Hey Adster, looks like they're making up the rules now, tripping over someone that's in the way is not obstruction any more, wonder what rules they're gonna change for the next game?:P
Printable View
Hey Adster, looks like they're making up the rules now, tripping over someone that's in the way is not obstruction any more, wonder what rules they're gonna change for the next game?:P
Silly me, if you don't even understand what obstruction is, how could I possibly expect you to understand what constitutes a penalty.Quote:
Originally Posted by dodgy368
My favourite bit is how you tried to reinforce your pish argument by addressing it to adster. Another guy who has no concept of the rules of football. Aussie BawA, as it were.
"tripping over someone that's in the way is not obstruction any more" - Genious.
He didn't take a dive, he simply didn't try to avoid your idiot defender, who gave him the penalty on a plate. If the arse Australian had simply stayed on his feet, then he could have dealt with the situation easily, however he bottled it and lay down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adster
If you want to argue that, morally it was wrong of him to do it, fine. However it was a penalty.
Ever thought you might be wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
Bet BawA agrees with you.:lol:
Moved from the pish argument, to demonstrating you don't understand the simplest rules of football (tripping over someone used to be obstruction was a particularly brilliant choice), to the non-argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by dodgy368
An interesting ploy.
The only place you can really go now is "I sed it woz a penty awl along", or busyland as it's known.
Aha, I understand now, because I don't agree with you then I must be wrong, thanks for clearing that up for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
It's a mis-timed tackle, dodgy mate. Therefore it can't be obstruction and so an indirect free-kick will not be the result. It was a penalty.
If Grosso had checked his run, gone around Neill then he wouldn't have got to the ball in time to shoot, because a different Aussie would have got to the ball and cleared it.
It would have taken a Di Canio-esque spot of uber sportsmanship to the detriment of all his countrymen and fellow players for him not to have gone down in that situation.
That's kind of how it works. I disagree with you therefore you think I'm wrong. It sort of cuts both ways, don't you think.Quote:
Originally Posted by dodgy368
Have you decided to avoid busyland and just paste obvious, irrelevant nonsense.
Here's how it really works. You think I'm wrong, because I disagree with you. I know you are wrong because of the facts. Oh and I understand the rules, which you obviously don't. I am now going to laugh at your understanding of obstruction .... :lol:
As I said before, you may be morally correct, it may not have been in the spirit of sportsmanship. However it was a penalty according to the rules of the game. The ref had to give it.
Crap Argentina is out so is José Pekerman, i knew it would happen the second he pulled out RIQUELME, fucker wanted to play defence for the rest of the game.
i couldnt sleep last night, i was watching the match at a cafe with entire hall filled with Brazilian fans whom were against Argentina and they were cheering Germans just becuz they wanted to get raid of Argentina so probaply they wont be facing them at upcoming stages in WC.
You would never get an Italian doing that, it's just not in their make-up. They have a win at all costs mentality.Quote:
Originally Posted by manker