I asked the same question to you in post #254, #261 & #273 and you have avoided it every time by denying it even existed. Outstanding. :sign15:
Poll says kicking a ball at a player is equivalent to throwing a punch in disciplinary terms... http://www.wdsport.co.uk/2016/12/referee-should-have-sent-off-mcclean-and-pereyra-says-graham-poll/
Yep it's considered violent conduct, just like 2 examples of when I played Sunday morning football, throwing a snowball or a clump of mud at another player in jest...both sent off for violent conduct.
I never said you were wrong. I still don't think you are wrong. Why ask me to prove you are wrong when it was never my intention to do so. I just don't agree with you. I didn't think, nor did I say, that we have made significant progress that proves you wrong, rather I was saying that the evidence that you cited as reasoning for your opinion, suggested something else to me, because I didn't dismiss the positives and embrace the negatives. You asked that question challenging me to prove that you were wrong. But I never said your opinion was wrong, only that it was about the most negative outlook a fan could have of the current situation and that it is no surprise that the majority of us don't share it. I don't disagree with your opinion that if we loose the next three games Mazzarri will lose his job; I just don't think it is very valid or will prove very likely. But that is just expressing my opinion. I'll give you an answer to that question, but the last thing it does is prove you wrong; though hopefully it informs you what my outlook on the situation is. We have made progress in our wing play and the use of our midfield; we have, when all are available, demonstrated that our defence has progressed to become stronger and more capable; we have progressed in our use of fringe players and their development as squad members; we have progressed in becoming a team that sets out to win games rather than limit the other team, there is more... I don't say that proves you wrong, but it certainly shows you that I feel more positive about the club than you do, and that, really is my only point, and always was. I don't think you are wrong with the scenarios you describe; I just think you are very negative, and that there are other, more balanced opinions out there...
Bit late to the party but might aswell toss another opinion into the ring. I think all expectations should be tempered by the acceptance that injuries have really been a problem this season. It's not just having a few long term injuries; it's the repeated short term ones that mean players are continually weaving in and out of the team. I have no idea what our best 11/formation is, let alone getting a decent run of games together where the team can build. This for me, has contributed to the feeling of 'little progress'. The squad is undeniably stronger than last year, but the team we put out each week isn't. Mazzarri deserves time and a fit squad to work on this, and given this I do think the team will go forward. One frustration I have with the team is that I think they believe their own hype sometimes. Beat Man Utd or Leicester and the rest of the week is interspersed with murmurs of Europe as if we're nearly a top 8 team; only to getting well beaten by Burnley or Stoke with a gutless performance. This has to change, and Pereyra's reaction on Saturday optimised the problem. The heads were gone and we were professionally turned over by West Brom (and the week before by Stoke). Troy needs to focus less on his media profile and more on the pitch. Positives are Amrabat and Kabasele who I thought did ok considering. Hopefully Success is ready to start next week, I'd go with a front three of Success-Deeney-Amrabat. I know the club expressed a disinterest in spending in the Winter transfer window, but we really need something more in midfield if Doucoure's Watford career is over already.
I am relieved you have finally answered that very basic question. I don't agree with any of it, but I respect your opinion and if that is your belief that is fine. All I wanted was to know the other side of the debate, which is so rarely forthcoming. It took a lot of effort on my part to get an answer from you, but I thank you for finally giving it.
Not that I listen much to 'Three Yellows', but how can that view be justified when the ball was still in play?
People tend not to reply because you are verbose, hysterical, sanctimonious and generally ignore what others have said to you. If you work on your own shortcomings you might get some clearer feedback.
I agree I am verbose and sanctimonious, as for hysterical I'm glad I make you laugh. I have to disagree with the ignore bit or else I would not be replying to you. My wife actually likes my shortcomings, so if it keeps her happy, I'm not going to change.
