DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 111944--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darren England BHA v Arsenal
DIR By: El Referee
Date: September 20, 2026, 7:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DublinRef link ---
>
> [quote author=El Referee link=topic=8411.msg111941#msg111941
date=1789907717]
> [quote author=DublinRef link=topic=8411.msg111939#msg111939
date=1789907327]
> [quote author=El Referee link=topic=8411.msg111934#msg111934
date=1789905053]
> [quote author=DublinRef link=topic=8411.msg111930#msg111930
date=1789901869]
> [quote author=ajb95 link=topic=8411.msg111922#msg111922
date=1789894014]
> I wait for the Bruno fernandes-style bashing from posters on
this forum re this behaviour by Rice or will they be silent
because he’s a key English performer?
>
--- End Quote ---
Again we will be told about force and brutality and not over
reacting and understanding emotion.
[/quote]
Well, yes. We will be told about force and brutality as that is
literally what law says for VC.
[/quote]
True alright, what I don’t see is the ‘tripping’ a player off
the ball exemption to VC as seems to be your argument. And as
I’ve made the point before, brutality and excessive force need
to be read in context.
So the laws meaning is, as best as I can understand your view,
you can kick players, totally off the ball, on the ground,
whatever just don’t do it too hard we’ll call it a trip?
It being off the ball is especially relevant. The force used for
a reckless tackle, studs to the foot say, would be without doubt
a red card if done off the ball in a stamp.
I just genuinely do not understand the end point of this - how
hard are you allowed to poke someone in the eye? Or stand on
their hand? Or slap them in the face?
I don’t think that was ever the intention of the law. There is
no logical answer to these questions. Surely the suppose of VC
laws is to prevent players from taking non footballing actions
to hurt their opponent. And the excessive force element is
merely so that, in context, totally negligible incidents are not
punished with a sending off.
[/quote]
Correct, you don’t see tripping a player off the ball being a
red card…..because it isn’t.
Do you send every single player off for pulling someone’s shirt
at a set piece?
[/quote]
No, and nor do you see red cards for pushing off the ball,
holding an arm off the ball, heck shaking hands off the ball,
not entirely sure the relevance of your point there?
What you’re doing is looking at each element in total isolation
and ignoring the context, he runs at his opponent, moves his leg
towards him at some speed (we won’t agree on trip/kick) and
connects with him.
Unsure how that is justified or non excessive force.
[/quote]
My point is that it being off the ball, simply does not mean it
then becomes excessive force. If this incident happens with the
ball there, theres not a chance in hell people are asking for
red.
You judge the decision based on what actually happens, not it
just being off the ball. You believe it to be a kick that shows
either brutality or excessive force. I don’t. I see it as a
petulant trip.
#Post#: 111945--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darren England BHA v Arsenal
DIR By: Joecphillips
Date: September 20, 2026, 7:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: El Referee link ---
>
> [quote author=DublinRef link=topic=8411.msg111930#msg111930
date=1789901869]
> [quote author=ajb95 link=topic=8411.msg111922#msg111922
date=1789894014]
> I wait for the Bruno fernandes-style bashing from posters on
this forum re this behaviour by Rice or will they be silent
because he’s a key English performer?
>
--- End Quote ---
Again we will be told about force and brutality and not over
reacting and understanding emotion.
[/quote]
Well, yes. We will be told about force and brutality as that is
literally what law says for VC.
[/quote]
Which once again brings up the question what is reasonable force
when deliberately kicking someone?
#Post#: 111946--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darren England BHA v Arsenal
DIR By: El Referee
Date: September 20, 2026, 7:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Joecphillips link ---
>
> [quote author=El Referee link=topic=8411.msg111934#msg111934
date=1789905053]
> [quote author=DublinRef link=topic=8411.msg111930#msg111930
date=1789901869]
> [quote author=ajb95 link=topic=8411.msg111922#msg111922
date=1789894014]
> I wait for the Bruno fernandes-style bashing from posters on
this forum re this behaviour by Rice or will they be silent
because he’s a key English performer?
