Sean Dyche was 'raging' about the penalty decision?

[Sir C]

:hehe: Fúcking hell, if you think there's some question about whether that's a penalty, you need a new hobby.

[PSRB]

:hehe: Fúcking hell, if you think there's some question about whether that's a penalty, you need a new hobby.

Plus we should have had an even clearer won when Bellerin was scythed down. Notice MotD chose not to show that one.

[World's End Stella]

Not in the Times, he wasn't. :shrug:

“There’s a definite nudge in the back, but I don’t think [Ramsey] was going to get the ball. It’s going over. It probably is a penalty, but it was never not going to be given.

Hardly raging, is it? :rolleyes:

[Burney]

:hehe: Fúcking hell, if you think there's some question about whether that's a penalty, you need a new hobby.

Actually, that piece in the Guardian is pretty misleading. It leads with him saying he's 'raging', but only further down do you find out that he doesn't actually dispute that it was a penalty.


“It probably is a penalty but it was never not going to be given, I can assure you. You lay your hands on someone, he goes down, they are tough calls; you have to be 100%, which I assume the referee is.

In conclusion, we must assume this is more about the Guardian writer being pïssed off that we won than Sean Dyche making any real complaint.

[Sir C]

Actually, that piece in the Guardian is pretty misleading. It leads with him saying he's 'raging', but only further down do you find out that he doesn't actually dispute that it was a penalty.



In conclusion, we must assume this is more about the Guardian writer being pïssed off that we won than Sean Dyche making any real complaint.

Disappointing. One likes to think of him raging away.

I wonder what this means? "It probably is a penalty but it was never not going to be given, I can assure you."

[Monty92]

Actually, that piece in the Guardian is pretty misleading. It leads with him saying he's 'raging', but only further down do you find out that he doesn't actually dispute that it was a penalty.



In conclusion, we must assume this is more about the Guardian writer being pïssed off that we won than Sean Dyche making any real complaint.

To be fair, once a manager has used the word "raging" in a post-match interview, if a journalist doesn't lead with it in his report he'd be liable to be sacked.

[Burney]

Disappointing. One likes to think of him raging away.

I wonder what this means? "It probably is a penalty but it was never not going to be given, I can assure you."

It's just the classic small club moan about big clubs always getting the decisions - which is apparently made no less galling by the fact that the decision was 100% correct.

Essentially, he's suggesting - in his incoherent, northern way - the had the boot been on the other foot, Burnley wouldn't have got a penalty.

[redgunamo]

Disappointing. One likes to think of him raging away.

I wonder what this means? "It probably is a penalty but it was never not going to be given, I can assure you."

Just the old "big clubs always get the decisions", I think.

[Sir C]

It's just the classic small club moan about big clubs always getting the decisions - which is apparently made no less galling by the fact that the decision was 100% correct.

Essentially, he's suggesting - in his incoherent, northern way - the had the boot been on the other foot, Burnley wouldn't have got a penalty.

What a silly billy he must be, eh? ty for the clarification, b. How is your cricket game going? Are you enjoying it?

[Monty92]

It's just the classic small club moan about big clubs always getting the decisions - which is apparently made no less galling by the fact that the decision was 100% correct.

Essentially, he's suggesting - in his incoherent, northern way - the had the boot been on the other foot, Burnley wouldn't have got a penalty.

I guess their frustration might be slightly compounted by the fact that Monreal committed a far more blatant push in the box, but they were denied the chance of a penalty by the fact that the move was called offside.

[Burney]

To be fair, once a manager has used the word "raging" in a post-match interview, if a journalist doesn't lead with it in his report he'd be liable to be sacked.

Sure, but the writer in fact only uses the 'raging' quote in the penultimate paragraph, which makes it clear that he's not actually 'raging' about the penalty itself, but about losing in the last minute. The sub's been a bit naughty with the headline, there.


Dyche said: “There’s a lot of me inside that’s raging a lot. I’ve told them [his players] that we continue to develop, we continue to move forward.

[Burney]

What a silly billy he must be, eh? ty for the clarification, b. How is your cricket game going? Are you enjoying it?

Indeed. Particularly as the stats make it quite clear that we disproportionately don't get penalties, but ho-hum.

I lasted three nights and then needed sleep. We lost.

[Sir C]

Indeed. Particularly as the stats make it quite clear that we disproportionately don't get penalties, but ho-hum.

I lasted three nights and then needed sleep. We lost.

Oh. Bugger. No doubt there will be another one shortly?

