1 point better than 0 point, but truth be

[1of1]

i know he is not nieve, there is a bias in professional sports, as a matter of fact in life on a whole, certain people will get preferential treatment wether it be positive or negative.

As professional as you would like to be their is the human factor, after all the refs are human and will be swayed one way or the other.

[Lazie]

Lazie one of the reasons I continue discussions with you is because it is always an edifying experience; one is you never cease to amaze; anyhow I went to the FIFA website and I copy from the laws of the game:

Cautionable Offences
A player is cautioned and shown the yellow card if he commits any of the
following seven offences:

• unsporting behaviour
• dissent by word or action
• persistent infringement of the Laws of the Game
• delaying the restart of play
• failure to respect the required distance when play is restarted with a cornerkick, free kick or throw-in

• entering or re-entering the

field of play without the referee’s permission

• deliberately leaving the

field of play without the referee’s permission

So my guess is the ref carded Richardson for unsporting behaviour. As I said IMHO he was actually being sporting by passing the ball back for the opponent. Ok so it's the ref's prerogative to judge otherwise.

However, if the refs were to always apply the caution per the seven bulleted points above, there would be a plethora of cards flying right and left. We do not have to go further than point number two. I read lips and I know that there are many players who are not saying "thank you ref" when he blows them for a foul but yet the refs in most cases do not draw out the card. They use discretion. let us jump to delaying the restart... just how much time should a player/team be given to celebrate? rarely do you ever see a player getting a card for celebrating (notwithstanding Adebayor though he was after the fact)why? Because the refs are given discretionary powers in applying the rules. The ref on that day chose to card Richardson for something so trivial it made my spidey senses tingle... anyway as always I leave the last word to you.

No .. delaying the restart of play. Why unuh not fussing about Ferdinand's card? How many players have been carded for the same offense? Unuh need fi stop the pettiness now bredren.

[Paul Marin]

Lazie, you are truly worthy of a scientific study. Your ability to turn twist and obfuscate is of political proportion. I'm going to start calling you Sean Hannity...or maybe Rush Limbaugh!?

[Lazie]

Lazie, you are truly worthy of a scientific study. Your ability to turn twist and obfuscate is of political proportion. I'm going to start calling you Sean Hannity...or maybe Rush Limbaugh!?

Paul, mi back broad bredren. If the rain fall unuh blame Man United, if the sun shine same complaints. You claim the ref did something in Saturday's game and when ask you running around like a headless chicken.

Steve Bruce put the blame where it belonged, the commentators called it before the card was shown, only the bitter loserpool fans try to make it out as something else.

[Paul Marin]

Paul, mi back broad bredren. If the rain fall unuh blame Man United, if the sun shine same complaints. You claim the ref did something in Saturday's game and when ask you running around like a headless chicken.

Steve Bruce put the blame where it belonged, the commentators called it before the card was shown, only the bitter loserpool fans try to make it out as something else.

Lazie, you know, this almost too easy. Peter explained clearly his point. You chose to disagree. This is entirely within your right, as the game is a game of laws, not rules. Unfortunately, your arguments are poorly laid out, weakly defined and appear lacking in any semblance of logic or clarity of forethought so forgive us for not being won over by your erstwhile efforts.

But even so, it is sad that there seems to be always the same pattern with you. When discussions don't unfold to your liking, you resort to desperate defense tactics that predictably degenerate into the politrix of personal attack, calling those that disagree with you names yet you have the cojones to call us "petty".

Like I said, it is truly stunning, overshadowed only by your inability to see how your own hyperbole undermines any potential argument that you may have.

YNWA

[Lazie]

Lazie, you know, this almost too easy. Peter explained clearly his point. You chose to disagree. This is entirely within your right, as the game is a game of laws, not rules. Unfortunately, your arguments are poorly laid out, weakly defined and appear lacking in any semblance of logic or clarity of forethought so forgive us for not being won over by your erstwhile efforts.

But even so, it is sad that there seems to be always the same pattern with you. When discussions don't unfold to your liking, you resort to desperate defense tactics that predictably degenerate into the politrix of personal attack, calling those that disagree with you names yet you have the cojones to call us "petty".

Like I said, it is truly stunning, overshadowed only by your inability to see how your own hyperbole undermines any potential argument that you may have.

YNWA

.. birds of a feather. Again, what did the ref do wrong Saturday? All now you cannot explain. Gwaan play dandy shandy.

[Paul Marin]

.. birds of a feather. Again, what did the ref do wrong Saturday? All now you cannot explain. Gwaan play dandy shandy.

