as I've never heard of him. Tony Harrington :shrug:
Printable View
as I've never heard of him. Tony Harrington :shrug:
John Brooks on VAR again.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSRB
Generally I'm not of the view that Martin Samuel of the Times is an utter c*nt.Quote:
Originally Posted by pjlincs
But in his article today in the Times he compares the Gyokeres tackle on their keeper with the Caceido tackle and his view is that both or neither are red cards, but that his view is neither.
For now, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. The fat c*nt.
The keeper also made a massive meal of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by WES
I was a little surprised it was yellow as Taylor had been looking to even it up but VAR said Yellow
Let's hope he's not reading this :-\Quote:
Originally Posted by PSRB
If he is saying that the Caicedo tackle is not a red card then there really isn't any point in reading further. He's trying to sell you something.Quote:
Originally Posted by WES
Complete and utter nonsense.
The relevant text from his article:Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
A personal view? The initial yellow card was sufficient. The slow-motion replays were wince-inducing and had Taylor shown an immediate red, well, that would have been understandable, too. What jarred was the elevation by VAR. Taylor didn’t really make a mistake. Yet once summoned to the monitor by John Brooks and the incident revisited at reduced speed, he was always going to think he had erred. So it was no surprise the yellow was upgraded.
Yet Caicedo was trying to make a fair challenge, mistimed it by a split-second and caught the man. Later in the match, so did Victor Gyokeres, following in a loose ball after a save by Robert S?nchez. The Chelsea man got to it first and Gyokeres went studs first into S?nchez’s chest. Taylor gave him a yellow card, and Brooks stayed silent. Why? Gyokeres had every right to go for the ball, like Caicedo, but got it wrong, like Caicedo. One’s a punitive red, the other’s a lenient yellow. But, hey, that’s modern football.
The fat c*nt
Click bait. Pure and simple. Not worthy of discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by WES
There is no way a guy who was been writing about football for that long genuinely believes that. And his logic displays a hopeless misunderstanding of the guidelines which again, I find impossible to believe.
Brooks didn't stay silent on Gyokeres. Can't recall the exact words but Smithy or the commentator relayed what the VAR said about the ball being there to be played and the angle of Vik's leg.Quote:
Originally Posted by WES
James Bell on VAR, apparently. Never heard of him either.Quote:
Originally Posted by pjlincs
'A degree of recklessness but insufficient force to endanger the opponent'.Quote:
Originally Posted by pjlincs
As Samuels knows, regardless of intent, recklessness and force are the two guiding principles in establishing the danger of a challenge and whether it constitutes violent conduct.
There is no force in the Gyokeres challenge. Indeed, he withdraws the studs as he gets there. Caicedo lunges with excessive force and could easily have broken Merino's ankle. Aside from the fact that the two incidents are not remotely comparable in any sense, that difference is perfectly obvious.
Which is how you know he is bull****ting. And why we shouldn't be wasting our time on it.
Tony Harrington (Referee) ? Steve Meredith (Assistant) ? Sian Louise Massey-Ellis (Assistant) ? Samuel Allison (Fourth) ? James Bell (VAR)Quote:
Originally Posted by PSRB
because 'beardedness' elevates and amplifies the c*ntishness of a fat c*nt. I suspect your omission is because you are yourself a beardy? Don't lie to me W.Quote:
Originally Posted by WES
I'm a 'designer stubble' chap, Herb. No 3 on my electric razor, kept nicely trimmed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Herbert Augustus Chapman
Mrs WES would never allow a full on beard. Tickles her thighs too much.
T'a besoin de tondeuse.Quote:
Originally Posted by WES