Nani's goal............................

[Karl]

Unsporting? Last I checked he turned to the ref who said play on.

Agree with you that the ref signaled...
I suppose some would be charitable and interpret the ref's action as
'one of bemusement'!

[Lazie]

Agree with you that the ref signaled...
I suppose some would be charitable and interpret the ref's action as
'one of bemusement'!

I don't see what yuh fussing about. Did you see the ref's position when Nani touched the ball with his hand? What if the ref didn't see that? Stop trying to Manatt the issue. Gomes messed up. As a matter of fact he wasn't taking a free kick. He has a habit of throwing down the ball to boot up field. Thats what he was doing, not seeing that Nani was behind him.

[Karl]

I don't see what yuh fussing about. Did you see the ref's position when Nani touched the ball with his hand? What if the ref didn't see that? Stop trying to Manatt the issue. Gomes messed up. As a matter of fact he wasn't taking a free kick. He has a habit of throwing down the ball to boot up field. Thats what he was doing, not seeing that Nani was behind him.

Yuh affi fi laff when yuh seh dat bout not preparing to take a free-kick!

[HL]

Paul, you are the ongle one who addresed my second statement.

If the table was turned...and Spurs did the same thing...I hardly think the ref would have awarded them the goal.

[Lazie]

Paul, you are the ongle one who addresed my second statement.

If the table was turned...and Spurs did the same thing...I hardly think the ref would have awarded them the goal.

Wouldn't happen. VDS always check behind him before putting down the ball.

[Jangle]

Wouldn't happen. Any sensible goalie always check behind him before putting down the ball.

I corrected it for you Mr. President.

[Peter R]

You miss the point.... it's not about the goalie...

[Paul Marin]

Unsporting? Last I checked he turned to the ref who said play on.

Lazie - don't misunderstand me. Nani had to do what he did after the ref signalled. Had he not done it, and Spurs booted the ball up the field and scored, then all s*it would have broken out at the tylit. That said, it was only "unsporting" because he clearly had to have known that he hugged up the ball and the restart of an intentional handball is a freekick.

[Lazie]

Lazie - don't misunderstand me. Nani had to do what he did after the ref signalled. Had he not done it, and Spurs booted the ball up the field and scored, then all s*it would have broken out at the tylit. That said, it was only "unsporting" because he clearly had to have known that he hugged up the ball and the restart of an intentional handball is a freekick.

Huh? Lets see ... Torres commits a foul and the ref says play on, Liverpool regain possession and Torres score ... is that "unsporting"? Or is it there is a different standard for MU in your books?

There is nothing unsporting about it.

[Paul Marin]

Huh? Lets see ... Torres commits a foul and the ref says play on, Liverpool regain possession and Torres score ... is that "unsporting"? Or is it there is a different standard for MU in your books?

There is nothing unsporting about it.

There is no question both goals should stand, and it was Kuyt who scored, not Torres. Public opinion on Nani's goal is clearly far more divisive than on Kuyt's goal. My sense is that this is because Nani was directly involved in creating the infraction in the first place so there could have been no confusion on his part that he handled the ball. Still, Gomes was at fault. He should at very least have stood up on the ball until he was clear about the ref's stand on the situation. Nani didn't do himself any favours with neutrals with his celebration either - you would have thought he buried it over a wall from 35 yards the way him was going on.

And yes, there is a different standard for Manure: "The assistant referee, Simon Beck, obviously saw something as he raised his flag. Clattenburg went to confer with his assistant but first waved away any Spurs players whilst allowing Manchester United's Rio Ferdinand to participate in the discussion." (Nick Webster) - Nuff said.

[Lazie]

There is no question both goals should stand, and it was Kuyt who scored, not Torres. Public opinion on Nani's goal is clearly far more divisive than on Kuyt's goal. My sense is that this is because Nani was directly involved in creating the infraction in the first place so there could have been no confusion on his part. Still, Gomes was at fault. He should at very least have stood up on the ball until he was clear about the ref's stand on the situation. Nani didn't do himself any favours with his celebration either - you would have thought he buried it over a wall from 35 yards the way him was going on.

