That Penalty then?

taio · Post by **taio** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 9:23 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:I honestly don't get it. How the **** are you people not seeing that he was clearly fouled by Pope? Are your glasses so clouded up with claret bullshit that somehow you're actually all blind to the fact that Silva played the ball away from Pope, the foot he used then becomes his standing foot (because that's how running works, they alternate) and then Pope clatters into/traps that foot with his knee.

Here's the exact moment it happens. How is this now visible to you? https://streamable.com/8v81i" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

See Halsey's comments which is what many people also said beforehand. No penalty and no claret tinted glasses

bumba · Post by **bumba** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 9:24 am

Its a clear penalty, no doubt about it. Dyche doesn't even say its not. Dyches just made the point that the way he went down was embarrassing an he's right but was it a penalty then yes.
Fans got irate on here about the Wood one against west ham but at least hart does get something on the ball the Silva one is a clearer penalty than the Wood one so people need to get over it

RocketLawnChair · Post by **RocketLawnChair** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 9:30 am

When I was a child if I overreacted or over exaggerated something my mother used to say something along the lines of "stop crying before I really give you something to cry for"

I hope when this soft cheating **** Silva turns up at the Turf later this season and somebody puts him in the bottom tier of the James Hargreaves and we can revisit Law 12 again

Inchy · Post by **Inchy** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 9:32 am

He went down like an idiot but If he had tried to stay on his feet he would have struggled because of the contact. He had every right to go down and I would expect every burnley player to do the same, just not in the same theatrical fashion

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 9:41 am

taio wrote:See Halsey's comments which is what many people also said beforehand. No penalty and no claret tinted glasses

He's wrong. There was no contact initiated by Silva. You can see that just by looking at the video i linked. There's an incredible amount of claret-tintedness going on on this board over it, and it's baffling.

Look! How is Pope clattering into his right foot, which is ******* planted, Silva "initiating contact". https://streamable.com/8v81i" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

JohnMcGreal · Post by **JohnMcGreal** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 9:42 am

Farcical reaction from Silva, but Pope cocked up by charging out for a ball he never looked likely to win. He did try to pull out before making the foul, but it was too late, he'd already committed and his momentum took him through. Fair penalty for me.

If it was the other way around (minus the theatrics) we'd be claiming a penalty, and rightly so.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 9:43 am

bumba wrote:Its a clear penalty, no doubt about it. Dyche doesn't even say its not. Dyches just made the point that the way he went down was embarrassing an he's right but was it a penalty then yes.
Fans got irate on here about the Wood one against west ham but at least hart does get something on the ball the Silva one is a clearer penalty than the Wood one so people need to get over it

I don't think Hart got anything on the ball.

SussexDon1inIreland · Post by **SussexDon1inIreland** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 9:45 am

I like the post above "what about the wrestling going on at corners"
The inconsistency has ruined football
Joe Hart - def penalty. Yesterday def dive.
Apart from watching my beloved Burnley I hate the way football is and I rarely watch any game which we are not involved in.

UTC

ElectroClaret · Post by **ElectroClaret** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 9:57 am

JohnMcGreal wrote:Fair penalty for me.

If it was the other way around (minus the theatrics) we'd be claiming a penalty, and rightly so.

This.

In fact, we all know if it had been up the other end and HADN'T been given,
we'd all have been howling for a peno (me included) and this board would have
gone into meltdown.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 9:58 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:He's wrong. There was no contact initiated by Silva. You can see that just by looking at the video i linked. There's an incredible amount of claret-tintedness going on on this board over it, and it's baffling.

Look! How is Pope clattering into his right foot, which is ******* planted, Silva "initiating contact". https://streamable.com/8v81i" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just because you keep on repeating your opinion like it's some kind of fact does not mean you are right - stop having a thrombosis about it and accept that people have a different opinion on the incident.

This Claret tinted glasses sh-ite is almost as annoying - there are lots of pundits / commentators etc who agree it was not a penalty and they are not Burnley fans.

taio · Post by **taio** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:01 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:He's wrong. There was no contact initiated by Silva. You can see that just by looking at the video i linked. There's an incredible amount of claret-tintedness going on on this board over it, and it's baffling.

Look! How is Pope clattering into his right foot, which is ******* planted, Silva "initiating contact". https://streamable.com/8v81i" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You're wrong and he's right. We can disagree all day and keep saying the same thing, and there's no point. Plenty of people who don't even own claret glasses have said the same

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:04 am

ElectroClaret wrote:This.

