| Anyone still thinking Dozzell's challenge was two-footed 16:46 - Nov 5 with 3232 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
I give you exhibit B;
|  |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |  |
| Anyone still thinking Dozzell's challenge was two-footed on 18:12 - Nov 5 with 581 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Anyone still thinking Dozzell's challenge was two-footed on 17:52 - Nov 5 by Herbivore |
"Why on earth would you go with a still rather than actual footage that tells the whole story?" - Dollers, one day ago.
You've not changed a jot, Dollers. |
I haven't dismissed the footage though. This is exhibit B, as it says in the title. I'm adding this to my previous evidence (exhibit A, the actual footage) not taking a still in isolation like you did.
You are a funny one Herbs. You're literally down-arrowing and arguing against plain facts that everyone can see.
How on earth can you still say it's a two-footed challenge and keep a straight face? | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Anyone still thinking Dozzell's challenge was two-footed on 18:15 - Nov 5 with 578 views | homer_123 |
| Anyone still thinking Dozzell's challenge was two-footed on 17:14 - Nov 5 by The_Flashing_Smile |
Depends if he makes contact with the ball first? Not sure this photo tells us one way or the other. All it tells us is he didn't dive in two-footed, which would've been a (deserved) red. |
Doesn't matter if it's one or two footed or whether he wins the ball or not:
Rules (from the FAs website)
SERIOUS FOUL PLAY
A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.
Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.
Suspect the ref things Dozzell wasn't in full control and therefore endangered the safety of the opponent (note, as I said on the night, I'm not saying I agree with it - was just trying to understand how the ref possibly came to the conclusion it was a red card). [Post edited 5 Nov 2020 18:16]
|  |
| |
| Anyone still thinking Dozzell's challenge was two-footed on 18:16 - Nov 5 with 571 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Anyone still thinking Dozzell's challenge was two-footed on 17:54 - Nov 5 by longtimefan |
It doesn’t need to be two footed to be classed as dangerous, and red as a consequence. A single footed challenge at that height could still classed as such. |
Of course it doesn't. Lots of red card offences are one footed, I haven't argued otherwise. I simply argued it wasn't a two-footed challenge. Would you agree? | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| You should always assume that's the case... on 18:18 - Nov 5 with 566 views | footers |
| You drunk? (n/t) on 17:08 - Nov 5 by Bloots |
|
...unless you have good reason to believe otherwise. [Post edited 5 Nov 2020 18:18]
|  |
| |
| Anyone still thinking Dozzell's challenge was two-footed on 18:18 - Nov 5 with 565 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Anyone still thinking Dozzell's challenge was two-footed on 18:15 - Nov 5 by homer_123 |
Doesn't matter if it's one or two footed or whether he wins the ball or not:
Rules (from the FAs website)
SERIOUS FOUL PLAY
A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.
Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.
Suspect the ref things Dozzell wasn't in full control and therefore endangered the safety of the opponent (note, as I said on the night, I'm not saying I agree with it - was just trying to understand how the ref possibly came to the conclusion it was a red card). [Post edited 5 Nov 2020 18:16]
|
Again, I haven't disagreed with any of this. I simply asserted that the challenge wasn't two-footed. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Anyone still thinking Dozzell's challenge was two-footed on 18:27 - Nov 5 with 562 views | Herbivore |
| Anyone still thinking Dozzell's challenge was two-footed on 18:12 - Nov 5 by The_Flashing_Smile |
I haven't dismissed the footage though. This is exhibit B, as it says in the title. I'm adding this to my previous evidence (exhibit A, the actual footage) not taking a still in isolation like you did.
You are a funny one Herbs. You're literally down-arrowing and arguing against plain facts that everyone can see.
How on earth can you still say it's a two-footed challenge and keep a straight face? |
I said it looked like he went in with both feet based on the iFollow footage. I stand by that. Others have said the same. The fact you've started another thread to try and win the internet is tragic but also predictable. I'd say take a day off but you just took a week or two off and it's made no real difference. |  |
| |
| Anyone still thinking Dozzell's challenge was two-footed on 18:36 - Nov 5 with 557 views | Swansea_Blue |
Hard to tell if he's gone over the ball from that foreshortened view. I can't remember what it looked like in real time from the more elevated position.