And yes, there is a different standard for Manure: "The assistant referee, Simon Beck, obviously saw something as he raised his flag. Clattenburg went to confer with his assistant but first waved away any Spurs players whilst allowing Manchester United's Rio Ferdinand to participate in the discussion." (Nick Webster) - Nuff said.

I was giving an example, wasn't aware of Kuyt's action. Ferdinand was participating in the discussion? Really?

Anyway, "There is no question both goals should stand" we nuh have no dispute then.

[Jangle]

All this preamble is unnecessary.

"There is no question both goals should stand, and it was Kuyt who scored, not Torres. Public opinion on Nani's goal is clearly far more divisive than on Kuyt's goal. My sense is that this is because Nani was directly involved in creating the infraction in the first place so there could have been no confusion on his part that he handled the ball."


The bottomline is:

"Still, Gomes was at fault. He should at very least have stood up on the ball until he was clear about the ref's stand on the situation."


END OF STORY.

[Paul Marin]

All this preamble is unnecessary.

"There is no question both goals should stand, and it was Kuyt who scored, not Torres. Public opinion on Nani's goal is clearly far more divisive than on Kuyt's goal. My sense is that this is because Nani was directly involved in creating the infraction in the first place so there could have been no confusion on his part that he handled the ball."


The bottomline is:

"Still, Gomes was at fault. He should at very least have stood up on the ball until he was clear about the ref's stand on the situation."


END OF STORY.

Eedy-boo, I said from the beginning that there is no question that the goal should stand, but also said that Nani's actions "may" have been unsporting. Your president didn't agree that it was unsporting and introduced another point of inflection that there is a different standard for manu** than everyone else implying that Kuyt's goal then must also be unsporting. I pointed out that public opinion is far more polarized against Nani than Kuyt and then reiterated - as I said from the beginning - that the goal should stand. I then pointed to a third party (Webster) who seems to agree with your president, that there is a different standard for manu** in that they get preferential treatment (but I don't think that was what your president had in mind).

Then you shub fi yu mout' inna di conversation, only to punctuate what I had been saying from the start. Instead of advancing the discussion, maybe with agreeing with Webster or agreeing that Nani was unsporting, you reel wi back to square one to go over a point on which we already agree.

If you had been paying attention, you wouldn't be wearing that dunce cap and serving detention today. An' mine yu response b4 I give yu a canin' on top of it!

[Jangle]

Eedy-boo, I said from the beginning that there is no question that the goal should stand, but also said that Nani's actions "may" have been unsporting. Your president didn't agree that it was unsporting and introduced another point of inflection that there is a different standard for manu** than everyone else implying that Kuyt's goal then must also be unsporting. I pointed out that public opinion is far more polarized against Nani than Kuyt and then reiterated - as I said from the beginning - that the goal should stand. I then pointed to a third party (Webster) who seems to agree with your president, that there is a different standard for manu** in that they get preferential treatment (but I don't think that was what your president had in mind).

Then you shub fi yu mout' inna di conversation, only to punctuate what I had been saying from the start. Instead of advancing the discussion, maybe with agreeing with Webster or agreeing that Nani was unsporting, you reel wi back to square one to go over a point on which we already agree.

If you had been paying attention, you wouldn't be wearing that dunce cap and serving detention today. An' mine yu response b4 I give yu a canin' on top of it!

Paul Marin is back!!!!!! Blah, blah, blah. i think yuh hanging around wid Karl too much. Of late unuh start look alike.

[Paul Marin]

Paul Marin is back!!!!!! Blah, blah, blah. i think yuh hanging around wid Karl too much. Of late unuh start look alike.

Now, I warned you to min' you' response, now yu come wid dis insubordination. Report to the headmaster's office immediately...an' don' try pad u backside wid no exercise book needa...six extra lashes for comparing me to Karl!!!

--- this is going to be you ---> after the headmaster dun wid u!!