>
--- End Quote ---
Again we will be told about force and brutality and not over
reacting and understanding emotion.
[/quote]
Well, yes. We will be told about force and brutality as that is
literally what law says for VC.
[/quote]
Which once again brings up the question what is reasonable force
when deliberately kicking someone?
[/quote]
Well that depends on you firstly deeming it to be a kick as
opposed to a trip. Then you need to decide on the speed and
force used.
This is where people will rarely agree. And that’s okay.
Football isn’t black and white.
#Post#: 111947--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darren England BHA v Arsenal
DIR By: Joecphillips
Date: September 20, 2026, 7:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: El Referee link ---
>
> [quote author=DublinRef link=topic=8411.msg111942#msg111942
date=1789907947]
> [quote author=El Referee link=topic=8411.msg111941#msg111941
date=1789907717]
> [quote author=DublinRef link=topic=8411.msg111939#msg111939
date=1789907327]
> [quote author=El Referee link=topic=8411.msg111934#msg111934
date=1789905053]
> [quote author=DublinRef link=topic=8411.msg111930#msg111930
date=1789901869]
> [quote author=ajb95 link=topic=8411.msg111922#msg111922
date=1789894014]
> I wait for the Bruno fernandes-style bashing from posters on
this forum re this behaviour by Rice or will they be silent
because he’s a key English performer?
>
--- End Quote ---
Again we will be told about force and brutality and not over
reacting and understanding emotion.
[/quote]
Well, yes. We will be told about force and brutality as that is
literally what law says for VC.
[/quote]
True alright, what I don’t see is the ‘tripping’ a player off
the ball exemption to VC as seems to be your argument. And as
I’ve made the point before, brutality and excessive force need
to be read in context.
So the laws meaning is, as best as I can understand your view,
you can kick players, totally off the ball, on the ground,
whatever just don’t do it too hard we’ll call it a trip?
It being off the ball is especially relevant. The force used for
a reckless tackle, studs to the foot say, would be without doubt
a red card if done off the ball in a stamp.
I just genuinely do not understand the end point of this - how
hard are you allowed to poke someone in the eye? Or stand on
their hand? Or slap them in the face?
I don’t think that was ever the intention of the law. There is
no logical answer to these questions. Surely the suppose of VC
laws is to prevent players from taking non footballing actions
to hurt their opponent. And the excessive force element is
merely so that, in context, totally negligible incidents are not
punished with a sending off.
[/quote]
Correct, you don’t see tripping a player off the ball being a
red card…..because it isn’t.
Do you send every single player off for pulling someone’s shirt
at a set piece?
[/quote]
No, and nor do you see red cards for pushing off the ball,
holding an arm off the ball, heck shaking hands off the ball,
not entirely sure the relevance of your point there?
What you’re doing is looking at each element in total isolation
and ignoring the context, he runs at his opponent, moves his leg
towards him at some speed (we won’t agree on trip/kick) and
connects with him.
Unsure how that is justified or non excessive force.
[/quote]
My point is that it being off the ball, simply does not mean it
then becomes excessive force. If this incident happens with the
ball there, theres not a chance in hell people are asking for
red.
You judge the decision based on what actually happens, not it
just being off the ball. You believe it to be a kick that shows
either brutality or excessive force. I don’t. I see it as a
petulant trip.
[/quote]
There is no 1 set this is excessive force as excissive is
subjective
Excessive means going beyond what is usual, normal, necessary,
or reasonable.
