Jason Roberts idiot

[melonhead]

Just to add something else to this - but I was sat right behind the incident in the East. Prior to the sock pulling up, Kebe had actually gestured to Cummings not to pass him the ball - he did, then the incident happened which caused the furore. It's possible that this wasn't actually a pi$$ take but that Kebe did actually just want to sort his sock out.

saw that quite clearly on championship highlights too

[Maguire]

What are we arguing about please?

I want to join in

[melonhead]

me and ian are arguing whether "could well" means its significantly more likely than just "could" and exactly how much of an increase in liklihood of serious injury it means.

stranded and i are also arguing that jimmy didnt even mean any disrepect cos just before he did it, he gestured to cummings not to pass to him and was looking like he was going off the pitch to pull up his socks/stretch his hamstring

think we are probably still arguing with dirk as to his assertion that collisons reaction was understandable
and his definition of understandable

[ZacNaloen]

I'm arguing with Dirk whether there exists an underlying sense of fair play in English football that means it's "understandable" that Collison lost his rag and ran his studs down Kebes shin

[Svlad Cjelli]

I'm arguing with Dirk whether there exists an underlying sense of fair play in English football that means it's "understandable" that Collison lost his rag and ran his studs down Kebes shin

Did I ever use the word "understandable"? I certainly never said there was an "underlying sense of fair play" - I did say that there's a type of "code" of what is done and what isn't done amongst professionals, but that has absolutely nothing to do with fair play. If you think it has that's purely supposition on your part.

I'll also point you th this by "The Secret Football" in Saturday morning's Guardian. He's talking about Suarez, but this paragraph is particularly relevant :

.....What we do have to accept, though, is that this is a supremely gifted footballer and someone who is still coming to terms with the nuances of the English game. Didier Drogba was in a similar position a few years ago and it took some quiet words from a few of his English team-mates, spelling out how we don't take too kindly to those who practise the darker arts of football, to bring about a change.

Full link here

Boiling the argument down to its simplest, any player who takes the piss is likely to get clattered. Kebe did, and he was.

It's not right and I've never at any point tried to condone it or excuse it I've only said that that's the way it is, but for some reason people can't accept this idea.

[ZacNaloen]

Are you acually listening to yourself?

It's not a underlying sense of fair play, it's a sort code.

[Maguire]

I agree you have to expect a bit of a kick if you do something like that, but Collison just proved he is absolutely pig shit stoopid by doing it so blatantly, so quickly, so dangerously and right in front of everyone.

I think Kebe knew exactly what he was doing tbh, it was a definite pisstake

[Svlad Cjelli]

Are you actually listening to yourself?

It's not a underlying sense of fair play, it's a sort code.

Certainly am - are you reading what I'm posting?

What part is it that you have trouble with? That within football (just like within any profession) there is a set of unwritten but generally accepted conventions (i.e. code of behaviour) that says what is and what isn't the done thing. Have you noticed that the vast, vast majority of people who have said Kebe brought the foul on himself are ex-professionals?

Or do you have trouble believing that this code of behaviour is not based on "fair play?" Diving and cheating is acceptable to professionals, because they nearly all do it and they know it's part of doing the best for their team. But taking the piss out a fellow professional on the field is not considered acceptable.

Again, that's the way it is, whether you like it or not - or choose to believe it or not. But please tell me which of those premises you have trouble accepting.

BTW, when your only response is to laugh at arguments being put forward it shows that you've run out of arguments yourself.....

[ZacNaloen]

What it shows is that your argument is a joke you idiot


There is no difference between a code of behaviour and an underlying sense of fair play.

That that sense of fair play doesn't extend to tricks, and diving etc just shows how much of a joke the concept is to begin with.

Look buddy, i'm going to make you look like an idiot by falling over when you haven't even touched me, and that's just fine. BUT JUST DON'T HAVE ANY FUN AT MY EXPENSE OKAY!

[melonhead]

Did I ever use the word "understandable"?

yes



some other code that means you shouldnt rake another players shins>>>>>>>>>>>>>>some vaccuous chivalrous code of fair play

[ZacNaloen]

Look Dirk, I haven't got any problem with the words you are using.

I know exactly why Collison got angry. We all know why Collison got angry. We knew the instance it happened.


What I have a problem with is the reasons why you feel you need to try and explain to all of us who just don't get HOW FOOTBALL WORKS.

I don't care how football "works". Because it doesn't explain or mitigate his actions one bit.

[Svlad Cjelli]

What it shows is that your argument is a joke you idiot


There is no difference between a code of behaviour and an underlying sense of fair play.

