Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Stan

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 99
61
General Discussion / Re: Guiseley
« on: March 16, 2020, 08:02:53 AM »
Are there rules on here about sticking to an argument and not denigrating other posters? It's a pity that some resort to personal attacks.

62
General Discussion / Re: Guiseley
« on: March 16, 2020, 07:36:55 AM »
Is this the right room for an argument ?

Iíve told you once

No you havenít

Yes I have.

Oh I so love Monty Python

Time this thread was locked... Admin ?
I agree before the violins come out!

63
General Discussion / Re: Guiseley
« on: March 16, 2020, 07:23:30 AM »
This is all so unnecessary and unjustified Griss. I was brought up on a council estate; my Dad was a lorry driver and my Mum was a cleaner. We didn't own a car until I was 12 and we only had one holiday but you choose to lecture me on real life!

64
General Discussion / Re: Guiseley
« on: March 16, 2020, 07:03:29 AM »
No, I teach them to base their opinions on evidence Griss. Again, shame that you have to get personal but I won't hold it against you. Have a great day!

I would actually have to know you to get personal,my comments are based on what you have posted, not on what I think of you personally? Nice that you hold yourself in such high esteem. :dontknow:
"Poor me syndrome" is a criticism of me personally. Don't hide behind the I don't know you so how can I be personal nonsense. I recognise an ad hominem approach when I see one. Look it up on Wikipedia if you're not sure what it is. It's what you're doing.

And you teach children?
Yes, I do indeed. Been doing it for almost 25 years now. I've been a Head of English in a couple of schools, it's been really fulfilling. I still enjoy it now.

So being educated you presume I am not? :oldman"
How have I done that?

65
General Discussion / Re: Guiseley
« on: March 16, 2020, 06:56:00 AM »
No, I teach them to base their opinions on evidence Griss. Again, shame that you have to get personal but I won't hold it against you. Have a great day!

I would actually have to know you to get personal,my comments are based on what you have posted, not on what I think of you personally? Nice that you hold yourself in such high esteem. :dontknow:
"Poor me syndrome" is a criticism of me personally. Don't hide behind the I don't know you so how can I be personal nonsense. I recognise an ad hominem approach when I see one. Look it up on Wikipedia if you're not sure what it is. It's what you're doing.

And you teach children?
Yes, I do indeed. Been doing it for almost 25 years now. I've been a Head of English in a couple of schools, it's been really fulfilling. I still enjoy it now.

66
General Discussion / Re: Guiseley
« on: March 16, 2020, 06:47:14 AM »
No, I teach them to base their opinions on evidence Griss. Again, shame that you have to get personal but I won't hold it against you. Have a great day!

I would actually have to know you to get personal,my comments are based on what you have posted, not on what I think of you personally? Nice that you hold yourself in such high esteem. :dontknow:
"Poor me syndrome" is a criticism of me personally. Don't hide behind the I don't know you so how can I be personal nonsense. I recognise an ad hominem approach when I see one. Look it up on Wikipedia if you're not sure what it is. It's what you're doing.

67
General Discussion / Re: Guiseley
« on: March 16, 2020, 06:28:34 AM »
No, I teach them to base their opinions on evidence Griss. Again, shame that you have to get personal but I won't hold it against you. Have a great day!

68
General Discussion / Re: Guiseley
« on: March 16, 2020, 06:18:43 AM »
Sorry Stan but since you disappeared from the scene over the Brexit comment you seem to have come back just to disagree with everybody elses point of view? Up until then even if I didn't agree with you I thought you had a fairly balanced argument, but now you just want to disagree with everyone,and at times that can conflict your own opinions. Go away rebot and come back with the voice of reason you used to have! :red card:
I'm not sure who I'm disagreeing with. It was me who initially stated that the ref got the Henderson decision right. Posters have been disagreeing with me.

69
General Discussion / Re: Guiseley
« on: March 16, 2020, 06:09:10 AM »
Then you have the foul over by the touchline that should have been a red for their player but they got the free kick? Have you time lapse watched that one?
But that's a different issue Griss. I'm not defending the ref's overall performance, just his decision not to give a foul in Henderson's favour and to book him for simulation.

70
General Discussion / Re: Guiseley
« on: March 16, 2020, 05:55:45 AM »
No, but you said it was a foul, which the evidence from the video clearly contradicts.