What is usual, normal, necessary or reasonable when it comes to
deliberately kicking someone? Surely the answer is none
#Post#: 111949--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darren England BHA v Arsenal
DIR By: DublinRef
Date: September 20, 2026, 8:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: El Referee link ---
>
> [quote author=DublinRef link=topic=8411.msg111940#msg111940
date=1789907690]
> [quote author=El Referee link=topic=8411.msg111938#msg111938
date=1789907314]
> [quote author=Adam link=topic=8411.msg111935#msg111935
date=1789906509]
> [quote author=El Referee link=topic=8411.msg111933#msg111933
date=1789904667]
> [quote author=Adam link=topic=8411.msg111932#msg111932
date=1789903982]
> [quote author=El Referee link=topic=8411.msg111931#msg111931
date=1789902475]
>
HTML https://www.skysports.com/share/13589948
>
> There’s a few more angles of the Rice incident here. It’s one
that will certainly split opinion, but I still don’t see
anything more than a trip. Had the ball been there, I don’t
think anyone even considers this being a red.
>
--- End Quote ---
He looks at the player, changes his running path away from the
ball, pulls his foot back and then moves it forward at a
reasonable enough speed towards the player. Thats not a trip, a
trip is a stretch or single forward movement towards the player,
not one where the foot moves back to gather momentum before
going towards the player which is a swing, which is what
happened here. Its a red card. Opinion is not split, its
divided, with a larger proportion thinking red, according to
popular media and pundits anyway.
[/quote]
Does he change his running path? Yes. Does the Brighton change
his running path to barge Rice? Yes. Does changing your running
path have anything to do with this? No.
Rices foot is never pulled back in a kicking motion. He is
literally jogging.
Any group chat I am in is pretty evenly split. If you’re having
to use pundits as your justification, I’ll end the discussion
there.
[/quote]
I think you should watch it again. Jogging doesn't involve
backwards leg movement which is quite evident in the video
above.
In regards to your comment about pundits, many are knowledgeable
on the laws of the game and how the game should be conducted.
Just because there are some not so intelligent pundits in the
sphere it doesn't mean they should all be tarnished with that
brush. Listening to them is no less beneficial than armchair
experts in group chats. A forum like this is the most beneficial
and valuable source of opinion on refereeing decisions. The fact
that most agree with my original topic of it being a red card
should be enough to know that it more than likely should have
been one.
[/quote]
Jogging doesn’t involve backwards leg movement? What?! I’ll
definitely leave this one. The barrel is being scraped.
[/quote]
Well, to be technical, Adam is correct. When running, you propel
your body forwards over the planted foot. Your leg moves
backwards relative to your body, but that doesn’t necessarily
mean the foot itself is travelling backwards relative to the
ground - that’s why the leg appears behind you as you move
forward.
Anyway, it’s a rather cheap response because you know what he’s
getting at. There is a clear swinging motion of the leg; it
isn’t simply a case of sticking his leg in front of an opponent
as part of a natural running motion. He’s swinging the leg at
him to strike him with it.
[/quote]
No he isn’t. His justification has been ‘the pundits said’ and
‘your leg doesn’t go behind when jogging’.
I look forward to the next controversial decision in which you
both agree with whatever the pundits say. I’d also recommend
watching any runners or footballers gait.
[/quote]
The running argument is just getting silly and not really
relevant except as a matter of forensic detail. However, I’ll
state it again: while the foot is planted, the runner’s body
moves forwards over it. The leg does not travel backwards
relative to the ground simply because the leg is moving
backwards relative to the runner’s body.
So, technically, classifying his argument as “Jogging doesn’t
involve backwards leg movement” without specifying the frame of
reference doesn’t actually establish anything. More importantly,
none of this addresses the obvious distinction between a normal
running gait and deliberately swinging your leg towards another
player.
Anyhow, I have never used a pundits view to support any argument
I made, I was merely pointing out the technical inaccuracy in
your characterisation of Adam’s argument.
On your response to my other post, not only did I not claim it
being off the ball was the only relevant factor I specifically
have said, a number of times, the act must be viewed in context.
With respect you’re doing the old barristers trick of twisting
slightly what’s being said to allow you to reply to an argument
more favourable for your view.
