Euro 2008

What's sad is that you actually believe that. Funny, but still sad.

Whatever you say Captain The Exception Doesn’t Prove The Rule

God, you're sad. This is a yes/no question. Do the rules contain a provision for a straight red in all instances of tackles from behind? Again, yes or no.

I hate to break this to you, but that clearly supprts my opinion of the ref having discretion about the level of violence, or did you not notice the part where it references endangering the safety of the opponent? Again, please post the specific answer.

Which is why I said, depending on the level of violence of the tackle

Did you really just try to use a link from some Manitoba ref group as proof of what FIFA was thinking? Really? Couldn't find one on PFT?

Again, which endangers - if - as you claim - that all tackles from behind are inherently dangerous, why put that part in there?

Um, congrats on that I guess, but since there are only about 4 people posting thin this thread, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get at here.

I'm sure that you think that because you are so wrapped up in being right, but since I have posted the - you know - actual FIFA rules and shit, you're looking pretty stupid right about now.

If the rule had been implemented as stated, how come Blatter complained about it being implemented inconsistently?

That's pretty fucking funny since it's plainly clear to anyone who is not a delirious self obsessed asshole (hint, you) that he doesn’t know what the fuck he's talking about.

Look, it's pretty clear - either post the rule that says that it's a card or shut the fuck up.

 

Certainly - I've already done so:

You claimed:

PROVIDE A LINK TO BACK UP THIS STATEMENT.

Done. We're 2 for 2.

lmao. Dude, I was have been very polite in every instance where you don't know what you're talking about. Which in this thread has been about everything you've said about tacking from behind. And as to your rules, you deserve it because people who should know better should shut the fuck up when they are dealiong with someone who knows more than them. So I suggest you take your own advice, dipshit.

PS - what did you think of that Van Bronkhorst tackle from behind with no card?

 

So says the guy who has no evidence at all to back up his position, who no one is agreeing with, and who is simply ignoring all the links that prove him wrong.

Either it was implemented or it wasn't. You claimed that it wasn't and I provided a link proving that it was. Why do you think it's better to continue denying an obvious truth instead of just admitting that you made a mistake? I wasn't correct about the "yellow or red" thing that I had believed. I'm wrong about lots of shit, in fact. But while you dig in your heels and will lie about anything just to avoid admitting you're wrong, I have no problems acknowledging my mistakes.

YES.

Once again:
" A tackle from behind, which endangers the safety of an opponent, must be sanctioned as serious foul play."

"A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off and shown the red
card if he commits any of the following seven offences:
1. is guilty of serious foul play"

Good lord. The fact that you even pretend to believe that crap is hilarious. THAT IS THE WORDING THAT WAS ADDED IN 1998 BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO MAKE ALL TACKLES FROM BEHIND RED CARDS. YOU KNOW, THE RULE YOU CLAIMED WAS NEVER IMPLEMENTED AND WAS REMOVED FROM THE RULE BOOK.

Dumbass, it was a directive from FIFA. Here's the same memorandum from a U.S. Soccer link: http://images.ussoccer.com/Documents/cms/ussf/doc_6_323.pdf

The fact that you haven't found anything to agree with you, whether it's a link or an actual person.

Correct, I am wrapped up in []BEING[/b] right. I care about whether or not I am right to the point that I will acknowledge my errors and embrace new information. You, on the other hand, are wrapped up in LOOKING right. You don't give a flying damn whether or not you actually are right, which is why you'll lie and equivocate any time you're caught in a mistake.

YOU ONLY QUOTED THE FIRST PART OF LAW 12 - RULES AND MISCONDUCT. YOU CONVENIENTLY LEFT OUT THE PART FOLLOWING THAT SECTION WHICH PROVES YOU WRONG. I HAVE REPEATEDLY QUOTED THAT SECTION AND YOU KEEP PRETENDING THAT IT DOESN'T EXIST.

Why does the NBA front office issue memorandums about officials not enforcing certain rules properly? Did those rules suddenly go off the books? No. Why does the MLB front office notify umpires when they aren't enforcing the strike zone to the rule book's specifications? Why did the NFL tells its referees to place more of an emphasis on contact by defensive backs following the Colts-Patriots AFC Championship Game?

ELRIC DISAGREES WITH YOU, NOT ME. YOU HAVE YET TO FIND ONE PERSON OR ONE LINK THAT AGREES WITH YOU.

POST SOMETHING TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS OR SHUT THE FUCK UP.

 

The refs missed a call??

 

POST ANYTHING THAT SAYS THE RED CARD RULE WAS NOT IMPLEMENTED OR ADMIT THAT YOU WERE WRONG.

POST ANYTHING THAT SAYS THE RULE WAS REMOVED FROM THE RULE BOOK OR ADMIT THAT YOU WERE WRONG.

Quite honestly, I would pay a lot of money just for the opportunity to beat the living shit out of you. If you ever feel like you need to make a buck, let me know. We can agree on a set price above any medical bills you'll need to pay for.

 

lmao. Big fonts just make you look like more of a dumbass. It's simple, please post the current rule that says in all cases - not just cases where it endangers an opponent - that a tackle from behind requires a red card.

Otherwise, shut the fuck up like the sad imposter that you are. Seriously. Either post the rule or just shut the fuck up about things you know nothing about.

 

Um, so says the guy with no actual FIFA rules as proof

Nice try. It was certainly given as a directive in 98 - and in case you missed the quotes, Blatter complamined that refs did not adhere to it later.

Of course you weren't, because you don't klnow shit about the rules of soccer. Only when you decided that you needed to pick a fight with an expert did you feel the need to actually look up the rules before spouting your worthelss opinion on the matter.

Fuck dude, that's beyond patheitc. Did you miss the part where it ways endangers the safety of?

Yep. And nowhere does it say that all tackles from behind are red cards.

I understand your desperation, but - as you have posted over and over - the rule book is specific as to which type of tacles from behind are staright reds.

Thanks for reiterating the "endanger of the opponent" part.

Other than the actual rules, you're um, spot on.

You've already admitted to lying to win debate points, so it's probably time to give up the whole schtick about you loving the truth.

Perhaps you could quote the part where it explicitly requires a red for all tackels from behind. And I mean a quote form the current rules and where it's explicit. Otherwise, please just shut the fuck up and mitigate your losses.

Why does the NBA front office issue memorandums about officials not enforcing certain rules properly? Did those rules suddenly go off the books? No. Why does the MLB front office notify umpires when they aren't enforcing the strike zone to the rule book's specifications? Why did the NFL tells its referees to place more of an emphasis on contact by defensive backs following the Colts-Patriots AFC Championship Game?

Perhaps you can find a post from Sir Elric where he backs you up after these exchanges? That might help.

I've posted the actual rules. You just don't want to admit you're wrong. I expected as much.

 

Seriously, a soccer rules argument?

This thread proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you two will argue over literally anything.

 

collin, could you tell me what a 1,2 is without having to google it.


TIMFA.

 

Fuck you, will not.