he's a bit player when Merson gets on every week...I presume he's kept in so the thicker fan doesn't feel alone.
 
Getting on Sky is so obviously about who you know. I remember watching Dean Windass on Sky for quite a while and he was far far worse than Merson.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back