#Post#: 111951--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darren England BHA v Arsenal
DIR By: El Referee
Date: September 20, 2026, 8:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DublinRef link ---
>
> [quote author=El Referee link=topic=8411.msg111943#msg111943
date=1789908153]
> [quote author=DublinRef link=topic=8411.msg111940#msg111940
date=1789907690]
> [quote author=El Referee link=topic=8411.msg111938#msg111938
date=1789907314]
> [quote author=Adam link=topic=8411.msg111935#msg111935
date=1789906509]
> [quote author=El Referee link=topic=8411.msg111933#msg111933
date=1789904667]
> [quote author=Adam link=topic=8411.msg111932#msg111932
date=1789903982]
> [quote author=El Referee link=topic=8411.msg111931#msg111931
date=1789902475]
>
HTML https://www.skysports.com/share/13589948
>
> There’s a few more angles of the Rice incident here. It’s one
that will certainly split opinion, but I still don’t see
anything more than a trip. Had the ball been there, I don’t
think anyone even considers this being a red.
>
--- End Quote ---
He looks at the player, changes his running path away from the
ball, pulls his foot back and then moves it forward at a
reasonable enough speed towards the player. Thats not a trip, a
trip is a stretch or single forward movement towards the player,
not one where the foot moves back to gather momentum before
going towards the player which is a swing, which is what
happened here. Its a red card. Opinion is not split, its
divided, with a larger proportion thinking red, according to
popular media and pundits anyway.
[/quote]
Does he change his running path? Yes. Does the Brighton change
his running path to barge Rice? Yes. Does changing your running
path have anything to do with this? No.
Rices foot is never pulled back in a kicking motion. He is
literally jogging.
Any group chat I am in is pretty evenly split. If you’re having
to use pundits as your justification, I’ll end the discussion
there.
[/quote]
I think you should watch it again. Jogging doesn't involve
backwards leg movement which is quite evident in the video
above.
In regards to your comment about pundits, many are knowledgeable
on the laws of the game and how the game should be conducted.
Just because there are some not so intelligent pundits in the
sphere it doesn't mean they should all be tarnished with that
brush. Listening to them is no less beneficial than armchair
experts in group chats. A forum like this is the most beneficial
and valuable source of opinion on refereeing decisions. The fact
that most agree with my original topic of it being a red card
should be enough to know that it more than likely should have
been one.
[/quote]
Jogging doesn’t involve backwards leg movement? What?! I’ll
definitely leave this one. The barrel is being scraped.
[/quote]
Well, to be technical, Adam is correct. When running, you propel
your body forwards over the planted foot. Your leg moves
backwards relative to your body, but that doesn’t necessarily
mean the foot itself is travelling backwards relative to the
ground - that’s why the leg appears behind you as you move
forward.
Anyway, it’s a rather cheap response because you know what he’s
getting at. There is a clear swinging motion of the leg; it
isn’t simply a case of sticking his leg in front of an opponent
as part of a natural running motion. He’s swinging the leg at
him to strike him with it.
[/quote]
No he isn’t. His justification has been ‘the pundits said’ and
‘your leg doesn’t go behind when jogging’.
I look forward to the next controversial decision in which you
both agree with whatever the pundits say. I’d also recommend
watching any runners or footballers gait.
[/quote]
The running argument is just getting silly and not really
relevant except as a matter of forensic detail. However, I’ll
state it again: while the foot is planted, the runner’s body
moves forwards over it. The leg does not travel backwards
relative to the ground simply because the leg is moving
backwards relative to the runner’s body.
So, technically, classifying his argument as “Jogging doesn’t
involve backwards leg movement” without specifying the frame of
reference doesn’t actually establish anything. More importantly,
none of this addresses the obvious distinction between a normal
running gait and deliberately swinging your leg towards another
player.
