Match Day Thread Vs Man City (A)

[Page_Moss_Kopite]

So when someone compares two incidents and classes one as an accident and the other not then that someone is obviously saying in his opinion the other incident was on purpose.

"Did you see the Busst incident? it was a total accident where several players went for the same loose ball, not at all like two players going for a 50/50 and one going studs first.

[HASHTAG]#482[/HASHTAG]
Diego, Saturday at 11:48 PM"

 

[Jimmy Squarefoot]

Well you'd be wrong, and you're not in a position to speak for me and my motives. Diego comes on here to stir the **** because it amuses him. He's not here for debate, so the rules of debate go out of the window. Most of the time it's tedious, but just banter, but there was a darker element to his attempt to make out the Mané situation was worse than it was, and I didn't like it. Besides, it wasn't simply one quotable post, it was the whole string of conversation and I don't feel it necessary to go back over them to satisfy someone else's idea of how I should make my point. I have neither the time or the inclination.
Anyone who read it can choose how they interpret it, anyone who didn't is not in a position to judge.

Saint definitely did do it.

 

[luvgonzo]

I pointed out recently that Diego has started looking to have a pop at us for any reason other than coming on here to debate or have a footy chat. He didn't used to do that? We have @Bodinki and @BobbyD who also post on here and yes there will be a diffrence of opinion at times but neither of the other 2 mentioned come on here just looking to take the piss like Diego now does.

Doesn't bother me too much but I can tell that a few regulars are sick of it.

 

[Bumps]

I pointed out recently that Diego has started looking to have a pop at us for any reason other than coming on here to debate or have a footy chat. He didn't used to do that? We have @Bodinki and @BobbyD who also post on here and yes there will be a diffrence of opinion at times but neither of the other 2 mentioned come on here just looking to take the piss like Diego now does.

Doesn't bother me too much but I can tell that a few regulars are sick of it.

Nah he's always been a cockwomble lmao but he's our cockwomble. he is on here so often he is an honourable red well wisher
I think he just has a few too many sometimes or the Sensible posts are to Make you allow him his wums
[HASHTAG]#stealthwum[/HASHTAG]

 

[johnsonsbaby]

I still cannot believe that there is so much debate about whether it was a red or not. I still cannot believe that after the match Klopp said he wouldn't appeal yet now we decided to appeal.

I can understand why such rules exist. If every player went for everything in the hope of a 'chance' of a kick at goal or an advantage, there would injuries left right and centre. Players had to hold back if there was a chance of an injury.

With Mane the ref didn't have any doubt about the lack of restraint and care (how could he when ederson's face was full of cuts!) in the case of Ritchie the player was touched in the arm, and the referee could not decide about the danger that the player had been exposed to. Yes, a red would have been consistent but there was enough doubt in the ref's mind.

When ederson came rushing out and headed the ball, he had the reasonable expectation that the player seeing him come out to head theball will not try to kick the ball. It would be far too dangerous even if the possible reward like Neville said was high. So. Next time, I hope Mane is advised that he shouldn't get attracted to the type of dangerous tackle. A goal is important but a suspension for 3 matches for dangerous play is more serious.

And that includes the goalkeeper! Also you've said a few times now about Mané 'tackling'. Mané wasn't tackling anybody, he was playing the ball - a clash of bodies doesn't equate to a tackle.

btw I haven't said this wasn't a red card.

 

[saintanton]

I pointed out recently that Diego has started looking to have a pop at us for any reason other than coming on here to debate or have a footy chat. He didn't used to do that? We have @Bodinki and @BobbyD who also post on here and yes there will be a diffrence of opinion at times but neither of the other 2 mentioned come on here just looking to take the piss like Diego now does.

Doesn't bother me too much but I can tell that a few regulars are sick of it.

I've had enough now, tbh.
You're not on late usually so it won't bother you, but it's becoming impossible to talk about anything without him trying to ruin it. He's not interested in debating a point at all, just in getting a rise out of people through constant contradiction.
Like you say, he never used to be like this, so I don't really understand it.
Most of the times it's harmless, but with the Mané incident he seemed intent on painting him as a real villain and I wasn't happy about that. We all said we thought it was a red, but he just wouldn't let it go.

 

[Tobes]

I've had enough now, tbh.
You're not on late usually so it won't bother you, but it's becoming impossible to talk about anything without him trying to ruin it. He's not interested in debating a point at all, just in getting a rise out of people through constant contradiction.
Like you say, he never used to be like this, so I don't really understand it.
Most of the times it's harmless, but with the Mané incident he seemed intent on painting him as a real villain and I wasn't happy about that. We all said we thought it was a red, but he just wouldn't let it go.

I agree, he's a bad wum him

 

[saintanton]

I agree, he's a bad wum him

Yep. You're a much better one.

 

[johnsonsbaby]

Again, It isn't his responsibility to protect himself, it is his responsibility to make sure he doesn't injure Mane. The Keeper fulfilled his obligation, Mane did not fulfill his obligation.

Because of the rules of the game, I think the keeper had a fairly reasonable expectation that he was safe, and that Mane would not go flying in studs first at head height, as he was obliged to do.

I'm not saying it was intentional at all, and to that extent Mane is unlucky, but if you are going to fly in at a ball at head-height studs first, you should be certain that you are not going to connect with someone's head.

Oh I think it is his responsibility to protect himself just like players in a wall have one hand/arm protecting their body and the other protecting their family jewels. It's not in the laws of the game but it's common sense to protect yourself from injury. 2 players running at speed at each other, what do you expect to happen? It's easy for us to debate all day long how one player should have done this and one player shouldn't have done that but in real time Mané didn't see the goalie - he's come out and said he didn't see the goalie. The goalie, on the other hand did see him. He was reckless. Again I say, doesn't mean I don't think it was a red card.