71
General Discussion / Re: Guiseley
« on: March 16, 2020, 05:40:56 AM »
Referees at this level have to rely on their judgement,no VAR here! Anyone in their right mind being in the position of the refere or the linesman would have given a foul our way,they went with the shout from Guiseley players,the basis on which most decisions were mad during the game! :banghead; :banghead; :banghead;
"Anyone in their right mind!" You mean anyone with your mind. Suck it up Griss, you know it wasn't a pen!


At what point did I say it was a penalty,I was about 20 yards away,it was a foul on Hendo,no way should he have got a yellow,should have had a free kick,and their player a red,being the last defender! But no matter Stan you know best! :banghead; :banghead; :banghead;
It wasn't a foul and it was a yellow card for simulation. I've sent the video link to 4 people not at the game yesterday, one of whom is a former ref ( I am a former ref myself) and they all agree with me.


You really must be sad to go to those lengths to prove a player of the team you claim to support guilty,to everyone behind that goal it was a foul on Henderson,and their player was lucky to get away with it,an opinion voiced by some of their fans! just concentrate on Brexit and vow never to attend another game! :banghead; :banghead; :banghead;
Shame this has to drift into personal criticism but unfortunately that often tends to happen when arguments flounder. I also thought it was a penalty at first but the evidence changed my mind. I think it's important to have an open mind and to be prepared to change it when evidence contradicts what you originally thought, don't you? I mean sticking to an untenable position just for the sake of "winning" an argument, well, that would be sad, very sad indeed.

72
General Discussion / Re: Guiseley
« on: March 16, 2020, 04:11:03 AM »
Referees at this level have to rely on their judgement,no VAR here! Anyone in their right mind being in the position of the refere or the linesman would have given a foul our way,they went with the shout from Guiseley players,the basis on which most decisions were mad during the game! :banghead; :banghead; :banghead;
"Anyone in their right mind!" You mean anyone with your mind. Suck it up Griss, you know it wasn't a pen!


At what point did I say it was a penalty,I was about 20 yards away,it was a foul on Hendo,no way should he have got a yellow,should have had a free kick,and their player a red,being the last defender! But no matter Stan you know best! :banghead; :banghead; :banghead;
It wasn't a foul and it was a yellow card for simulation. I've sent the video link to 4 people not at the game yesterday, one of whom is a former ref ( I am a former ref myself) and they all agree with me. 

73
General Discussion / Re: Guiseley
« on: March 15, 2020, 06:12:05 PM »
As you say can argue this one till the virus is over but it won't achieve much...Bev's video indicates that the defender is at quite an angle rather than upright, so there is significant contact and at that speed it doesn't take much to tip the balance...not sure that Hendo was in control of himself at all when he fell, so whose ankles touched his is probably not relevant.......just for the record, I would be saying the same if anyone else, incl Mallard was saying no foul... it's just how I see it...close call, but on balance a foul. You see it the other way Stan and there's nothing wrong in that
The video I've put on here is not Bev Asher's. The one I've put on shows that it clearly wasn't a penalty. There's no clear contact and Henderson is booked for feigning a foul.  The fact that the ref got this right from the position that he was in ( not a bad one) is to his credit. I'm not saying the ref had a good game yesterday and I know it's difficult to accept this evidence because you need a scapegoat for the defeat yesterday: that's understandable when you are passionate about Lynn. You get these sort of reactions all the time when there's a lot at stake in a game.

74
General Discussion / Re: Guiseley
« on: March 15, 2020, 05:21:05 PM »
KES I use to watch Jackanory as a kid as well.  :laughcry:
We can go backwards and forwards all day long arguing who's right and who's wrong. You clearly haven't noticed that Henderson clips his own ankles and there is no significant contact from the Guiseley player. Footballers are very good at doing this and a lot of refs and fans get conned and when this is pointed out don't have the humility to admit their mistakes.

75
General Discussion / Re: Guiseley
« on: March 15, 2020, 04:28:49 PM »
Referees at this level have to rely on their judgement,no VAR here! Anyone in their right mind being in the position of the refere or the linesman would have given a foul our way,they went with the shout from Guiseley players,the basis on which most decisions were mad during the game! :banghead; :banghead; :banghead;
"Anyone in their right mind!" You mean anyone with your mind. Suck it up Griss, you know it wasn't a pen!

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 99