it is a test in law, often referred to as the man on the Clapham Omnibus, ie the average kinda bloke. Throwing it into a sentence and then continuing with your agenda isn't really how is normally used though.
- Status
it is a test in law, often referred to as the man on the Clapham Omnibus, ie the average kinda bloke. Throwing it into a sentence and then continuing with your agenda isn't really how is normally used though.
KaiserEFC
Player Valuation: £70m
someone who takes precautions against doing harm only where doing so would be less costly than paying for the harm itself with a discount for the improbability of its occurrence. According to google.
I don’t understand how any of that remotely pertains to the point Lampard was raising?
windymiller
Player Valuation: £50m
I honestly don't see what the motivation for a conspiracy against us would be? Most football fans couldn't care less about us and I'm not sure the authorities give us too much thought either. In Ancelotti's full lockdown season we got quite a few dodgy decisions, the handball penalty at Crystal Palace springs immediately to mind, but I don't think that was intentional either. It's just a coincidence. What is not a coincidence is how many decisions the scab six get, but you can see the commercial motivation behind that. The PL don't care if we win, lose or draw and I don't think they care if we are relegated or not either.
Saint Domingo
Player Valuation: £80m
Basically ‘you might be right but please don’t insult our favourite team and call out our massive bias so here’s a fine’
Lobster Johnson
Player Valuation: £35m
Hopefully he payed them in smash.
I think it was corruption, but on a small case/from an individual. Danny Murphy obviously doesnt like us/loves the RS and should not have been anywhere near making a decision on that incident (i don't know what particular insight he was expected to provide). Didn't he make a post match MOTD comment a few years ago, that a RS player shouldn't have been sent off? When it was pointed out that it was a blatant red card he said 'i don't care, he shouldn't have been sent off because he plays for Liverpool'. Tongue in cheek perhaps, but the fact that he genuinly tried to argue against it showsed that he's not fit to be a pundit.
bring back the catt
Player Valuation: £8m
Dunno if he was on the actual committee, but he was certainly involved in a pretty influential capacity.
This was at the time when Deli Alli was being criticised for continual 'going to ground easily' issues. The Screaming Skull Murphy used the same words to describe the incidents in such a way that Oumar received the ban (shock) but Alli was not (shock).
What the Poisoned Reptile said about Oumar was,' He was touched, but he went down easily'.
Whereas for Alli he changed the emphasis saying,' He went down easily, but he was touched'.
At that point the whole emphasis was changed from 'going down easily' to one' that he was touched'.
Murphy got the verdict he wanted while all the time trying to appear neutral in the procedure. To ensure he got that decision he even appointed that fine upright ex Soto and Blackburn winger Stuart Lino Ripley to be on the panel. If anybody knew about diving it was this cheat, who really would have been perfect for the rs such were his antics.
All in all, a loathsome episode from a despicable cheat named Murphy. Nothing changes.
bring back the catt
Player Valuation: £8m
In addition, Murphy declined from asking the opinion of the referee of that match his verdict until the day AFTER the sentence had been passed.
The matchday ref said he reviewed the incident from several angles after the game. He stated that he had not been misled as there was a shirt pull, a leg from a defender impeding the run of the player and a push in the back. His view that the penalty was the correct decision.
The rest, as they say, is geography.
bring back the catt
Player Valuation: £8m
And a player banned for not cheating. So, everything is fine it seems.
bring back the catt
Player Valuation: £8m
The handball penalty against Palace was, at that time, the correct one, at that time. Yet another of the useless FA tinkering rule changes which was aborted soon after.
bring back the catt
Player Valuation: £8m
Of course they would, and would still be doing it today had it not been for much public debate about the absolute nonsense of it.
It was another ploy for the FA to punish well known, but inconsequential teams, to deter other such non-descript teams trying to do similar. Whilst meanwhile, the Scab Six could continue to do such acts with impunity. It was devised to make the divide even wider because while the bans for Everton and West ham players was going on, so was the rampant diving of their 'pet' clubs, without sanction.
KaiserEFC
Player Valuation: £70m
Tbh I think they just wanted to validate their new panel and they picked the earliest example they could. Niasse went down under minimal contact like he’d stepped on a landmine and we still got the penalty so it didn’t really matter anyway, the bloke was no loss.
bring back the catt
Player Valuation: £8m
I believe we all miss the game we grew up loving @arch stanton, I most certainly do. If it isn't Everton these days, I don't bother viewing any more.
The introduction of the Premier league (initiated by Everton unfortunately) brought about the new game called football. The invention of football in 1992 brought unreal riches into the game. Real riches results in real, let's just say, decision making from those with interests more to do with wealth than any real love of the game. The new kids on the block sold their soul and integrity as they all took the King's Shilling.
Interfered with by the FA, because they can; ruined by career officials, because they can; reported on by utter biased cretins, because they can: All paid for by SLY TV. Because they do.
bring back the catt
Player Valuation: £8m
Not entirely convinced, but it is an opinion and I am not about to fall out, as it were, with a fellow Blue.
My interpretation was that he was impeded, and running at speed, almost any contact will down a player. I won't use the usual lines that others do it and get away with it as I do not believe two wrongs should ever make a right.
My stance, is that not only was it a penalty, but a ban was completely wrong. See previous posts regarding the Allan incident.
My main gripe was that we were awarded a penalty, which was the correct decision, then we lost a player for not cheating. Now that IS wrong.
You may recall, that at that time Oumar was probably our only player who was scoring. Without his goals we would have been up a certain creek without a certain implement. He may not have been a 'loss' in the great scheme of things, but his goals would have been.
KaiserEFC
Player Valuation: £70m
I don’t like the way he went down but I can’t disagree with anything you say at all especially retrospectively banning a player when a penalty was given on the field which is tbf something I hadn’t thought of
- Status