 

[luvgonzo]

I agree, he's a bad wum him

Yep. You're a much better one.

This is a good point, if he's worse than Tobes then he must be taking the piss or Tobes isn't doing his job.

 

[Tobes]

This is a good point, if he's worse than Tobes then he must be taking the piss or Tobes isn't doing his job.

I haven't wummed on here for beards. In fact it's me that gets wummed on here mostly these days.....

Diego has taken my old role, I admire his dedication to the art

 

[Swarbs]

So when someone compares two incidents and classes one as an accident and the other not then that someone is obviously saying in his opinion the other incident was on purpose.

"Did you see the Busst incident? it was a total accident where several players went for the same loose ball, not at all like two players going for a 50/50 and one going studs first.

[HASHTAG]#482[/HASHTAG]
Diego, Saturday at 11:48 PM"

Not necessarily. A total accident implies something unintentional and unexpected. Something can not be a total accident but can still be unintentional, that's the whole concept of negligence. So for the Busst incident, no one could have expected that his ankle would just give way in an innocuous collision like that. Whereas when a player raises their foot above shoulder height in a challenge, there is a reasonable risk that their studs will do some damage.

If someone drives at 30mph down a residential road, someone steps in front of them and is knocked down and killed that's a total accident, no way you would expect that to happen in a normal day. If someone drives 60mph down the same road and kills someone that isn't a total accident. They didn't intend to kill them, but they can't claim it was a total accident that they died.

For the record I'm not defending Diego, no idea what he did or didn't say last night. But not accepting something is a complete accident doesn't mean you automatically claim it was intentional.

 

[luvgonzo]

I haven't wummed on here for beards. In fact it's me that gets wummed on here mostly these days.....

Diego has taken my old role, I admire his dedication to the art

This is true, you have been good for a while. You need Everton to beat us so that you can go nuts. Might take a while for that to happen though.

 

[Page_Moss_Kopite]

Not necessarily. A total accident implies something unintentional and unexpected. Something can not be a total accident but can still be unintentional, that's the whole concept of negligence. So for the Busst incident, no one could have expected that his ankle would just give way in an innocuous collision like that. Whereas when a player raises their foot above shoulder height in a challenge, there is a reasonable risk that their studs will do some damage.

If someone drives at 30mph down a residential road, someone steps in front of them and is knocked down and killed that's a total accident, no way you would expect that to happen in a normal day. If someone drives 60mph down the same road and kills someone that isn't a total accident. They didn't intend to kill them, but they can't claim it was a total accident that they died.

For the record I'm not defending Diego, no idea what he did or didn't say last night. But not accepting something is a complete accident doesn't mean you automatically claim it was intentional.

Ah come on Swarbs, there's no such thing as a half of a total accident, if the Busst injury was a "total" accident according to Diego what do you think he means if he's saying the Mane challenge wasn't.

 

[BobbyD]

Oh I think it is his responsibility to protect himself just like players in a wall have one hand/arm protecting their body and the other protecting their family jewels. It's not in the laws of the game but it's common sense to protect yourself from injury. 2 players running at speed at each other, what do you expect to happen? It's easy for us to debate all day long how one player should have done this and one player shouldn't have done that but in real time Mané didn't see the goalie - he's come out and said he didn't see the goalie. The goalie, on the other hand did see him. He was reckless. Again I say, doesn't mean I don't think it was a red card.

Firstly i would say the goalie didn't see him either, he was watching the ball.

Secondly are you saying he should have been protecting himself by doing a flying kick instead of trying to header a head height ball? Or are you saying he should just let mane take it and score?

He got their first and its reasonable to think that if an opponent is going to get there at roughly the same time you don't try and kick the ball at head height

 

[Tobes]

Firstly i would say the goalie didn't see him either, he was watching the ball.

Secondly are you saying he should have been protecting himself by doing a flying kick instead of trying to header a head height ball? Or are you saying he should just let mane take it and score?

He got their first and its reasonable to think that if an opponent is going to get there at roughly the same time you don't try and kick the ball at head height

I've no idea how trying to head a ball at head height can be deemed reckless

 

[BobbyD]

I've no idea how trying to head a ball at head height can be deemed reckless

Think JB is saying not necessarily he's reckless to mane, he's reckless with his own health, a little bit of he has only himself to blame because he knew that he may potentially get hurt by sticking his head in where he shouldn't have been.

Absolute balderdash

 

[BobbyD]

As for @Diego if theres any consolation i don't think he's on the wind half the time. He just likes to present an alternative view and its not just the Pool board he does this too. Theres a few others especially the spurs one as the spurs fans board is possibly the most deluded and militant at times (obviously not all posters but probably worse/as bad as the saints).

 

[Tobes]

Think JB is saying not necessarily he's reckless to mane, he's reckless with his own health, a little bit of he has only himself to blame because he knew that he may potentially get hurt by sticking his head in where he shouldn't have been.

Absolute balderdash

When he went to head the ball he probably wasn't expecting to see a studs first foot on the end of an outstretched leg, at the same height as his jaw in fairness.

 

[johnsonsbaby]

Firstly i would say the goalie didn't see him either, he was watching the ball.

Secondly are you saying he should have been protecting himself by doing a flying kick instead of trying to header a head height ball? Or are you saying he should just let mane take it and score?

He got their first and its reasonable to think that if an opponent is going to get there at roughly the same time you don't try and kick the ball at head height

I'm saying the goalie protects himself [and Mané] by not rushing well out of his area at an attacker going full pelt. It's not the heading of the ball that's reckless it's the decision to go to the lengths he did to head it. What actually happened proves me right in this btw. Reckless decision ends in injury.