This is exactly what I mean, you refuse to see things you chose not to see, despite others clearly laying out their arguments. You stick to a position despite the facts. Again:

1. Saint Peter stated his opinion here: http://www.reggaeboyzsc.com/forum1/s...959#post191959

2. He further explained his position here: http://www.reggaeboyzsc.com/forum1/s...436#post192436

3. You happened to think that the ref carded him for "delaying the game" (and I agreed with you) http://www.reggaeboyzsc.com/forum1/s...447#post192447 but as always, obfuscated the basic premise that Peter was making by introducing a tangential and unrelated incident.

4. And finally, Saint Peter (and me myself) are not the only ones that believe Wiley's second yellow to Richardson was unnecessary (even if Richardson's actions were daft) http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/spor...late-show.html

[Peter R]

True enough... life (and sport) isn't a level playing field...at the end of the day you have to make the best of your opportunities if and when they come your way...life imitates sport imitates life.

[Lazie]

This is exactly what I mean, you refuse to see things you chose not to see, despite others clearly laying out their arguments. You stick to a position despite the facts. Again:

1. Saint Peter stated his opinion here: http://www.reggaeboyzsc.com/forum1/s...959#post191959

2. He further explained his position here: http://www.reggaeboyzsc.com/forum1/s...436#post192436

3. You happened to think that the ref carded him for "delaying the game" (and I agreed with you) http://www.reggaeboyzsc.com/forum1/s...447#post192447 but as always, obfuscated the basic premise that Peter was making by introducing a tangential and unrelated incident.

4. And finally, Saint Peter (and me myself) are not the only ones that believe Wiley's second yellow to Richardson was unnecessary (even if Richardson's actions were daft) http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/spor...late-show.html

What facts? The fact is you jokers always complain about consistency from the refs. Unuh get consistency and still complain. Why was Ferdinand given a yellow card? Suh how unuh a complain bout Ricardson's yellow? And for the clowns who claimed that Richardson kicked the ball to the spot where the offense took place ... thats a damn lie. Know what .... theres only one way to get to you bitter Loserpool fans ... just imagine it was a Manchester United player that kicked the ball away.

[Paul Marin]

What facts? The fact is you jokers always complain about consistency from the refs. Unuh get consistency and still complain. Why was Ferdinand given a yellow card? Suh how unuh a complain bout Ricardson's yellow? And for the clowns who claimed that Richardson kicked the ball to the spot where the offense took place ... thats a damn lie. Know what .... theres only one way to get to you bitter Loserpool fans ... just imagine it was a Manchester United player that kicked the ball away.

Lazie, are you are well and truly thick as a pair of short stubbed planks or are you pulling my leg? Here are the facts. The game is governed by a series of LAWS, not RULES. Application of a law is interpretive, not definitive.

Peter gave his OPINION, which is VALID based on his interpretation of the LAWS OF THE GAME.

You however, have given nothing but your continued rant and personal attacks. You have not advanced one clear or cohesive argument that provides a neutral any insight into your position other than to be defensive and overtly and personally offensive.

The only part of your ridiculous notions that could reasonably be identified as having any validity is the statement "And for the clowns who claimed that Richardson kicked the ball to the spot where the offense took place ... thats a damn lie.." To this I say two things: first, no one needs to lie, they may have an opinion based on perceptions and possibly not facts; secondly, if they are lying as you say, then please back up your assertions with facts and not hyperbole. So if it is a "lie", then prove it. No need to get hot under the collar.

Cue more ridiculous Lazie rants devoid of facts and rampant with "loserpool" references.

[Lazie]

Lazie, are you are well and truly thick as a pair of short stubbed planks or are you pulling my leg? Here are the facts. The game is governed by a series of LAWS, not RULES. Application of a law is interpretive, not definitive.

Peter gave his OPINION, which is VALID based on his interpretation of the LAWS OF THE GAME.

You however, have given nothing but your continued rant and personal attacks. You have not advanced one clear or cohesive argument that provides a neutral any insight into your position other than to be defensive and overtly and personally offensive.

The only part of your ridiculous notions that could reasonably be identified as having any validity is the statement "And for the clowns who claimed that Richardson kicked the ball to the spot where the offense took place ... thats a damn lie.." To this I say two things: first, no one needs to lie, they may have an opinion based on perceptions and possibly not facts; secondly, if they are lying as you say, then please back up your assertions with facts and not hyperbole. So if it is a "lie", then prove it. No need to get hot under the collar.