[Monty92]

Sure, but the writer in fact only uses the 'raging' quote in the penultimate paragraph, which makes it clear that he's not actually 'raging' about the penalty itself, but about losing in the last minute. The sub's been a bit naughty with the headline, there.

In that case the sub would be liable to be sacked

[Burney]

I guess their frustration might be slightly compounted by the fact that Monreal committed a far more blatant push in the box, but they were denied the chance of a penalty by the fact that the move was called offside.

Well those are the laws of the game, to be fair. You can't have a penalty when it's been called offside. :shrug:

Dyche does seem to be a proper thick cùnt, mind. I like here where he seems to be calling the philosophical nature of a foul into question. :hehe:


Dyche may have had all this in mind when talking about Sunday’s penalty decision. “We’ve had a lot not given,” he said. “I don’t know why. The bigger clubs seem to get the decisions; I’m not sure it’s that fact [this afternoon]. You have to be clear only because it’s unlikely he’s ever going to get there [to the ball], so when is a foul a foul?”

I mean...what? :hehe:

[redgunamo]

Indeed. Particularly as the stats make it quite clear that we disproportionately don't get penalties, but ho-hum.

I lasted three nights and then needed sleep. We lost.

What stats are these? I'd have said we get more penalties than most.

[Burney]

Oh. Bugger. No doubt there will be another one shortly?

Yes, but we're just as likely to lose that one, I'm afraid. We are short of bowling and fragile of batting. We had a decent chance in this game and cocked it right up.

[Sir C]

In that case the sub would be liable to be sacked

Guardian subs regularly completely misrepresent the article and no one seems to notice.

And they're obsessed with the word 'must'. "The housing market is broken and here is what we must do to fix it." "The NHS is broken and here is what we must do to fix it." The answer, in all cases, is taking more money from decent people and giving it to the 'poor'.

[Burney]

What stats are these? I'd have said we get more penalties than most.


I seem to remember someone posting something last week saying the opposite, but it's possible I dreamed it.

[Sir C]

Yes, but we're just as likely to lose that one, I'm afraid. We are short of bowling and fragile of batting. We had a decent chance in this game and cocked it right up.

This is distressing. i thought we were good? We've got the nice Yorkshire chap who goes around in a chip van. And others. Perhaps they are tired. It's a awfully long flight.

[Monty92]

Well those are the laws of the game, to be fair. You can't have a penalty when it's been called offside. :shrug:

Dyche does seem to be a proper thick cùnt, mind. I like here where he seems to be calling the philosophical nature of a foul into question. :hehe:



I mean...what? :hehe:

He does have a *slight* point to the extent that there are some elements of the rules that do seem to hinge on whether a player was in a position to reach the ball when he was fouled.

[Burney]

In that case the sub would be liable to be sacked

Given the Guardian's revenue and circulation figures, I think The Guardian is going to be grateful for any clicks it can get - however mendaciously garnered they are.

[Burney]

This is distressing. i thought we were good? We've got the nice Yorkshire chap who goes around in a chip van. And others. Perhaps they are tired. It's a awfully long flight.

We lost a key player because he got into a fight outside a nightclub. I don't know when a tendency to violent criminality became a reason not to send someone to Australia, but there we are.

[Monty92]

Given the Guardian's revenue and circulation figures, I think The Guardian is going to be grateful for any clicks it can get - however mendaciously garnered they are.

No I mean if the sub hadn't shoe-horned 'raging' into his headline he'd prob have been sacked

[Ash]

Given the Guardian's revenue and circulation figures, I think The Guardian is going to be grateful for any clicks it can get - however mendaciously garnered they are.

You do your best to help them, tbf.

[Burney]

He does have a *slight* point to the extent that there are some elements of the rules that do seem to hinge on whether a player was in a position to reach the ball when he was fouled.

Yes, but from your earliest days of playing football you learn that if you foul someone in the penalty area, you are liable to have a penalty awarded against you. Everything else is just böllocks.

[Burney]

You do your best to help them, tbf.


Not anymore I don't. Not since they banned me from taking the pīss out of them. I barely even glance at their opinion section these days. It's no fun if you can't point out what cùnts they are. :-(

[SWv2]

:hehe: Fúcking hell, if you think there's some question about whether that's a penalty, you need a new hobby.

Raging at the loss in the 92nd minute I presume.

I did not see the game nor the incident, I chose to go see Paddington 2!

[Burney]

Raging at the loss in the 92nd minute I presume.

