Not seen this mentioned on here, just watched the highlights of the game. Was the Arsenal goal offside?
Actually they speak like that because they are real and proper gangstas from the hood. So look out or they'll put a cap in your bottom.
Actually sir, it's "Blud clart". This originates from Jamaican slang for "Blood cloth" and refers to the unsavoury custom of some poor Caribbean women who, lacking the finances for proper sanitary products during menstruation, are forced to use a piece of rag or cloth in their gusset instead. See also "Rass Clart" which means precisely the same thing, but would translate to the English "arse cloth".
Rubbish. It originates from when Godfather worked in a hospital and was responsible for moving blood from one place to another. He used a device he named the 'blood cart' and the rest, as they say, is history fam.
What about bumbaclart? I've been using it for years when I've needed to sound a bit street but never bothered to find out what it meant. I know I could Google it but I feel like an explanation from you would be a more satisfying way of expanding my knowledge...
Can't really tell by that view as Deeney's foot was off the deck, from the side it looks like Deeney's foot is offside. HOWEVER! to confuse matters .... that was as the ball deflected off of Carillo but Deeney was actually onside when Holobas shot. Now we should all know that accidental deflection's from defenders are disregarded in these circumstances but I really haven't a Scooby if it's the same when it's deflected off one of your own .... Any proper refs on here to tell us? Not that it matters one bit except for the dodgy decisions panel, my results list still says Watford two, Arsenal one.
Always learning on this forum. I thought the At$e fans were saying blub not blud. What I heard was things like "that weren't no penalty, blub". To me it sounded like they were literally blubbing.
In America, a wanabe gangsta is called a wānksta (tis true, not sure if they know the Brit meaning in there)
Years ago I used to know an Arsenal supporter who lived a good hour by train outside London. At home he would talk like a normal human being, he had a normal life, a good job etc. But when he got on the train to London he would slowly change mile by mile, until getting off at Euston he would be talking like a wannabe cockney. It's all put on. Arsenal supporters are weird.
Also, that side angle isn't accurate, as it isn't straight on, you'd only be able to tell from that angle, if Deeney was behind Mertersacker
The only reason this is being debated is that it's Arsenal. Might be marginally offside but not an obvious one.
Picture 1: Just as Holebas strikes the ball, Deeney is clearly onside. If the linesman cannot be certain that the ball wasn't deflected off of an Arsenal player or even if he didn't see the deflection he cannot give offside. Picture 2: The moment that the ball hits Capoue, it's out of focus but you can see it between his shoulder and the defender's knee in the image... Even given the angle at the very most Deeney's knee is sticking out a bit and possibly kept onside by the defender's trailing right foot. The Arsenal fans even say that Deeney impeded Cech, but Deeney touches the ball (which Cech smothers) and jumps over Cech without touching him and remains on the floor until after the ball goes in the net. No foul.
Agree with all of this, except for the ball hitting Capoue - it actually strikes Carrillo and spins past Capoue's attempt to touch it meaning that Deeney is actually just slightly back a bit from that screen shot, so even less chance of being offside.
As had been mentioned elsewhere, it has come to this. Arsenal fans scraping any kind of reasoning outside their own teams incompetence for their defeat. In reality, Ozil scores a sitter and we would likely not be having this conversation.
It's the best view because the side-on footage is behind Deeney and the defender, giving a false representation of Troy's position relative to him. Unless there's another angle I haven't seen? If he's offside, then we're talking centimetres which is impossible for a lino to give. I'm 99.9% certain a deflection off of your own players counts as a pass, but I stand to be corrected if proven otherwise. As Siohmy says - the pathetic whinging from the gooners is the reason for the analysis, and for my own piece of mind I can convincingly tell them that they're wrong
Part of gooner fans' complaints were that Lacazette was given offside against Stoke for being only a couple of centimetres offside. Correct call though
Even if it was offside Arsenal had lots of time to sort themselves out and mark Cleverley - 2 of them decided they'd rather stand there picking their nose.
My West Brom supporting colleague who has been quite critical of us in past seasons said penalty and onside. He is a neutral with no soft spot for us and even my Arsenal supporting colleagues (proper ones from the area) agreed so that is enough for me as
We went on about Harry After for his gamesmanship with Chalobah for far too long. That was a talk***** poll too just like the pen Saturday. It's getting silly this Premiership. It's like we focus more on every negative than the great stuff.
It's a bit silly if you ask me. People like Hackett are just showing themselves as the fools they are. The incident was cleared by the FA panel so there's no case to answer. Was the incident really that terrible? Anyone would think he's just dived with no one anywhere near him. There's clear contact, not once but twice. Bellerin deliberately pushed Richarlison in the back, but no one has mentioned that. I think some people in the media have an agenda and want to see this new FA review panel hammer the cheats. I'm all for that, but I think in their fervour to do this they have picked the wrong target. Some are convinced it was the worst dive in the history of the game, where as others think it was a penalty. This has really divided a lot of people. The review board will only ever uphold clear cheating. The best example I can think of is Knockaert. Cassetti did put his hand on his shoulder, but that was all it was. He did not pull him back or push him. It was a silly thing to do, but Knockaert's only intention was to fall over to con the referee. A lot of this is just common sense. It's hard to quantify what is a dive or not technically. It is mostly going to be down to the opinion of experts. Richarlison was running at pace and was ahead of his marker. There was contact and anyone that's been clipped while running at full speed will know even a seemingly innocuous clip of the heels is enough to make you lose your balance, then if that person behind you also gives you a little shove in the back, you're going down. I defy anyone in that position to be able to keep his feet. It's been wrongly condemned by a lot of people. Richarlison doesn't even have a history for it, but because there's been such a fuss, even though he was cleared of any cheating, mud sticks and officials will be on the look out in the future......not that it has stopped two of the biggest con merchants Zaha and Vardy from profiting in the past.
One thing is for certain - had an Arsenal player done and been banned you can be sure Wenger and co would be out complaining.. Infact they have before: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/europe/8236689.stm Few sub links there. Anyway Ricky has been found innocent (as HB1 says certainly wasn't a clear cut dive) And quite frankly had it been at the other end I would have expected a foul to be given in real time which is the only view the ref gets.
So it's basically it's what the future king wanted to be to Camilla? Imagine Charlie coming up from down-town and whispering that into a lady's ear!