It was a definite lunge, so if he missed the ball and did catch the big 'rolling around like he'd been shot' fanny, then you can see why he's given the ref a decision to make. |  |
| |
| Anyone still thinking Dozzell's challenge was two-footed on 18:54 - Nov 5 with 548 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Anyone still thinking Dozzell's challenge was two-footed on 18:27 - Nov 5 by Herbivore |
I said it looked like he went in with both feet based on the iFollow footage. I stand by that. Others have said the same. The fact you've started another thread to try and win the internet is tragic but also predictable. I'd say take a day off but you just took a week or two off and it's made no real difference. |
You also based it on a still.
Why is it tragic to bring more evidence to the table in a discussion?
It's not about 'winning the internet' it's about providing evidence to back up your claims. I've not been rude or abusive, I haven't got angry, I've merely posted more evidence.
I also said 'let's agree to disagree' but you came at me again. But when *I* come back with new evidence, it's tragic!
I'm truly amazed you can still stand by your assertion that it was a two-footed tackle when the photo above provides unequivocal evidence that he's using his left foot to make the tackle, as I said based on the video evidence yesterday.
I really don't want to have rows on here - but I do want to be able to have discussions where I can come back with new evidence to back my position, else what's the point of having ANY discussion? I'm open to any advice that could make my posting better (other than the obvious STFU!) | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Anyone still thinking Dozzell's challenge was two-footed on 18:55 - Nov 5 with 547 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Anyone still thinking Dozzell's challenge was two-footed on 18:36 - Nov 5 by Swansea_Blue |
Hard to tell if he's gone over the ball from that foreshortened view. I can't remember what it looked like in real time from the more elevated position.
It was a definite lunge, so if he missed the ball and did catch the big 'rolling around like he'd been shot' fanny, then you can see why he's given the ref a decision to make. |
Indeed. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Anyone still thinking Dozzell's challenge was two-footed on 19:01 - Nov 5 with 539 views | Herbivore |
| Anyone still thinking Dozzell's challenge was two-footed on 18:54 - Nov 5 by The_Flashing_Smile |
You also based it on a still.
Why is it tragic to bring more evidence to the table in a discussion?
It's not about 'winning the internet' it's about providing evidence to back up your claims. I've not been rude or abusive, I haven't got angry, I've merely posted more evidence.
I also said 'let's agree to disagree' but you came at me again. But when *I* come back with new evidence, it's tragic!
I'm truly amazed you can still stand by your assertion that it was a two-footed tackle when the photo above provides unequivocal evidence that he's using his left foot to make the tackle, as I said based on the video evidence yesterday.
I really don't want to have rows on here - but I do want to be able to have discussions where I can come back with new evidence to back my position, else what's the point of having ANY discussion? I'm open to any advice that could make my posting better (other than the obvious STFU!) |
I didn't base it on a still, re-read the thread in question. It's also odd how you think the still you've posted on this thread is definitive after questioning why I commented on a still (in a post responding to someone explicitly discussing the still). I stand by my view on this, you disagree. You keep coming back trying to win the internet, so saying that you said "agree to disagree" is so what moot given that you've then spent 24 hours doing the exact opposite of that, including starting this thread. I think, sadly, I'm just going to stick you on ignore as I find you impossible and I seem to boil your piss as well and I'd rather just not be doing with it to be honest. | |
| |
| Anyone still thinking Dozzell's challenge was two-footed on 19:16 - Nov 5 with 529 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Anyone still thinking Dozzell's challenge was two-footed on 19:01 - Nov 5 by Herbivore |
I didn't base it on a still, re-read the thread in question. It's also odd how you think the still you've posted on this thread is definitive after questioning why I commented on a still (in a post responding to someone explicitly discussing the still). I stand by my view on this, you disagree. You keep coming back trying to win the internet, so saying that you said "agree to disagree" is so what moot given that you've then spent 24 hours doing the exact opposite of that, including starting this thread. I think, sadly, I'm just going to stick you on ignore as I find you impossible and I seem to boil your piss as well and I'd rather just not be doing with it to be honest. |
1. You used a still to strengthen your argument.
2. So did I.
3. I haven't spent 24 hours doing this.
4. You keep avoiding the point that it was YOU who came back at me when I said let's agree to disagree. Now I'VE come back, suddenly that's not acceptable.