Anyhow, I have never used a pundits view to support any argument
I made, I was merely pointing out the technical inaccuracy in
your characterisation of Adam’s argument.
On your response to my other post, not only did I not claim it
being off the ball was the only relevant factor I specifically
have said, a number of times, the act must be viewed in context.
With respect you’re doing the old barristers trick of twisting
slightly what’s being said to allow you to reply to an argument
more favourable for your view.
[/quote]
I never said you mentioned the pundits.
If we are talking about context, then I’d say the jogging
element is wholly appropriate. I’ll say this one more time; of
course his leg went backwards, he was jogging.
We disagree, and that is fine. (Edited ,RUDE ! and not for the
first time today)
#Post#: 111952--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darren England BHA v Arsenal
DIR By: JCFC
Date: September 20, 2026, 8:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I find the last sentence of the above most surprising. Dublin
Ref's posts have always been a model of sober judgement and
sound good sense, appropriately expressed.
#Post#: 111953--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darren England BHA v Arsenal
DIR By: Adam
Date: September 20, 2026, 8:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: El Referee link ---
>
> [quote author=DublinRef link=topic=8411.msg111949#msg111949
date=1789909979]
> [quote author=El Referee link=topic=8411.msg111943#msg111943
date=1789908153]
> [quote author=DublinRef link=topic=8411.msg111940#msg111940
date=1789907690]
> [quote author=El Referee link=topic=8411.msg111938#msg111938
date=1789907314]
> [quote author=Adam link=topic=8411.msg111935#msg111935
date=1789906509]
> [quote author=El Referee link=topic=8411.msg111933#msg111933
date=1789904667]
> [quote author=Adam link=topic=8411.msg111932#msg111932
date=1789903982]
> [quote author=El Referee link=topic=8411.msg111931#msg111931
date=1789902475]
>
HTML https://www.skysports.com/share/13589948
>
> There’s a few more angles of the Rice incident here. It’s one
that will certainly split opinion, but I still don’t see
anything more than a trip. Had the ball been there, I don’t
think anyone even considers this being a red.
>
--- End Quote ---
He looks at the player, changes his running path away from the
ball, pulls his foot back and then moves it forward at a
reasonable enough speed towards the player. Thats not a trip, a
trip is a stretch or single forward movement towards the player,
not one where the foot moves back to gather momentum before
going towards the player which is a swing, which is what
happened here. Its a red card. Opinion is not split, its
divided, with a larger proportion thinking red, according to
popular media and pundits anyway.
[/quote]
Does he change his running path? Yes. Does the Brighton change
his running path to barge Rice? Yes. Does changing your running
path have anything to do with this? No.
Rices foot is never pulled back in a kicking motion. He is
literally jogging.
Any group chat I am in is pretty evenly split. If you’re having
to use pundits as your justification, I’ll end the discussion
there.
[/quote]
I think you should watch it again. Jogging doesn't involve
backwards leg movement which is quite evident in the video
above.
In regards to your comment about pundits, many are knowledgeable
on the laws of the game and how the game should be conducted.
Just because there are some not so intelligent pundits in the
sphere it doesn't mean they should all be tarnished with that
brush. Listening to them is no less beneficial than armchair
experts in group chats. A forum like this is the most beneficial
and valuable source of opinion on refereeing decisions. The fact
that most agree with my original topic of it being a red card
should be enough to know that it more than likely should have
been one.
[/quote]
Jogging doesn’t involve backwards leg movement? What?! I’ll
definitely leave this one. The barrel is being scraped.
[/quote]
Well, to be technical, Adam is correct. When running, you propel
your body forwards over the planted foot. Your leg moves
backwards relative to your body, but that doesn’t necessarily
mean the foot itself is travelling backwards relative to the
ground - that’s why the leg appears behind you as you move
forward.