I did not see the game nor the incident, I chose to go see Paddington 2!

Review, please?

I didn't like the first one. It was little but multiculturalist propaganda if you ask me.

[SWv2]

Review, please?

I didn't like the first one. It was little but multiculturalist propaganda if you ask me.

The film itself was entertaining in as much as it could be, silly in parts and sad (for an 8 year old girl) in parts but ultimately joyous and uplifting as Aunt Lucy made it over to London to fulfil her lifelong dream. Probably should have said something about Spolier Alerts there but what can you do.

No mention of Aunt Lucy’s husband mind you who was shown in the opening sequence, perhaps he was hunted down and killed by an American tourist. This may have been a tricky part of the overall story to impart.

It was approximately 1.5 hours of my life which were free from any stress or hassle. I chose pick and mix, water and a coffee as I was a small bit hungover.

I then went for a pizza.

[Burney]

The film itself was entertaining in as much as it could be, silly in parts and sad (for an 8 year old girl) in parts but ultimately joyous and uplifting as Aunt Lucy made it over to London to fulfil her lifelong dream. Probably should have said something about Spolier Alerts there but what can you do.

No mention of Aunt Lucy’s husband mind you who was shown in the opening sequence, perhaps he was hunted down and killed by an American tourist. This may have been a tricky part of the overall story to impart.

It was approximately 1.5 hours of my life which were free from any stress or hassle. I chose pick and mix, water and a coffee as I was a small bit hungover.

I then went for a pizza.

You see? You let one Peruvian bear into the country and he starts bringing his whole bloody family!? Aunt fücking Lucy will no doubt be straight on benefits and knocking out cubs in no time. And does Paddington actually have a job? Is he paying taxes?

Fücking freeloading bear cünts! :furious: :shout:

[SWv2]

You see? You let one Peruvian bear into the country and he starts bringing his whole bloody family!? Aunt fücking Lucy will no doubt be straight on benefits and knocking out cubs in no time. And does Paddington actually have a job? Is he paying taxes?

Fücking freeloading bear cünts! :furious: :shout:

He did have a job, two actually. One in a barbers and then he moved onto window cleaning. Certainly in the latter case I doubt he paid taxes.

[Sir C]

He did have a job, two actually. One in a barbers and then he moved onto window cleaning. Certainly in the latter case I doubt he paid taxes.

Taking a job away from an English barber or window cleaner then. Typical.

[PSRB]

Taking a job away from an English barber or window cleaner then. Typical.

at least he bothered to learn the language

[Burney]

He did have a job, two actually. One in a barbers and then he moved onto window cleaning. Certainly in the latter case I doubt he paid taxes.

Of course. All cash-in-hand stuff. He's probably selling drugs and doing nightclub security as well. Typical.

[Tony C]

I had to re read Sean’s quotes about the result being a coupon buster and no won would’ve bet on it.

Because I had a bet on us at 7/4 with 20 minutes left...felt were in control, carving out chances and snuffing out whatever threat they posed.

Always felt we’d score.

I believe he was referring to the last 3 results between the two sides...but I doubt anyone actually bets like that.

Or maybe they do? Remember when we went through that patch of always beating Leeds 4-1.

[Burney]

I had to re read Sean’s quotes about the result being a coupon buster and no won would’ve bet on it.

Because I had a bet on us at 7/4 with 20 minutes left...felt were in control, carving out chances and snuffing out whatever threat they posed.

Always felt we’d score.

I believe he was referring to the last 3 results between the two sides...but I doubt anyone actually bets like that.

Or maybe they do? Remember when we went through that patch of always beating Leeds 4-1.

'Coupon buster' :hehe: Do the pools even still exist?

Betting on draws. What a bizarre form of gambling that was.

[Peter]

Well those are the laws of the game, to be fair. You can't have a penalty when it's been called offside. :shrug:

Dyche does seem to be a proper thick cùnt, mind. I like here where he seems to be calling the philosophical nature of a foul into question. :hehe:



I mean...what? :hehe:


Hang on.... does he think Ramsey has to have a chance of getting to the ball for it to be a foul?

[Burney]

Hang on.... does he think Ramsey has to have a chance of getting to the ball for it to be a foul?

I think that is the implication, yes.

[Peter]

I think that is the implication, yes.

That isnt great :(

Fairly similar to the penalty awarded to united in the 'battle of old Trafford'. I was raging about that, until Van nistelrooy missed it and got ambushed afterwards. By then I was quite happy it was given :)