[Albion] Arsenal fans

[smillie's garden]

These tiny football nations get very emotional in support of particular players rather than teams. Imagine the abuse poor Napoli are now going to get if they don't consistently pick Scotland's midfield.

C@nte, why dinnae ya pick Scot an’ wee Billy, ya kipper-faced bawbag? Ciao.

 

[Professor Plum]

The incident where one of their players deliberately injured out new £25 million signing 6 minutes into his debut and put him out for 6 months? Compared to an incident their player correctly got a yellow for?

I think it’s difficult to compare the two situations.

I'm not comparing the two incidents. They are obviously very different.

I'm comparing the tone of the fans' reactions.

 

[Wozza]

Feel free to send this too...

View attachment 188368

Or this one, showing Arteta almost on the pitch, trying to officiate...

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

View attachment 188371

Or this one, showing Arteta almost on the pitch, trying to officiate...

 

[MattBackHome]

I've changed my mind about 20 times on it. On a technicality it was a second yellow but I'm also on the camp of "meh. If he hadn't been on the first yellow I don't think we'd have been upset at him not being booked for that"

I guess if you want to really hit home the "don't kick the ball away" rule then you needed an incident where the ref was overly petty/to the letter of the law about it to rubber stamp it. It means no one can argue it in future as the precedent has been set.

There you go, even in a single post I'm flip flipping on it.

I agree with you 100%

 

[Baldseagull]

The 'totting up' process that referees used to acknowledge but now hotly deny exists.

Meanwhile in half of matches one of them will dramatically raise one, then two, then three fingers while pointing to different parts of the pitch, before brandishing the card.

You can be booked for persistent fouling, none of them need to be booking worthy in their own right.

 

[Baldseagull]

I suspect that rule needs to be changed.

In my tiny brain I can understand that there is a tariff for an offence. For example if a referee deems a foul to be a bookable offense then there should be a booking. And so on.

I can't for the life of me work out how three non-bookable offenses warrants a booking.

If I drive fast without breaking the speed limit three times, does this mean I should get 3 points on my license?

If you drive over the speed limit, you get a ban if you were exceeding it by 30mph.
If you were just 10mph over, you would get 3 points, do that 4 times and then you get a ban.
So 4 non disqualifying offences, gets you disqualified.
Drive while disqualified, you might go to prison, drive whilst disqualified twice, very likely you go to prison.

 

[Baldseagull]

I have done some more Facebook research into this and I believe things could be improved significantly if the laws of the game were translated into a few different African languages.

English and French would cover most of it.

 

[oldboyroy]

Feigning injury is becoming out of control now. A Wolves player went down as if they were seriously injured in the last few minutes of the Forest match just as Forest had a corner, even the Forest players were concerned and calling on the physio, looked like he must have done his ACL or something just as bad. Game stopped, momentum lost, job done; same player is then spriniting on 90 seconds later. The ref should be able to show a card. It is just cheating.

If it were up to me after a player receives treatment which causes a stop in the game, for an 'injury' not caused by a foul, then I'd make it 5 minutes off the pitch, or the team can make an immediate sub.

The word "cheating" used at end of 1st paragraph is exactly what Souness said Veltnam did!!

 

[Baldseagull]

I think Rice might have got away with it, if he hadn't rolled about on the floor after Veltman kicked him.
It's very funny to see the compilations of fouls by Brighton players, not booked for, as if they got a booking for every foul.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

If you drive over the speed limit, you get a ban if you were exceeding it by 30mph.
If you were just 10mph over, you would get 3 points, do that 4 times and then you get a ban.
So 4 non disqualifying offences, gets you disqualified.
Drive while disqualified, you might go to prison, drive whilst disqualified twice, very likely you go to prison.

I just got done for doing 57 in a 50 zone, by speed averaging cameras.

I have tried to get the record but I get bounced. If they have rounded it up to 57 I would argue that I was below the '10% plus 2' rubric, given we are talking about precise thresholds for an offence to become an 'offence'. Rounding up from 56.5 to 57 is no more legitimate than rounding it up to 60. Or 100. If they claim their measurement is extremely precise then they definitely shouldn't round up.

Anyway your analogy is not quite right.

A 3 point offense and a ban are like thruppeny bits and a shilling.