In fact, we all know if it had been up the other end and HADN'T been given,
we'd all have been howling for a peno (me included) and this board would have
gone into meltdown.

If my Aunty had balls she'd be mi Uncle type posts !

if it would have happened the other way round but without the theatrical diving - what does that even mean ? Do you mean with a normal dive ? Or the playing just falling over ?

Or maybe natural thing would have been that you would not have fallen over at all when there has been the slightest of contacts - in which case nobody would have been claiming a penalty ?

Funkydrummer · Post by **Funkydrummer** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:04 am

Take a look at Silva's left foot as he tries to plant it on the floor.

If he had been falling in front of a bus he wouldn't have done that.

Despicable little scrote.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:05 am

taio wrote:You're wrong and he's right. We can disagree all day and keep saying the same thing, and there's no point. Plenty of people who don't even own claret glasses have said the same

There is absolutely nothing that supports his version of events. There is no video that shows Silva initiating contact. There is video showing Pope being the initiator of contact. And yet you'll happily believe someone because he used to be a referee and says things that make you feel better over what you can see for yourself with your own two eyes.

bartons baggage · Post by **bartons baggage** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:05 am

JohnMcGreal wrote:Farcical reaction from Silva, but Pope cocked up by charging out for a ball he never looked likely to win. He did try to pull out before making the foul, but it was too late, he'd already committed and his momentum took him through. Fair penalty for me.

If it was the other way around (minus the theatrics) we'd be claiming a penalty, and rightly so.

If it was the other way round the penalty wouldn't have been given.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:06 am

TVC15 wrote:Just because you keep on repeating your opinion like it's some kind of fact does not mean you are right - stop having a thrombosis about it and accept that people have a different opinion on the incident.

This Claret tinted glasses sh-ite is almost as annoying - there are lots of pundits / commentators etc who agree it was not a penalty and they are not Burnley fans.

Have you watched the clip i linked?

scouseclaret · Post by **scouseclaret** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:08 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:He's wrong. There was no contact initiated by Silva. You can see that just by looking at the video i linked. There's an incredible amount of claret-tintedness going on on this board over it, and it's baffling.

Look! How is Pope clattering into his right foot, which is ******* planted, Silva "initiating contact". https://streamable.com/8v81i" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Don’t know what you’re agenda is, IT , but how you can describe that challenge as “clattering into” I can’t understand - think there must be something wrong with your glasses!

The issue here is that in situations like this, “contact” and “foul” are being taken to be the same thing. They’re not.

taio · Post by **taio** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:10 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:There is absolutely nothing that supports his version of events. There is no video that shows Silva initiating contact. There is video showing Pope being the initiator of contact. And yet you'll happily believe someone because he used to be a referee and says things that make you feel better over what you can see for yourself with your own two eyes.

I said it was not a penalty before I read his comment so don't try and make out I'm just following what he's said. The last person that's going to change my opinion on a football matter is you, so there's no point you keep posting links, referring to claret tinted glasses and stating your view as some sort of fact with me.

bfcjg · Post by **bfcjg** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:10 am

Never a penalty. Got the ball.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:13 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:There is absolutely nothing that supports his version of events. There is no video that shows Silva initiating contact. There is video showing Pope being the initiator of contact. And yet you'll happily believe someone because he used to be a referee and says things that make you feel better over what you can see for yourself with your own two eyes.

F-uck me you are getting embarrassing.

It could easily be as argued that Silva initiated the contact as your view - but let's put that aside and assume for one second you are correct.

Even if he did initiate contact then never in a million years did it result in Silva diving like he did - or even falling over at all. How can you possibly say that he did not dive - he flung himself.

It is equally as impossible to say that the slightness of that touch would cause you to fall over either.

Exactly which law of the game does it say that if you touch someone it's a foul ?

ElectroClaret · Post by **ElectroClaret** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:14 am

bfcjg wrote:Never a penalty. Got the ball.

Pope never laid a finger on the ball.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:15 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:Have you watched the clip i linked?

Yes I've watched the clip several times - just like you have. As one poster has already mentioned the fact you desciribed this a "clattering" shows just how wrong you are.

PaintYorkClaretnBlue · Post by **PaintYorkClaretnBlue** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:18 am

Inchy wrote:He went down like an idiot but If he had tried to stay on his feet he would have struggled because of the contact. He had every right to go down and I would expect every burnley player to do the same, just not in the same theatrical fashion

What are you on about, every right to go down? Either he was tripped and COULDN’T stay on his feet or he dived. The game is f***ed when even fans come out with that crap! Nobody has a RIGHT to throw themselves to the floor!

