Sing along: 'we know who you are...we know who you arrrrrr

[Peter R]

For Mosiah... I'm glad you prefaced your comment with "IF"... :bigup
Anyway, Paul setting a SAT test for you. Here is an easier one; you can actually get 100% on THIS one

To help you out, or anyone else like HL, who would like to take it, here is a some help. The question follows:

TRIP
intransitive verb
1
a : to dance, skip, or caper with light quick steps
b : to walk with light quick steps
2
: to catch the foot against something so as to stumble
3
: to make a mistake or false step (as in morality or accuracy)
4
: to stumble in articulation when speaking
5
: to make a journey
6
a : to actuate a mechanism
b : to become operative
7
a : to get high on a psychedelic drug (as LSD) : turn on —often used with out
b slang : freak 3b
Transitive verb
1
a : to cause to stumble —often used with up
b : to cause to fail : obstruct —often used with up
2
: to detect in a misstep, fault, or blunder; also : expose —usually used with up
3
archaic : to perform (as a dance) lightly or nimbly
4
: to raise (an anchor) from the bottom so as to hang free
5
a : to pull (a yard) into a perpendicular position for lowering
b : to hoist (a topmast) far enough to enable the fid to be withdrawn preparatory to housing or lowering
6
: to release or operate (a mechanism) especially by releasing a catch or detent <trip the fire alarm>
— trip the light fantastic
: dance
See trip defined for English-language learners »

Examples of TRIP

He deliberately tried to trip me.
The dancers tripped off the stage.

QUESTION: Can you "trip" someone without touching them?


True or False?

[Rockman]

Nothing is etched in stone hence it is up to the referee's judgement.
No contact of the ball first likely will result in a foul but no contact of the player is probably a foul.
Let me ask you this,if a player tries unsuccessfully to 'hand' the ball in his 18,should a penalty be called?
Rafael did not get away with murder.

[Mosiah]

Not answering unnu fool-fool question dem.

I'm simply saying this - these fouls happen every day at every level of football. It's the first time I've read so much "stuff"in trying to justify Suarez' stumble. I expect this from Karl. He has the inimitable ability, or so I thought, to rationalise anything. Tappa makes a bad pass - the receiver did not read the play.

Hey, the goalkeeper tump dung Suarez. If unnu look closely, di goalie ***** him wid right fist seconds after him miss di ball.

Look good!

[Paul Marin]

No, Paul Marin. Yuh either answering the question or yuh not.

I guess you won't answer it.

My final answer - if Suarez was not tripped by the goalkeeper, then it is simulation, a dive, and he, Suarez, should have been yellow carded for unsporting behaviour.

I will take on this one:
Q4: 6 (all of the above!)

You know - i never took you for a coward. Fraidy cat! And by the way - your score on the test is ZERO - I expect that from Jangle, but you Mo? I am so hurt and disappointed after me grow you from time. Anyway, the FACT is that Suarez WAS tripped by the keeper, so your hypothetical is without foundation. Of course, if any player dives (which Suarez did not), then they should be sanctioned accordingly.

[Mosiah]

In my very first post on the matter I said it was not clear whether or not he was tripped (contact made) by the goalie, and I gave the referee the benefit of the doubt.

What befuddles me now is, if you think he was tripped by the goalie, then why the need for the ridiculous rationalizations and contortions that you and PR have been going thru? Unless you'd like to offer your meaning of the word "trip"?

Cirque du Suarez to rah!

[Paul Marin]

In my very first post on the matter I said it was not clear whether or not he was tripped (contact made) by the goalie, and I gave the referee the benefit of the doubt.

What befuddles me now is, if you think he was tripped by the goalie, then why the need for the ridiculous rationalizations and contortions that you and PR have been going thru? Unless you'd like to offer your meaning of the word "trip"?

Cirque du Suarez to rah!

No contortions Mo - just trying to educate. The problem is that most people dont understand the law, and because they don't, and Suarez is involved, they get on their witch hunt horse. To be clear, Suarez DID NOT HAVE TO BE TOUCHED to be fouled...so remove "contact" from your analysis.

[Mosiah]

I was not one of those who was quick to condemn him. Like I said, I gave the ref the benefit of the doubt, ergo Suarez also had the benefit of said doubt.

In this specific situation, contact must be made for it to be a penalty for me. No contact, even if Suarez was taking evasive action so as not to tear off the goalie head? NO FOUL! Play on!

[Peter R]

Read so much "stuff"?... who cast the first stone?? (I know it's not you)... but you're not being totally honest by what I read... you talk bout giving the benefit of doubt, and a video suggests the ref is correct. So it should be matter fixed, but you still refer to "stumble"... no wonder, you wi read "so much stuff"...

[HL]

jeezaz chriss PR...why are you giving me flash-backs of being in Miss. Jordans Grade 6 Class!!??

Transitive and intransitive verbs..one take and the other does not take an object....

BTW, did you know that Saurez did not actually bite (whats his name) on the ear? That it was actually a nibble? A bet yu didden know dat?

[Paul Marin]

I was not one of those who was quick to condemn him. Like I said, I gave the ref the benefit of the doubt, ergo Suarez also had the benefit of said doubt.

In this specific situation, contact must be made for it to be a penalty for me. No contact, even if Suarez was taking evasive action so as not to tear off the goalie head? NO FOUL! Play on!

Sorry - but that's where you need to understand the law. It has nothing to do with what you and I *think* should be right, but rather with what the law says. And that law does not stipulate that contact must be made to be penalized. And if he went down trying to take evasive action as a result of the goalie's charge - even more so. Ah just so it go based on the law. Is who did "highly rate" you as a ref? HL?

[Paul Marin]

Nothing is etched in stone hence it is up to the referee's judgement.
No contact of the ball first likely will result in a foul but no contact of the player is probably a foul.
Let me ask you this,if a player tries unsuccessfully to 'hand' the ball in his 18,should a penalty be called?
Rafael did not get away with murder.

No - you cannot call a penalty for an attempted hand ball. You can call a foul for attempting to do other things however.

[Paul Marin]

jeezaz chriss PR...why are you giving me flash-backs of being in Miss. Jordans Grade 6 Class!!??

Transitive and intransitive verbs..one take and the other does not take an object....

BTW, did you know that Saurez did not actually bite (whats his name) on the ear? That it was actually a nibble? A bet yu didden know dat?

Tap u nize!!! Everybady know seh u did fail di class!! KMT. Now galang before mi bax u.

[Mosiah]

This seems like your opinion, Paul Marin, so I'm not gonna even sweat it! Just hold dis - YUH WRANG!

FIFA referee, Karl, did rate mi highly when I was a referee.

[HL]

pleeze leave mi outa dis.

So because Mosiah is objective, and don't agree you on ONE case--means he could not be a good ref?

I wait patiently for Saurez to fuuuk-up again (which he will)...and you defending him for all it's worth.

Must lift my 'at to you and Marin though...you are true scousers.

[Paul Marin]

This seems like your opinion, Paul Marin, so I'm not gonna even sweat it! Just hold dis - YUH WRANG!

FIFA referee, Karl, did rate mi highly when I was a referee.

What am I wrong about? I am only telling you what the law says. Is there an update to it that says contact is a prerequisite? If you all wanted to argue about a tiefin penalty, the one that Liverpool got against Stoke was a better one to put forth...but hey, there was contact in that one, so maybe not. Seriously - where am I wrong? And as for Karl being the one that rated you..nuff said.