Jump to content
Ad Lib

Things you want to share with P&B

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Finch road said:


I agree on the picture but not the rest. It was given a red card, it's a red card at any level of world football. Dangerous play

I think what you are saying is at odds with what Jmo is saying, and he is trying to back his up with some sort of evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get where he is coming from, and a rulebook is open to interpretation, however that was a boot at 6ft high going Olympic speed. Meaning is out the window and its reckless, dangerous and a merited red card every day of the week.

It was more dangerous than Houstys team talks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Finch road said:

I get where he is coming from, and a rulebook is open to interpretation, however that was a boot at 6ft high going Olympic speed. Meaning is out the window and its reckless, dangerous and a merited red card every day of the week.

It was more dangerous than Houstys team talks!

There is no way it was at 6ft. To an extent we are arguing minute details here but that is sensationalising a wee bit. FWIW I did concede on Saturday that it looked worse each time I seen it, but my initial reaction was no red seeing it live. What bothered me more than people saying it was a red was people steaming in after the benefit of several replays and claiming it was an absolute stonewall red card. I think what Jmo has successfully shown is that it is worthy of some sort of debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goalie off the ground at 6ft tall albeit head down a touch wouod be about 6ft. I'm not sure why it has caused so much controversy? It is as clear as day IMO, even at first glance in real time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Genuinely not sure why there is even a debate over it. It's one of the clearest red cards you're ever likely to see. You really can't go volleying people in the head at that height. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 minute ago, Jimmy85 said:

Genuinely not sure why there is even a debate over it. It's one of the clearest red cards you're ever likely to see. You really can't go volleying people in the head at that height. 

But in Scotland and most of Europe, according to what Jmo found, if you do so accidentally then it is not an automatic red. Arguing that it was accidental then would be enough to make the case for it not being a red. That's why there is debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have just pulled out of going for it tbh. Couldn't live with myself if I studded someone in the face chasing a fucking ball of air.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keeper should have been carded for ball watching too imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just noticed that f**k is covered by the swear filter but fucking isn't.

Fucking f**k.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've just noticed that f**k is covered by the swear filter but fucking isn't.

Fucking f**k.


f**k fucks fucking fucker fucksake Fuckwittery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


f**k fucks fucking fucker fucksake Fuckwittery.

What's funny is that, in Scottish colloquialism, this is almost a coherent sentence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Hedgecutter said:

It amazes me just how many people can't get to grips with reply vs reply to all.

You'd think it was a brand new function or something.

I frequently use 'reply' rather than 'reply to all' because, too often, the email originator is including people purely to demonstrate he/she is doing something.

'c***s in the Office' or 'email etiquette' threads for this, though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I frequently use 'reply' rather than 'reply to all' because, too often, the email originator is including people purely to demonstrate he/she is doing something.
'c***s in the Office' or 'email etiquette' threads for this, though. 


I fucking hate c***s who 'reply' rather than 'reply all'.

Personally, the reason I include the other four or five people is so they know what's happening. Then they can make comments and the others can see what they've written/asked, without me having to have five separate conversations on the go and answer very similar questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Scary Bear said:

 


I fucking hate c***s who 'reply' rather than 'reply all'.

Personally, the reason I include the other four or five people is so they know what's happening. Then they can make comments and the others can see what they've written/asked, without me having to have five separate conversations on the go and answer very similar questions.

 

Sneaky b*****ds imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was in the train station car park today and noticed that all the people who had parked on the pavements instead of in the car park spaces had penalty notices. Good to see. I fucking despise inconsiderate c***s. If the car park is full, f**k off somewhere else and park your car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×