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:22 am

TVC15 wrote:Yes I've watched the clip several times - just like you have. As one poster has already mentioned the fact you desciribed this a "clattering" shows just how wrong you are.

So because i described it as "clattering" that's proof that i'm wrong? What a weak argument.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:23 am

PaintYorkClaretnBlue wrote:What are you on about, every right to go down? Either he was tripped and COULDN’T stay on his feet or he dived. The game is f***ed when even fans come out with that crap! Nobody has a RIGHT to throw themselves to the floor!

So are you saying that if it is possible to stay on your feet then it cannot be a foul?

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:26 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:

So because i described it as "clattering" that's proof that i'm wrong? What a weak argument.

No - it just adds to the fact that you are wrong and also proof that you are a bit of a d-ick !!

So do you think Pope "clattered" Silva ?

If not why did you describe it like that ? To try and explain is horrific fall ?

PaintYorkClaretnBlue · Post by **PaintYorkClaretnBlue** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:28 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:So are you saying that if it is possible to stay on your feet then it cannot be a foul?

Did I say that? No I don’t think that, what I do think is that a player should TRY to stay on his feet, if the referee determines that he was impeded, even if he manages to stay upright then a foul should be given. Going down when you don’t HAVE to is cheating, simple as that.

Every right to go down?? Ffs!!

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:29 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:So are you saying that if it is possible to stay on your feet then it cannot be a foul?

I'll answer that one for him - no he is not saying that.

Clearly if you punch someone in the nose on the pitch and he does not go down then it is still a foul.

However if you brush past someone and your flowing locks just about catch the other players pony tail and somehow you manage to miraculously stay on your feet then it ain't a foul.

Any more stupid questions ?

scouseclaret · Post by **scouseclaret** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:30 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:So are you saying that if it is possible to stay on your feet then it cannot be a foul?

Are you saying that any contact, regardless of whether or not it can reasonably be expected to cause a fully grown athlete to fall to the floor, or even throw him off his stride pattern, is a foul?

taio · Post by **taio** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:30 am

Stick to stuff like Donald Trump and Brexit. You are clueless when it comes to football and until recently stayed away from the subject on here. Your love of football extends to not liking going to games which says enough to me.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:35 am

TVC15 wrote:No - it just adds to the fact that you are wrong and also proof that you are a bit of a d-ick !!

So do you think Pope "clattered" Silva ?

If not why did you describe it like that ? To try and explain is horrific fall ?

Pope's right knee clattered/connected/fouled/trapped/tickled/caressed Silva's right foot. Ignore five of those if you wish but a foul is a foul. Just because he went down theatrically doesn't mean he wasn't fouled. Just because i described the contact as "clattered" doesn't mean it wasn't a foul.

Pope fouled Silva. You can see he fouled him. Anyone who says any different after actually seeing it needs their eyes checking, and are clearly incapable of basic objectivity.

taio · Post by **taio** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:37 am

Just because there was contact doesn't mean it was a foul. Clattered... Ffs.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:37 am

taio wrote:Stick to stuff like Donald Trump and Brexit. You are clueless when it comes to football and until recently stayed away from the subject on here. Your love of football extends to not liking going to games which says enough to me.

What? You're not usually one for making hilariously dumb posts but this is a cracker.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:38 am

taio wrote:Just because there was contact doesn't mean it was a foul. Clattered... Ffs.

I didn't say that. Pope's knee is on top of his foot. If i stood on your foot during a game would that not be a foul?

You can even see Silva's ankle give way a bit because of the contact.

taio · Post by **taio** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:39 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:

What? You're not usually one for making hilariously dumb posts but this is a cracker.

I was trying to match your dumbness when it comes to anything football related. Stick to what you know which isn't this

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:41 am

taio wrote:I was trying to match your dumbness when it comes to anything football related. Stick to what you know which isn't this

I think when you resort to telling other people that they shouldn't share their opinion on a topic, and then bring into the discussion their dislike of attending matches and claim that it's proof that your argument is batter, you've already lost.

taio · Post by **taio** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:42 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:I didn't say that. Pope's knee is on top of his foot. If i stood on your foot during a game would that not be a foul?

You can even see Silva's ankle give way a bit because of the contact.