5. I haven't posted anything that remotely shows anger, I've even stated I haven't got angry, but you still say you're boiling my piss.
6. And now you're running away because you can't seem to handle a disagreement on the internet.
Just man up, TBH. Either accept "actually Dollers, it does look like he's tackling with his left foot" or agree to disagree and move on. It's not that big a deal, and the only one who appears to have boiled piss for dinner is you.
Putting me on ignore is just silly and childish, but fine, if that's what you need to do.
We're fine when we agree on stuff (for example, the penalty) but when we disagree you just seem to not be able to handle it. It's fine to disagree... even if you are wrong  | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Anyone still thinking Dozzell's challenge was two-footed on 19:23 - Nov 5 with 524 views | Herbivore |
| Anyone still thinking Dozzell's challenge was two-footed on 19:16 - Nov 5 by The_Flashing_Smile |
1. You used a still to strengthen your argument.
2. So did I.
3. I haven't spent 24 hours doing this.
4. You keep avoiding the point that it was YOU who came back at me when I said let's agree to disagree. Now I'VE come back, suddenly that's not acceptable.
5. I haven't posted anything that remotely shows anger, I've even stated I haven't got angry, but you still say you're boiling my piss.
6. And now you're running away because you can't seem to handle a disagreement on the internet.
Just man up, TBH. Either accept "actually Dollers, it does look like he's tackling with his left foot" or agree to disagree and move on. It's not that big a deal, and the only one who appears to have boiled piss for dinner is you.
Putting me on ignore is just silly and childish, but fine, if that's what you need to do.
We're fine when we agree on stuff (for example, the penalty) but when we disagree you just seem to not be able to handle it. It's fine to disagree... even if you are wrong |
Yeah, you've really just entirely proved my point here. Christ, the arrogance of you as well. You're going on ignore because I find you impossible, yet you presume to know better than me even when it comes to my own motivations. The state of it. Cheerio. | |
| |
| Anyone still thinking Dozzell's challenge was two-footed on 19:34 - Nov 5 with 516 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Anyone still thinking Dozzell's challenge was two-footed on 19:23 - Nov 5 by Herbivore |
Yeah, you've really just entirely proved my point here. Christ, the arrogance of you as well. You're going on ignore because I find you impossible, yet you presume to know better than me even when it comes to my own motivations. The state of it. Cheerio. |
You appear to have been reading 'How To Swerve' by G. Blue!
I even tried to be jokey at the end. Oh well. Ta ra. Sorry i didn't conform to your echo chamber. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Anyone still thinking Dozzell's challenge was two-footed on 19:37 - Nov 5 with 513 views | footers |
| Anyone still thinking Dozzell's challenge was two-footed on 19:34 - Nov 5 by The_Flashing_Smile |
You appear to have been reading 'How To Swerve' by G. Blue!
I even tried to be jokey at the end. Oh well. Ta ra. Sorry i didn't conform to your echo chamber. |
You're just relentless, Dolly. Who gives a fck? | |
| |
| Anyone still thinking Dozzell's challenge was two-footed on 19:47 - Nov 5 with 507 views | reusersfreekicks |
| Anyone still thinking Dozzell's challenge was two-footed on 19:34 - Nov 5 by The_Flashing_Smile |
You appear to have been reading 'How To Swerve' by G. Blue!
I even tried to be jokey at the end. Oh well. Ta ra. Sorry i didn't conform to your echo chamber. |
Change in username, same ability to start an argument in an empty room and same inabilty to let things be. |  | | |
| Anyone still thinking Dozzell's challenge was two-footed on 19:56 - Nov 5 with 501 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Anyone still thinking Dozzell's challenge was two-footed on 19:47 - Nov 5 by reusersfreekicks |
Change in username, same ability to start an argument in an empty room and same inabilty to let things be. |
Amazing. I said to him "let's agree to disagree" he comes back at me anyway, I respond and yet it's ME who's accused of starting an argument in an empty room. Why does Herbs get off scott free from criticism? | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Anyone still thinking Dozzell's challenge was two-footed on 19:57 - Nov 5 with 500 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Anyone still thinking Dozzell's challenge was two-footed on 19:37 - Nov 5 by footers |
You're just relentless, Dolly. Who gives a fck? |
Again, why are you having a pop at me and not Herbs? He posts stuff to me, I respond but you have a go at me only? Why? | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Anyone still thinking Dozzell's challenge was two-footed on 20:01 - Nov 5 with 496 views | footers |
| Anyone still thinking Dozzell's challenge was two-footed on 19:57 - Nov 5 by The_Flashing_Smile |
Again, why are you having a pop at me and not Herbs? He posts stuff to me, I respond but you have a go at me only? Why? |
Herbs tends to post in a much more reasonable and less hysterical manner than you do.