Few. But if you look you will see that I have not said anything in here that has not been said before. You have simply spent a lot of effort in to finally declare that you understand what was said to you quite plainly and in my first post on the subject. It is noted that for all your postulating about me not answering a question that you never really asked me (because I didn't disagree with you so couldn't possibly justify something I never did) you still haven't responded in kind by discussing the issues I have raised with you; but I don't demand such responses from you because to me, your opinion, however flawed in my eyes, is your opinion and you are entitled to it without having to justify it to me. Like I say, I never said you were wrong, but your dislike of being perceived as being wrong drove you to demand proof from me so you could say you disagree with something I never said in the first place. Your opinion of our current position, in my honest and humble opinion, is some of the most child like and ill thought out rubbish I have ever heard on this forum. But I fully support your right to express it, and as was the subject of my first post to you, believe it is unreasonable of you to expect anyone on the forum not to be offended if you suggest they are stupid for not sharing that view. So we are back to square one. Unless you finally realise I am only expressing my opinion as freely as you like to express yours.
What club say and what club do are two very different things. Fancy we'll be at least, going for another Pereyra/Boufal type and a central defender to start the Britos transition/cover for second half of the season. Not saying it will be crazy, but could be interesting.
A lot of waffle there, mixed with a bit of abuse, twisting of the fact and made up stuff. Forum normality is alive a well. It's shame people feel they have to stoop to this level just to get their point across. You still deny I asked a question, then you make out you've answered it before. It's truly bizarre.
When it comes to transfers and this club I'll never rule anything out. I think a defensive midfielder should be on the list too. I'm not sure Behrami can keep playing every week and while I like Watson I'm not sure he's up to it.
Because it can be an assault. Prodl went down holding his face, laying there for quite a while, after a "challenge" from Rondon (who should've seen red for deliberately raking his boot into Kabasele's face in the corner, leaving one on him). Play went on for a long time. If say James McLean or Brunt, outraged at perceived play acting by Prodl, booted the ball into a Prodl whilst he was still writhing about, would you still say "The ball is in play, you can boot it anywhere?" Angry players have been red carded before for deliberately kicking the ball at the ref when its "in play". No, the law says that's violent conduct and serious foul play. WBA were attacking in completely the other direction when Peyrera went down fouled by Rondon. James McLean followed it up, as he'd been brought on to shake things up. He'd not long fouled Deeney and another. He knew exactly what he was doing and was trying to provoke. Ungentlemanly conduct at the very least by booting the ball as he did. He wasn't trying to pass, was he?
The first two situations you refer to are irrelevant to the Pereyra sending off. My point is that we see countless times players kick the ball off others to get a throw or a goal kick, 'deliberately' kicking it at another player. Had the game stopped or the referee's whistle gone, I'd agree. But as far as i'm aware, it hadn't so therefore if James McClean wants to kick the ball he can. Unless there's a law within the game I'm completely unaware of.
As WW says the ball being in or out of play isn't the determinate factor. It's one thing to take into account but it doesn't on its own decide what's right and wrong.
The defining factor is whether or not the ball was kicked with the intention of hurting or maiming a player. Any act carried out on the field with such an intent is a disciplinary matter, and MacLean clarted that ball at point blank range. Little doubt in my mind that he wanted to either incite or injure Pereyra.
I've read through the serious foul play and violent conduct laws today on the FA website and there's no reference to any of this.
What version were you reading? Serious foul play. 'The player is in danger of injuring his opponent'. If it was done outside of play it would be violent conduct. Describes what I said exactly.
The FA website. Doesn't make any reference to with the ball though, does it? That specifically references when challenging for the ball or not being in possession of it. The only real reference to any sort of aggression with the ball is throwing it at someone. Quotes out of context aren't particularly helpful or worth arguing about.
Irrespective of what the law says on this specific matter, the other law where having been booked in the match for his involvement the FA will/can not take any further action. The referee should have sent him off at the time.
The player is in danger of injuring his opponent. Nothing more need be said. If you do something, anything, with the intent of injuring a player, it is serious foul play. If you do it outside of play it is violent conduct. You have had a fact pointed out to you. If you wish to ignore it, that is to your detriment.
No problem at all. It says exactly what I say it says... I'm happy to read any quote you have that contradicts me, but I'm guessing you won't get any further than saying I'm wrong. As I say, you have had a fact pointed out to you, whether you like it or not.
On a slightly different tack, but still related to the rules of the game - the six second rule seems to have gone the same way as obstruction and is now never enforced. My attention was drawn to this as I counted slowly to 12 the second or third time that Ben Foster set off for a wander around the area with the ball. Who decides which laws will be enforced and which will be ignored?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-4006512/Allan-Nyom-apologises-Watford-fans-celebrating-West-Bromwich-Albion-goal-against-former-club.html
