lloydie said:
Got as far as the Samba incident before I had to stop watching his selective angles and listening to his agenda driven bullshit...
Exactly the same here mate, the "LETS SHOW THIS FRAME BY FRAME" analysis did my head too much to watch or listen any more. Young's is probably the only one ...(of the three I managed to sit through what with all the drivel he was spouting)... which at full speed still looks like an obvious dive, all the others probably looked like good decisions at normal speed and that's why he chose to slow them all down in order for him to make them look like dives.
The bit that really grinds my gears is the...
CONTACT - yes
(misses to point out the fact that contact does not equate to a foul)
DIVE - yes
(misses to point out that a dive is almost as close as you can get to the definition of cheating)
CHEAT - don't want to comment (hmmmm, wonder why that is)
To even group the four that I saw together to prove a point is rediculous. Four totally different situations, three of them are fouls...
1 - obstruction by the defender
2 - sliding tackle by the defender which makes contact
3 - shirt pulling by the defender
...where the attacker makes the most of the situation and goes down (ie - WINNING A PENALTY), and one of them is a dive where the attacker engineered the contact and hit the deck (ie - CHEATING).
I can see why the appeals panel for red cards is so flawed now. Total bollox. I hate him even more now as he's now a fully paid up member of the propaganda machine that is sky.
