OMG.....what is going on here? How many times do we have to say what already has been said? Yes, he shouldn't have done it. Notice I didn't name names. He did it, there was a reaction and a consequence to that reaction. Both of them deserve whatever they get. Time wasting is as old as the game itself.
Saying something over and over doesn't make it true, stanger. And, even if you think or believe that you know it is true, saying something over and over won't convince other people when they've made their own opinion quite clear. We give a lot of leeway for minority opinions in this forum, but that doesn't mean you're going to win converts just because you keep saying your opinion is true. You really are just trolling the forum at this point. A quick search of your posts in this forum shows that you've essentially posted in 6 threads ever. Four of them were about calls for Chelsea, one of them involved some issues from your own child's team, and the sixth is a series of posts in the "Things We Hear" thread. The Referee forum is not your personal gripe zone. If you have questions or want a discussion where referee input matters to you, that's great. I think that's what usually makes this forum so great. But that's quite clearly not the case. If your opinion is gospel to you, you already have the team and league forums so that you can post with fellow fans (or engage opposing fans, if that's your desire). And if your opinion is only going to be expressed when decisions go against Chelsea, you'd do well to avail yourself of those other options. I note, for example, that not a single Chelsea fan who has complained about the plagues of ballboy timewasting in this thread said a word when Ross Turnbull cynically held onto the ball and prevented Brentford from restarting quickly with an IFK this weekend. Apparently losing several seconds in a match at goal kicks and throw-ins due to ballboys is one of the worst things in our game, but deliberately preventing your opponent from taking an attacking free kick that has a good chance of resulting in a goal is fine. On a more general note, I know I'm guilty of prolonging this thread at times--and I realize this post is helping to do that some. But when we're going round and round in circles (and debating rape analogies overnight) I hope we can all agree it's nearing the point where we can call time on this thread.
I step away for one minute and you beat me to making my point! Maybe by quoting you I can push this along to another page though.... hmm... What we aren't considering though is what happens if MassRef locks it ON page 15? Over/Unders should really include a decimal to prevent shenanigans/deliberate manipulation by mods! But yeah, MassRef is right. I have some more things I could say where I think the side opposed to me is looking at things wrong, but it's not like they're going to go "Oh, now I agree with you." They'll just point out where they think I'm wrong, and on we'll go, and yeah, it is going in circles. I think I've said the same thing(s) specifically in my last few posts rather than having to address new things. It's been a crazy ride though, everyone!
Y'know, I think he is going to lock it on page 15. (That way the house wins, right?) And now back to ...
I no longer have a dog in this hunt, as I have won my particular parlay on the over and collected my winnings. However for a fee I'm happy to instigate. And dirty looks are still free.
I don't think I am the only one guilty of this, especially in this thread. Interesting. I don't know why you are surprised that I would get involved in a thread that concerns things that I am interested in, my daughter's team and the club I support. I certainly don't use this, or any other thread for that matter, as a "personal gripe zone", rather I use it to gain a little insight as to what the opinions are of other referees. That's what the forum is for, right? To discuss various referee decisions? I didn't start this thread, and wouldn't have, because I didn't see any fault by the ref, nor did I have any problem with the way it was and is being handled. To call my posts "trolling" is a little disingenuous. I didn't see the match this weekend, I was driving back from a vacation. And there is a different situation in play when a player wastes time as opposed to a ball person. You understand that, I'm sure. Something we can agree on. Are we up to 15 yet? Just want to do my part.
Except almost every single referee is in general agreement here. And it's the referee forum. I asked--god, 10 pages ago, maybe--if you saw referees coming into the Chelsea forum to explain how your team deservedly got a red card. I didn't get an answer. No, it's not. What's disingenuous is you claiming you're here for "insight" and to see the opinions of referees. If that was the case, I'd fully support your engagement, as I noted. But you've gotten the opinions of referees. And you reject it, repeatedly. And then you keep telling them they are wrong. I don't know what I'm supposed to understand here, but if the insinuation is that the alleged time wasted by a ballboy at a goal kick is worse than time wasting by a player at an attacking free kick opportunity for his opponent, then I totally and completely give up. Actually, I already gave up, but this response just confirms my decision.
Maybe because all the Chelsea fans on the Chelsea boards agreed with the decision, as do I? Not one time did I say the ref's decision was wrong. On the contrary, even in the post you quoted I said the decision by the ref was right. If you point me to where I said the ref was wrong in this thread I will never set foot in your fiefdom again. One involves people outside the game, the ball kid, and the other involves actual players in the game, you know, the players. I'll leave it at that.
I just bought a new jersey. It had been a while since I got one. http://www.soccer.com/IWCatProductP...=4294959212+458+4294689677&Product_Id=7547498 Unfortunately Eurosport could not guarantee if it came spattered with Charlie Morgan blood.
That really just flew over your head? You're going to play the "you're not reading what I said" game when you are choosing the read things that aren't there? Nothing in the passage you quoted said anything about the red card or the referee decision. You keep hanging your hat on this "I agree with the red card, so I can say anything else I want" logic. My paragraph said you got the opinion of referees and you continuously reject it. That's so clearly true that even you can't reject its assertion. One involves possibly wasting 2-3 seconds in a game (and not in the case we're discussing). The other involves very likely preventing a certain goal.
And, we're done. Sorry everyone, I don't think I've ever used mod powers to get the last word in substantively in a thread that we closed, but that changes here (and it obviously wasn't deliberate). This goes no further. The under wins.