Anyway, it’s a rather cheap response because you know what he’s
getting at. There is a clear swinging motion of the leg; it
isn’t simply a case of sticking his leg in front of an opponent
as part of a natural running motion. He’s swinging the leg at
him to strike him with it.
[/quote]
No he isn’t. His justification has been ‘the pundits said’ and
‘your leg doesn’t go behind when jogging’.
I look forward to the next controversial decision in which you
both agree with whatever the pundits say. I’d also recommend
watching any runners or footballers gait.
[/quote]
The running argument is just getting silly and not really
relevant except as a matter of forensic detail. However, I’ll
state it again: while the foot is planted, the runner’s body
moves forwards over it. The leg does not travel backwards
relative to the ground simply because the leg is moving
backwards relative to the runner’s body.
So, technically, classifying his argument as “Jogging doesn’t
involve backwards leg movement” without specifying the frame of
reference doesn’t actually establish anything. More importantly,
none of this addresses the obvious distinction between a normal
running gait and deliberately swinging your leg towards another
player.
Anyhow, I have never used a pundits view to support any argument
I made, I was merely pointing out the technical inaccuracy in
your characterisation of Adam’s argument.
On your response to my other post, not only did I not claim it
being off the ball was the only relevant factor I specifically
have said, a number of times, the act must be viewed in context.
With respect you’re doing the old barristers trick of twisting
slightly what’s being said to allow you to reply to an argument
more favourable for your view.
[/quote]
I never said you mentioned the pundits.
If we are talking about context, then I’d say the jogging
element is wholly appropriate. I’ll say this one more time; of
course his leg went backwards, he was jogging.
We disagree, and that is fine. But based on some of your
previous posts on here, I’ll take your opinion with a very very
large pinch of salt.
[/quote]
Thats just plain rude. I came on here to express an opinion on
an incident and you have argued against (which is perfectly fine
and expected) but you have done so with an undermining tone and
now you've just lashed out at Dublinref who has done nothing but
add his opinion to the debate. It puts a rather sour taste now
in my mouth about a simple opinion I wanted to express. I won't
comment further now on it, especially now that theres the fear
of being attacked.
#Post#: 111954--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darren England BHA v Arsenal
DIR By: TA_Ref
Date: September 20, 2026, 8:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I think Rice is arguably fortuitous to not see red but again I
don’t think this is what VAR is here to do.
Does Rice’s actions go from an act of petulance to an act of
violence?
I’m not certain so I think VAR should leave it alone. But if
England showed a RC then again VAR should leave it alone.
#Post#: 111955--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darren England BHA v Arsenal
DIR By: El Referee
Date: September 20, 2026, 8:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Adam link ---
>
> [quote author=El Referee link=topic=8411.msg111951#msg111951
date=1789910885]
> [quote author=DublinRef link=topic=8411.msg111949#msg111949
date=1789909979]
> [quote author=El Referee link=topic=8411.msg111943#msg111943
date=1789908153]
> [quote author=DublinRef link=topic=8411.msg111940#msg111940
date=1789907690]
> [quote author=El Referee link=topic=8411.msg111938#msg111938
date=1789907314]
> [quote author=Adam link=topic=8411.msg111935#msg111935
date=1789906509]
> [quote author=El Referee link=topic=8411.msg111933#msg111933
date=1789904667]
> [quote author=Adam link=topic=8411.msg111932#msg111932
date=1789903982]
> [quote author=El Referee link=topic=8411.msg111931#msg111931
date=1789902475]
>
HTML https://www.skysports.com/share/13589948
>
> There’s a few more angles of the Rice incident here. It’s one
that will certainly split opinion, but I still don’t see
anything more than a trip. Had the ball been there, I don’t
think anyone even considers this being a red.
>
--- End Quote ---
He looks at the player, changes his running path away from the
ball, pulls his foot back and then moves it forward at a
reasonable enough speed towards the player. Thats not a trip, a
trip is a stretch or single forward movement towards the player,
not one where the foot moves back to gather momentum before
going towards the player which is a swing, which is what
happened here. Its a red card. Opinion is not split, its
divided, with a larger proportion thinking red, according to
popular media and pundits anyway.