It's that simple.
And there's nothing too small for Dolly: potatoes, Brenner, a potential red card. Literally anything.
It's why it was so easy to spot your new alt after GhostOfBenters left.
Sorry Dollers, but you do try to win the internet. Just relax, have a laugh at yourself, let things go. No one gives a monkey's. | |
| |
| Anyone still thinking Dozzell's challenge was two-footed on 20:14 - Nov 5 with 487 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Anyone still thinking Dozzell's challenge was two-footed on 20:01 - Nov 5 by footers |
Herbs tends to post in a much more reasonable and less hysterical manner than you do.
It's that simple.
And there's nothing too small for Dolly: potatoes, Brenner, a potential red card. Literally anything.
It's why it was so easy to spot your new alt after GhostOfBenters left.
Sorry Dollers, but you do try to win the internet. Just relax, have a laugh at yourself, let things go. No one gives a monkey's. |
I genuinely don't understand, but I really would like help to be a better poster if I'm pissing people off. It's clear here that Herbs is getting annoyed, not me. From the other thread, I said let's just agree to disagree, but he came back. Yet STILL I get it in the neck!
Is it my previous history going before me?
I feel like my posting, certainly since I've come back, has been reasonable. I don't see what's hysterical here. I'm not even 'trying to win the internet', just stating my case. If you disappear from a discussion you're accused of running away, if you come back with more evidence you're accused of not letting it be! I don't understand!
You've finished with "just relax". I'm totally relaxed. It's Herbs who wants to put me on ignore because I'm unbearable, or whatever it was he said. Why aren't you telling him to relax?
I've seen you be het up in the past, but you seem to have made a conscious decision to come across more relaxed and groovy. What am I doing wrong? Stokie posts with more evidence but no-one accuses him of not letting it be. I just can't work out how I'm not coming across how I'm thinking, unless, as I said, it's my rep. And no amount of changes, names or posting style, can change it. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Anyone still thinking Dozzell's challenge was two-footed on 20:31 - Nov 5 with 476 views | Superblue95 |
| Anyone still thinking Dozzell's challenge was two-footed on 20:14 - Nov 5 by The_Flashing_Smile |
I genuinely don't understand, but I really would like help to be a better poster if I'm pissing people off. It's clear here that Herbs is getting annoyed, not me. From the other thread, I said let's just agree to disagree, but he came back. Yet STILL I get it in the neck!
Is it my previous history going before me?
I feel like my posting, certainly since I've come back, has been reasonable. I don't see what's hysterical here. I'm not even 'trying to win the internet', just stating my case. If you disappear from a discussion you're accused of running away, if you come back with more evidence you're accused of not letting it be! I don't understand!
You've finished with "just relax". I'm totally relaxed. It's Herbs who wants to put me on ignore because I'm unbearable, or whatever it was he said. Why aren't you telling him to relax?
I've seen you be het up in the past, but you seem to have made a conscious decision to come across more relaxed and groovy. What am I doing wrong? Stokie posts with more evidence but no-one accuses him of not letting it be. I just can't work out how I'm not coming across how I'm thinking, unless, as I said, it's my rep. And no amount of changes, names or posting style, can change it. |
Can’t speak for everybody but it does come across to me that you take this place way way way too seriously a lot of the time (same goes for herbivore and the majority of posters at times btw).
Posts like your OP come across confrontational as well which can get peoples backs up from the off and you have a tendency to always want the last word (again you’re not the only person guilty of this).