That that sense of fair play doesn't extend to tricks, and diving etc just shows how much of a joke the concept is to begin with.

Look buddy, i'm going to make you look like an idiot by falling over when you haven't even touched me, and that's just fine. BUT JUST DON'T HAVE ANY FUN AT MY EXPENSE OKAY!

Why is there no difference between a code of behaviour and an underlying sense of fair play? You seem to think that's a given, but there's no reason it needs to be - the Krays had their own code of behaviour, just as the mafia do and just as tabloid journalists do - but I don't think anyone could say that any of could be said to have a sense of fair play when seen by an outsider. It's the same with football - an insular and tight-knit profession where there things that are "done" and things that aren't "done".

Just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Have you never sung "Parky's Gonna Get You" after an opposition player took the piss? The simple fact is that at this level of football you take the piss and you get clattered for it. Everyone knows it (apart from you).

The surprise is that Collison did it so quickly and so blatantly - most players would have waited and done it in a far more subtle way, but not all. This was posted elsewhere but is a perfect example from abroad : http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/video/08122011/58/showboating-leads-brawl.html

[ZacNaloen]

Sense of Fair Play/Code of Honour

Just stop it. It's completely interchangeable.


All it is is a bunch of premadonnas with a short temper and ego's above their station trying to justify thuggish behaviour, nothing more nothing less.

[Svlad Cjelli]

Sense of Fair Play/Code of Honour

Just stop it. It's completely interchangeable.

If you say so. But I think you're in a small minority who believe that it's actually like that in the real world. And you're the only one who has ever used the phrase "code of honour" - everyone else has used the phrase "code of behaviour", which is something quite different.

But if you're not ever going to be able to see past that then you'll never see it the way it is so I rest my case.

[ZacNaloen]

"everyone else"

I'm only talking to you.


Code of Honour/Code of Behaviour/The way you should behave/Sense of fair play


All these concepts are exactly the same.

[Svlad Cjelli]

"everyone else"

I'm only talking to you.


Code of Honour/Code of Behaviour/The way you should behave/Sense of fair play


All these concepts are exactly the same.

I don't think they are at all, Perhaps they ought to be, in an ideal world, but this ain't an ideal world.

You're heavily into science and scientific method - so let's look at this scientifically. There are numerous observations that support the theory that a player who takes the piss out of another player is very likely to be clattered, either subtly or unsubtly. Do you dispute this?

Do you dispute that don't you think all the observations demonstrate

[Yahoops]

When people use insulting terms towards those who take action and complain about a 3rd rate media personality like Claridge; it's because they have lower standards than the person being complained about. They sub-consciously recognise their situation and therefore hit out at the complainer as a means of defence.

[ZacNaloen]

Time to stop mocking you and actually spell out the problem I have with you Dirk.

I'm well aware that if you take the piss you'll anger someone. That isn't the point. The point of contention is about the violence that often results.


If a player who takes the piss is likely to get a kick because of these unwritten rules, that means that in these unwritten rules it says that if a players takes the piss you can give them a kick or a bad tackle etc etc etc.

For you to be citing these unwritten rules as an explanation, also means that you are citing them as a justification, regardless of the words you have used to try and wash your hands of that association.

If the rules are as you say, and you feel that the challenge wasn't deserved you should be lamenting the existence of these regrettable rules and the thuggish behaviour they encourage, but you aren't. You are hiding behind them to make a point that no one even cares about.

[Svlad Cjelli]

Time to stop mocking you and actually spell out the problem I have with you Dirk.

If a player who takes the piss is likely to get a kick because of these unwritten rules, that means that in these unwritten rules it says that if a players takes the piss you can give them a kick or a bad tackle etc etc etc.

For you to be citing these unwritten rules as an explanation, also means that you are citing them as a justification, regardless of the words you have used to try and wash your hands of that association.

If the rules are as you say, and you feel that the challenge wasn't deserved you should be lamenting the existence of these regrettable rules and the thuggish behaviour they encourage, but you aren't. You are hiding behind them to make a point that no one even cares about.

I think you mean "trying to mock" me - none of the punches have even vaguely got past the defences .... I will concede it's a lovely sidestep you've made in avoiding the direct question I asked you - presumably a Wenger-esque "I did not see ze question" will follow .....

And again your logic seems to be at fault when you assume that one startment irrevocably leades to another.

If you explain something you are therefore also justifying it? Really?? I've studied history so I can explain the historical reasons and the political context that led to the Holocaust. Does that mean I support it or justify it?

[TFF]

I've studied history so I can explain the historical reasons and the political context that led to the Holocaust. Does that mean I support it or justify it?

11 pages and boom!