Originally posted by Craig_H
View Post
-
He was clearly trying to influence the ref though, can't you see that?Hello mert. -
Agreed, and besides it is a clear rule break, a rule all managers are very much aware of. Only got himself to blame. Like Neil said if he can't control his mouth that's his problem.Originally posted by Fivex View PostThanks very much for being ‘This Mornings’ Farmer’Comment
-
Originally posted by Shaggy View Post
It's like us being able to accumulate up to 12 points for each individual type of driving offense before getting a ban.Hello mert.Comment
-
Because it's a different offence.Originally posted by Shaggy View Post.
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post.Comment
-
Speeding, jumping lights etc are all different offences but you still get points on the same licence.
He continually undermines referees, imparts pressure on them, speaks out of turn etc. I don't see it as a different offence.Thanks very much for being ‘This Mornings’ Farmer’Comment
-
And you only get 1 type of yellow card on the pitch, so why is it different off the pitch?Hello mert.Comment
-
Well, yeah, you can find an analogy if you want. I'm merely trying to find an explanation for how it might actually be working..
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post.Comment
-
YES I've won a debate with Neil
Thanks very much for being ‘This Mornings’ Farmer’Comment
-
Well the yellow card point isn't an analogy, it should be a direct comparison.Hello mert.Comment
-
No, you haven't. You're just trying to find reasons why your point of view is right, while ignoring other explanations.
You might be right in Shaggyworld though.
.
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post.Comment
-
Says you.Originally posted by Fivex View Post
Any reason why?
You and Shaggy are missing the point that this rule hasn't been enforced regularly, if at all, before. So suddenly enforcing it now, without warning, is against natural justice..
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post.Comment
-
So it's agreed then, I'm the winner!
Thanks very much for being ‘This Mornings’ Farmer’Comment
-
Originally posted by Shaggy View PostSo it's agreed then, I'm the winner!
In your mind, you look like this:
In reality you look like this:
.
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post.Comment
-
Thanks very much for being ‘This Mornings’ Farmer’Comment
-
Comment
Comment