Personally, I like you as a poster. I think you’re rare in the sense that you wear your heart on your sleeve a lot and you’re also one of the fairer posters in terms of ‘playing the ball rather than the man’. I just think you could lighten up a bit, at the end of the day it’s the internet and the majority of us are strangers to you. Who cares if you’re proved right or not? |  |
| |
| Anyone still thinking Dozzell's challenge was two-footed on 21:01 - Nov 5 with 458 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Anyone still thinking Dozzell's challenge was two-footed on 20:31 - Nov 5 by Superblue95 |
Can’t speak for everybody but it does come across to me that you take this place way way way too seriously a lot of the time (same goes for herbivore and the majority of posters at times btw).
Posts like your OP come across confrontational as well which can get peoples backs up from the off and you have a tendency to always want the last word (again you’re not the only person guilty of this).
Personally, I like you as a poster. I think you’re rare in the sense that you wear your heart on your sleeve a lot and you’re also one of the fairer posters in terms of ‘playing the ball rather than the man’. I just think you could lighten up a bit, at the end of the day it’s the internet and the majority of us are strangers to you. Who cares if you’re proved right or not? |
Thanks for your response. I really don't take this place too seriously, so maybe it's not coming across. In my last post to Herbs before he put me on ignore I made a little joke and added a smiley face to show I'm only jesting. It was totally missed.
The last word thing again is weird (in this instance) given I said to Herbs let's agree to disagree. He then had another word (other than ok!) But also, as I've said, if you don't respond to points it's said you're running away, if you do you're saying 'oh he always has to have the last word'. You can't win!
If, in a discussion, something comes up that backs your position, should you not post it? Just let the other person win the argument? That just seems odd to me. It's like not finishing a
I like to think my arguments, points and evidence are always fair. It seems like people want you to just let them win the point, even if you have another. Like letting someone win when you have a royal flush. I can't get my head around that.
i don't CARE if I'm proved right or not. It's just like with the OP, how can I resist posting that evidence when some people have said the tackle was two-footed? It clearly shows one foot going in? Why would I not bother to post it (unless I was really busy)? It backs my position. It seems odd to me that you'd post on a subject and then not post something that backs you, regardless if you CARE or not. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Anyone still thinking Dozzell's challenge was two-footed on 21:04 - Nov 5 with 455 views | footers |
| Anyone still thinking Dozzell's challenge was two-footed on 21:01 - Nov 5 by The_Flashing_Smile |
Thanks for your response. I really don't take this place too seriously, so maybe it's not coming across. In my last post to Herbs before he put me on ignore I made a little joke and added a smiley face to show I'm only jesting. It was totally missed.
The last word thing again is weird (in this instance) given I said to Herbs let's agree to disagree. He then had another word (other than ok!) But also, as I've said, if you don't respond to points it's said you're running away, if you do you're saying 'oh he always has to have the last word'. You can't win!
If, in a discussion, something comes up that backs your position, should you not post it? Just let the other person win the argument? That just seems odd to me. It's like not finishing a
I like to think my arguments, points and evidence are always fair. It seems like people want you to just let them win the point, even if you have another. Like letting someone win when you have a royal flush. I can't get my head around that.
i don't CARE if I'm proved right or not. It's just like with the OP, how can I resist posting that evidence when some people have said the tackle was two-footed? It clearly shows one foot going in? Why would I not bother to post it (unless I was really busy)? It backs my position. It seems odd to me that you'd post on a subject and then not post something that backs you, regardless if you CARE or not. |
QED. | |
| |
| Anyone still thinking Dozzell's challenge was two-footed on 21:21 - Nov 5 with 433 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Anyone still thinking Dozzell's challenge was two-footed on 21:04 - Nov 5 by footers |
QED. |
I like you Footers. I want your drugs. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Anyone still thinking Dozzell's challenge was two-footed on 21:43 - Nov 5 with 414 views | footers |
| Anyone still thinking Dozzell's challenge was two-footed on 21:21 - Nov 5 by The_Flashing_Smile |
I like you Footers. I want your drugs. |
You push all in thinking you've got a royal flush very often, when it's more likely that both players have measly two pair over a small pot. | |
| |
| Anyone still thinking Dozzell's challenge was two-footed on 21:45 - Nov 5 with 411 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Anyone still thinking Dozzell's challenge was two-footed on 21:43 - Nov 5 by footers |
You push all in thinking you've got a royal flush very often, when it's more likely that both players have measly two pair over a small pot. |
I often feel like I'm on a small pot. Thanks for your insight. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
