Lol what sort of question is this
The levels of false equivalence are off the scale here, proper made me giggle
I mean you could just answer the question, it was a complicated one.
Lol what sort of question is this
The levels of false equivalence are off the scale here, proper made me giggle
I think if every push, shove, lean, shoulder barge in the back, shirt pull, arm tug, palm off, hip throw, jumping-player-leg-clean-out, is punished, no game would get past 20 minutes.Wait, so you do think Silva should have been sent off?
What's the point, the logic of the question is so deeply flawedI mean you could just answer the question, it was a complicated one.
What's the point, the logic of the question is so deeply flawed
Suggest you look up false equivalence, might help you with your critical thinking going forward. There's quite a lot of long and complicated words in here though, so suggest you use your theasaurus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
But the Silva incident was none of these things?I think if every push, shove, lean, shoulder barge in the back, shirt pull, arm tug, palm off, hip throw, jumping-player-leg-clean-out, is punished, no game would get past 20 minutes.
The problem is the application, either it is a contact sport or its not. The var issue of dragging the video back over a minute to find a foul to over rule a goal is another abomination.
West ham will have to cut staff and contracts and curtail transfer spending as well as possibly have to sell a few star players. There'll be bleating galore. But they weren't bothered when they fielded tevez and mascherano against the rules and stayed up at sheff utd's expense.
Either the rules are for everyone, or the rules are for no one. The ambiguity and preferential treatment is why so many are switching off.
I think if people are getting sent off for pulling hair,Silva absolutely should have saw red for punching the Brentford defender in the leg.Pushing someone with your forearm with a clenched fist = apparently the clenched fist is important.
Pushing someone with your forearm whilst doing a peace sign = won't answer the question because you know it's not actually important.
I think if people are getting sent off for pulling hair,Silva absolutely should have saw red for punching the Brentford defender in the leg.
Thats just my tenpenth.
The vid doesn't show he was or wasnt stood on.But the Silva incident was none of these things?
And yes, it's a contact sport and for disclosure I am completely on your side, I find like you that the game has been completely over sanitised. I've had enough of defenders or attackers waiting for contact, going down, holding the ball, and getting a guaranteed free kick.
But in this incident the sport wasn't being played, it was having a break, the ball was dead. Not sure you can lash out at someone when the ball is dead and argue against punishment on the grounds that the game is going soft
Hitting someone with your forearm, but your fist is clenched - sign of intent, likely attempt to punch the person, cause more harm - therefore relevant given the written rules of the game.Pushing someone with your forearm with a clenched fist = apparently the clenched fist is important.
Pushing someone with your forearm whilst doing a peace sign = won't answer the question because you know it's not actually important.
Hitting someone with your forearm, but your fist is clenched - sign of intent, likely attempt to punch the person, cause more harm - therefore relevant given the written rules of the game.
Hitting someone with your forearm, but you're making a peace sign - suggests that in fact you are an advocate of pacifism, and should be awarded the nobel peace price.
Given the levels of maturity in your reasoning, let me explain it to you like I would my 2 year old nephew.
What you're doing here is this:
Thing 1 and thing 2 both share characteristic A.
Therefore, things 1 and 2 are equal.
But here's the thing. Thing 1 actually happened in reality. Thing 2 never would, because why in the hell would anyone do that.
"I made a fist with my hand your honour because if I'd had my fingers spread the chances are I'd have blinded him on the contact we'd inevitably make" ?Hitting someone with your forearm, but your fist is clenched - sign of intent, likely attempt to punch the person, cause more harm - therefore relevant given the written rules of the game.
Hitting someone with your forearm, but you're making a peace sign - suggests that in fact you are an advocate of pacifism, and should be awarded the nobel peace price.
Given the levels of maturity in your reasoning, let me explain it to you like I would my 2 year old nephew.
What you're doing here is this:
Thing 1 and thing 2 both share characteristic A.
Therefore, things 1 and 2 are equal.
But here's the thing. Thing 1 actually happened in reality. Thing 2 never would, because why in the hell would anyone do that.
No, no, just off balance and facing the other way. He lashed out behind him didn't he, took a swing and hoped he made contact. The point is is that it was a strike, not a shove, and the clenched fist forms part of the evidence that demonstrates that... therefore triggering the threshold for violent conduct and a straight red card.If you go to punch someone, you punch them, you don't hit them with the side of your arm, unless you're suggesting he's just incredibly bad at punching?
You're falling apart badly here, by the way.
No, no, just off balance and facing the other way. He lashed out behind him didn't he, took a swing and hoped he made contact. The point is is that it was a strike, not a shove, and the clenched fist forms part of the evidence that demonstrates that... therefore triggering the threshold for violent conduct and a straight red card.
Think you're losing sight a little of what I am arguing for here. I'm not saying that what Silva did was a heinous act of bodily harm and he should be tried in a court of law. I'm saying that, according with the action, the mitigating factors and by the laws of the game, that's a red card in my opinion. But I've said it before and I'll say it again - you seem to disagree with that interpretation and that's fine. I know that you don't agree with me about, well, pretty much anything I say on here.
And again; there just isn't any need for the demeaning, arrogant and provocative semi-personal jibes is there? But I've pulled you up on that before. I think you get quite the enjoyment out of it
I just don't get the logic that because we (wrongly) didn't get the decision when Pablo fouled Pickford, then that means that they also shouldn't have given it today. That would by definition also be wrong, so are we now saying that consistent errors across the board is better? Yes, we should have got that decision, but it was also right to give it today if the incidents were pretty much the same.
50% right is no good, but 100% wrong is worse.
Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.