[/quote]
Does he change his running path? Yes. Does the Brighton change
his running path to barge Rice? Yes. Does changing your running
path have anything to do with this? No.
Rices foot is never pulled back in a kicking motion. He is
literally jogging.
Any group chat I am in is pretty evenly split. If you’re having
to use pundits as your justification, I’ll end the discussion
there.
[/quote]
I think you should watch it again. Jogging doesn't involve
backwards leg movement which is quite evident in the video
above.
In regards to your comment about pundits, many are knowledgeable
on the laws of the game and how the game should be conducted.
Just because there are some not so intelligent pundits in the
sphere it doesn't mean they should all be tarnished with that
brush. Listening to them is no less beneficial than armchair
experts in group chats. A forum like this is the most beneficial
and valuable source of opinion on refereeing decisions. The fact
that most agree with my original topic of it being a red card
should be enough to know that it more than likely should have
been one.
[/quote]
Jogging doesn’t involve backwards leg movement? What?! I’ll
definitely leave this one. The barrel is being scraped.
[/quote]
Well, to be technical, Adam is correct. When running, you propel
your body forwards over the planted foot. Your leg moves
backwards relative to your body, but that doesn’t necessarily
mean the foot itself is travelling backwards relative to the
ground - that’s why the leg appears behind you as you move
forward.
Anyway, it’s a rather cheap response because you know what he’s
getting at. There is a clear swinging motion of the leg; it
isn’t simply a case of sticking his leg in front of an opponent
as part of a natural running motion. He’s swinging the leg at
him to strike him with it.
[/quote]
No he isn’t. His justification has been ‘the pundits said’ and
‘your leg doesn’t go behind when jogging’.
I look forward to the next controversial decision in which you
both agree with whatever the pundits say. I’d also recommend
watching any runners or footballers gait.
[/quote]
The running argument is just getting silly and not really
relevant except as a matter of forensic detail. However, I’ll
state it again: while the foot is planted, the runner’s body
moves forwards over it. The leg does not travel backwards
relative to the ground simply because the leg is moving
backwards relative to the runner’s body.
So, technically, classifying his argument as “Jogging doesn’t
involve backwards leg movement” without specifying the frame of
reference doesn’t actually establish anything. More importantly,
none of this addresses the obvious distinction between a normal
running gait and deliberately swinging your leg towards another
player.
Anyhow, I have never used a pundits view to support any argument
I made, I was merely pointing out the technical inaccuracy in
your characterisation of Adam’s argument.
On your response to my other post, not only did I not claim it
being off the ball was the only relevant factor I specifically
have said, a number of times, the act must be viewed in context.
With respect you’re doing the old barristers trick of twisting
slightly what’s being said to allow you to reply to an argument
more favourable for your view.
[/quote]
I never said you mentioned the pundits.
If we are talking about context, then I’d say the jogging
element is wholly appropriate. I’ll say this one more time; of
course his leg went backwards, he was jogging.
We disagree, and that is fine. But based on some of your
previous posts on here, I’ll take your opinion with a very very
large pinch of salt.
[/quote]
Thats just plain rude. I came on here to express an opinion on
an incident and you have argued against (which is perfectly fine
and expected) but you have done so with an undermining tone and
now you've just lashed out at Dublinref who has done nothing but
add his opinion to the debate. It puts a rather sour taste now
in my mouth about a simple opinion I wanted to express. I won't
comment further now on it, especially now that theres the fear
of being attacked.
[/quote]
Fear of being attacked? I bet you go down like a lead balloon
with clubs. Someone says something you don’t like, it must be an
attack.
He wanted to make it personal with his barrister comment. I
simply didn’t feel the need to make a fuss out of it.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page