What I am complaining about is four lots of 0, 1 or 2 pennies apparently making a shilling.

If we accept a totting up process, what is the rubric? I suggest it is the 'judgement' (aka whim) of the referee. Boo. BOO! Boo.

(Good discussion this.)

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I have one further thought on the Rice yellows - that had he committed EXACTLY the same two offences, but the other way round, there would have been way, way less wailing over it all. People would have felt that the lunging tackle was ‘more worthy’ of a second yellow.

 

[jackanada]

I just got done for doing 57 in a 50 zone, by speed averaging cameras.

I have tried to get the record but I get bounced. If they have rounded it up to 57 I would argue that I was below the '10% plus 2' rubric, given we are talking about precise thresholds for an offence to become an 'offence'. Rounding up from 56.5 to 57 is no more legitimate than rounding it up to 60. Or 100. If they claim their measurement is extremely precise then they definitely shouldn't round up.

Anyway your analogy is not quite right.

A 3 point offense and a ban are like thruppeny bits and a shilling.

What I am complaining about is four lots of 0, 1 or 2 pennies apparently making a shilling.

If we accept a totting up process, what is the rubric? I suggest it is the 'judgement' (aka whim) of the referee. Boo. BOO! Boo.

(Good discussion this.)

There is no rubric within the laws of the game. In fact it specifically states there is no set number of offences that constitutes 'persistent'.
I was going to continue the driving metaphor but as we have just established your understanding of driving offences is pretty poor maybe we should try something else.

 

[willalbion]

It was never a red card.

That is true, it was a second yellow.

 

[jessiejames]

That is true, it was a second yellow.

This is it. Alot if arse fans saying Rice was sent off for that, not a red card offence, they dont seem to realise it was a second yellow.
How vocal thet are on social media maybe if they were that vocal at home games, maybe the Emirates would nit be called a Library.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

That is true, it was a second yellow.

Oh, for f***'s sake.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

This is it. Alot if arse fans saying Rice was sent off for that, not a red card offence, they dont seem to realise it was a second yellow.
How vocal thet are on social media maybe if they were that vocal at home games, maybe the Emirates would nit be called a Library.

Something, something, something about the Zutons.

 

[Stato]

View attachment 188371

Or this one, showing Arteta almost on the pitch, trying to officiate...

That also shows the ref about to lift the whistle to his mouth to stop play after Joao kicks it. Arteta is arguing that he should have been booked for taking an action to delay a restart before the ref even called for a restart. This crap has been swallowed and echoed by most pundits and nobody thought to check whether the facts were as Arsenal's manager described them.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

There is no rubric within the laws of the game. In fact it specifically states there is no set number of offences that constitutes 'persistent'.
I was going to continue the driving metaphor but as we have just established your understanding of driving offences is pretty poor maybe we should try something else.

I understand precision and accuracy.

How much over 50 MPH do you have to be to constitute speeding?

HMG makes no such claims so in theory you could be done for doing 30.01 MPH in a 30 zone.

So, people of NSC, what is the smallest number of MPH over a limit that has triggered police action (fine or fine and points)? In my case at least 10% plus 2 mph.

 

[Nitram]

I just got done for doing 57 in a 50 zone, by speed averaging cameras.

I have tried to get the record but I get bounced. If they have rounded it up to 57 I would argue that I was below the '10% plus 2' rubric, given we are talking about precise thresholds for an offence to become an 'offence'. Rounding up from 56.5 to 57 is no more legitimate than rounding it up to 60. Or 100. If they claim their measurement is extremely precise then they definitely shouldn't round up.

Anyway your analogy is not quite right.

A 3 point offense and a ban are like thruppeny bits and a shilling.

What I am complaining about is four lots of 0, 1 or 2 pennies apparently making a shilling.

If we accept a totting up process, what is the rubric? I suggest it is the 'judgement' (aka whim) of the referee. Boo. BOO! Boo.

(Good discussion this.)

On my speed awareness course someone bought up the 10% argument and was told that it’s a myth. If you are over the limit that’s all there is to it.
Obviously there must be discretion in who they send a letter to but if you are over the limit that’s it.
When you argue your case on the speed awareness course do tell us what the other participants think about it!