Cue more ridiculous Lazie rants devoid of facts and rampant with "loserpool" references.

Continue making reference to Peter R, he is just another bitter Liverpool fan. According to the soccernet gamecast commentary for the game.

Valencia beats Richardson, who then hands him off. Richardson then kicks the ball away, and the referee has no option but to send him and his pigtail off.

The commentators for the game said the ref had to option. Again, you were one that was calling for consistency suh why the bickering now?

[Paul Marin]

As I said "Cue more ridiculous Lazie rants devoid of facts and rampant with "loserpool" references." How predictable.

TEACHER: Now class, one more time, repeat after me: "The game is governed by a series of LAWS, not RULES. Application of a law is interpretive, not definitive."

CHILDREN: "The game is governed by a series of LAWS, not RULES. Application of a law is interpretive, not definitive."

TEACHER: Now remember children, big bad Lazie said "And for the clowns who claimed that Richardson kicked the ball to the spot where the offense took place ... thats a damn lie.." And what did Saint Paul, Master of All that is Wise and Good say to Big Bad Lazie Children?

CHILDREN: "IF IT'S A LIE PROVE IT!"

TEACHER: "And did Big Bad Evil Lazie prove it children?"

CHILDREN: "Noooooooooooooooo"

TEACHER: "What did Big Bad Evil Lazie do instead my kind wonderful children?"

CHILDREN: "He said the commentators said that the ref had no option"

TEACHER: "And is this proof my fuzzy wuzzy children?"

CHILDREN: "Nooooooooooooooooooooooo"

TEACHER: "Why not, my little darlings?"

CHILDREN: "Because Big Bad Lazie didn't prove where Mr. Richardson kicked the ball"

TEACHER: "So who do you think is right children, Saint Paul - Master of All that is Wise and Good, or Big Bad Lazie, purveyor of wickedness and evil?"

CHILDREN: Saint Paul!!!!

TEACHER: "Who?"

CHILDREN: "SAINT PAUL!!!! MASTER OF ALL THAT IS WISE AND GOOD!!!"

TEACHER: "Are you sure it is not Lazie?"

CHILDREN: "Noooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!"

TEACHER: "Why?"

CHILDREN: "Because Big Bad Lazie is the purveyor of wickedness and evil AND HIM DON' MEK NO SENSE EIDA!!!

So, there you have it, out of the mouth of babes...

[Peter R]

[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']I am surmising based on what I read after, that the ref had been distracted or rattled by Fergushon's expletive riddled rant at the fourth official some time before (for which he Slergie should have been banished had the ref followed the letter of the law (paul, thanks for the clarification between rule and law btw). Otherwise he might not have pulled the card so readily, I don’t think it unreasonable to opine that the ref was seeking to appease Flurgie. That is the man's style and it worked for his team...if a suh him roll asuh him roll; maybe I just don't like it. So mek who want to be like a blinkered mule stay inna dem glass house a trow stone. Unlike some my opinion is not formed by what I read on soccernet or whatever; I base it on my own principles so my opinion can always be characterised as "petty" or "bitter", it nuh badda mi; a broad back is not limited to one poster alone.[/FONT]

[Paul Marin]

Peter, the joke is that up to now, Lazie can't back up one thing with fact but quick to call other people bitter, petty and biased. If things don't go his way, that's how his argument degenerates. Talk about people in glass house.

Lazie won't admit it, nor does he probably realise it, but the point that you make about the ref trying to appease Slurgie is not far fetched. The fact of the matter is that Slurgie is a bully. You saw it in this game and you see it with his *alleged* post-game treatment of Foster. It has gotten him where he is, so he considers it effective. It doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar to see the pattern based on the long list of players, referees and other managers who have been victims of his violence. And lest I be accused of bias, there is only one other manager that I can remember who was allowed to get away with that kind of nonsense and it was ex Liverpool player and manager Graeme Souness, a sad little man himself despite an illustrious playing career.

Lazie's bias prevents him from seeing things clearly. You should read that NOTW article that I posted previously. They pretty much sum up what the rest of us realise is happening at the latrine.

[Lazie]

Paul Marin, you've continued to expose yuhself to be a bitter fan. On September 6th you posted this "Like I said, just give me a uniform standard in any given game and I will be happy."
http://www.reggaeboyzsc.com/forum1/s...8&postcount=23

Well, Ferdinand was given a yellow for kicking the ball away yet you complain when the ref exhibited the "uniform standard" you were calling for?

Time unuh cut out the pettiness bredren.