F**King hell, I'm not disputing there was contact you dumb f**k.

boatshed bill · Post by **boatshed bill** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:44 am

On the basis of "contact = penalty" a goalkeeper would be judged to foul an opponent every time he contests a high ball.
The game of football has been ruined by those who run it.

taio · Post by **taio** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:44 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:I think when you resort to telling other people that they shouldn't share their opinion on a topic, and then bring into the discussion their dislike of attending matches and claim that it's proof that your argument is batter, you've already lost.

I couldn't give a flying **** if you think I've lost the argument. You think Ive lost the argument and I think you you are clueless about football. So what.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:47 am

There was contact and it was given, not overly arsed because sometimes it wouldn't be, just down to luck of the draw.

However I'm not really sure why Silva was rolling around holding his ankle, the contact wasn't that severe.

If he'd gone down and hadn't rolled around so much would there have been a penalty given?
Hard to know and that's the bit that's irritating me.

They were likely to score at some point, they look pretty much like Barcelona did a few years back.

It's going to take a monumental effort from another club to stop them taking the title and as it stands I couldn't tell you who that will be.

Greatest team ever in the PL?
Potentially yes and there isn't much shame losing 3-0 to them after seeing what they did to a more experienced PL team like Stoke.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:48 am

PaintYorkClaretnBlue wrote:Did I say that? No I don’t think that, what I do think is that a player should TRY to stay on his feet, if the referee determines that he was impeded, even if he manages to stay upright then a foul should be given. Going down when you don’t HAVE to is cheating, simple as that.

Every right to go down?? Ffs!!

I think a player should try to stay on their feet too.

Silva was impeded. I'm sure you'll agree that having a goalkeepers knee on your foot is an impediment. Or having him clatter into your foot is an impediment. So had Silva tried to stay on his feet should a penalty have been given? Of course. Because there wasn't an advantage (he was going away from goal).

Just because he went down like he was shot doesn't mean he wasn't fouled. And nor does it mean a foul shouldn't have been given.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:50 am

Football is a contact sport.

Imploding Turtles Head, is an attention craving loner.

Bin Ont Turf · Post by **Bin Ont Turf** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:56 am

This is reminding me of the Barnes and Matic incident and how wrong the Turtle was about that as well.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:57 am

Bin Ont Turf wrote:This is reminding me of the Barnes and Matic incident and how wrong the Turtle was about that as well.

And just like that incident, this one's reminding me just how unobjective Burnley fans can be. But at least with the Barnes/Matic incident there was some subjectivity involved. My opinion was that Barnes did him. But here there's nothing ambiguous about the fact that Pope fouled Silva. You can see the foul in the replay. But still some Burnley fans are denying that reality, either because they like feeling injustice or because they're just blind.

Bin Ont Turf · Post by **Bin Ont Turf** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:58 am

It's a good job you're a neutral then.

BurnCK · Post by **BurnCK** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 11:00 am

Soft or not there's definite contact. You can clearly see Silva's foot under Pope's knee. I'd even go as far as to say it looks like it's caused him to go over on his ankle looking at the angle of his foot.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 11:00 am

I reckon Sean Dyche wont be concerned whether it was or not. He'll will probably feel it was a credible performance against a team of footballing super stars, taking the positives from that, and already preparing for the next game against Newcastle.

He'll be more concerned, like me, that Wood's injury is not serious.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 11:01 am

Bin Ont Turf wrote:It's a good job you're a neutral then.

Yeah

because i clearly don't support Burnley. That's why i disagree with you. What other possible reason could there be, right?

Bin Ont Turf · Post by **Bin Ont Turf** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 11:06 am

At what point will you be thinking, well it doesn't really matter, the ref gave the penalty so I can just leave it at that?

Another bloated thread because someone HAS' to have the last word.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 11:08 am

Bin Ont Turf wrote:At what point will you be thinking, well it doesn't really matter, the ref gave the penalty so I can just leave it at that?

Another bloated thread because someone HAS' to have the last word.

So wait a minute. I shoudl just leave it at that, but no one else? Like the OP who started this thread? Everyone else who shared an opinion and posted more than once? Just me?

But to answer your question, i think when people stop getting triggered by me having a dissenting opinion, that's when i'll stop sharing it. Like for example those who bring into question my loyalty to Burnley every time i don't blindly follow the herd. Or those who tell me i should shut up about football and stick to politics. The more people do that, the more i'm going to enjoy it.