• Current Donation Goals

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Sleeping Dave

Media and referees: Tracking decisions and post-game reactions towards the top 5

Recommended Posts

Zoowraa   

Nice way of avoiding your complete lack of understanding of what this thread was supposed to be about.

You still don get it. Well done.

You would have to be a moron to not get it. It is self explanatory. Why because I question you, does that mean I don't get it. It's very simple to get.

You still keep avoiding the point you want to compare . The ref in question gave two different decisions. I have mentioned this about four times now and at no point have you acknowledged this. You want to compare two different decisions. Of course the punishment will be different in these scenarios, because the ref gave two different decisions.

If the decisions he gave were the same,but with different punishment, then that is worth noting. But he didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You would have to be a moron to not get it. It is self explanatory. Why because I question you, does that mean I don't get it. It's very simple to get.

And yet you fail.

Let me spell this out for you Zoowraa before I leave for my cult meeting at 8 o'clock.

The thread was supposed to highlight how referees continuously gives us the short end of the stick. To do so, one will have to analyse what referees do when it's for us but also when it is against us. So when a similar situation less than 12 months apart reffed by the same ref occurs I think that is relevant for the point I was trying to make. You don't. Fine. I told you several times that this thread probably wasn't for you but you didn't let it lie. You kept on going complainin I coloured it in some way. Line a teenage girl if I may. A grown up would have accepted the first of about 15 explanations and decided it wasn't for them. That's not the approach you chose.

You completely failed to realise that although I'm gathering the info, I am of course allowed to have my own opinion. This irked you in some way it seems. It's funny you proceed to accuse me of your own mistakes.

The thread was also about showing how we get the short end of the stick from the media and how those two things, over the course of the season amasses to a serious problem when combined.

Now if you get it you do. If you don't, you don't. I really couldn't care less to be honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet you fail.

Let me spell this out for you Zoowraa before I leave for my cult meeting at 8 o'clock.

The thread was supposed to highlight how referees continuously gives us the short end of the stick. To do so, one will have to analyse what referees do when it's for us but also when it is against us. So when a similar situation less than 12 months apart reffed by the same ref occurs I think that is relevant for the point I was trying to make. You don't. Fine. I told you several times that this thread probably wasn't for you but you didn't let it lie. You kept on going complainin I coloured it in some way. Line a teenage girl if I may. A grown up would have accepted the first of about 15 explanations and decided it wasn't for them. That's not the approach you chose.

You completely failed to realise that although I'm gathering the info, I am of course allowed to have my own opinion. This irked you in some way it seems. It's funny you proceed to accuse me of your own mistakes.

The thread was also about showing how we get the short end of the stick from the media and how those two things, over the course of the season amasses to a serious problem when combined.

Now if you get it you do. If you don't, you don't. I really couldn't care less to be honest.

So you admit that your "research" is biased from the start. Pointless exercise as you will only ever include "evidence" that agrees with your pre-ordained theory.

I for one am glad you're not going to continue with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zoowraa   

And yet you fail.

Let me spell this out for you Zoowraa before I leave for my cult meeting at 8 o'clock.

The thread was supposed to highlight how referees continuously gives us the short end of the stick. To do so, one will have to analyse what referees do when it's for us but also when it is against us. So when a similar situation less than 12 months apart reffed by the same ref occurs I think that is relevant for the point I was trying to make. You don't. Fine. I told you several times that this thread probably wasn't for you but you didn't let it lie. You kept on going complainin I coloured it in some way. Line a teenage girl if I may. A grown up would have accepted the first of about 15 explanations and decided it wasn't for them. That's not the approach you chose.

You completely failed to realise that although I'm gathering the info, I am of course allowed to have my own opinion. This irked you in some way it seems. It's funny you proceed to accuse me of your own mistakes.

The thread was also about showing how we get the short end of the stick from the media and how those two things, over the course of the season amasses to a serious problem when combined.

Now if you get it you do. If you don't, you don't. I really couldn't care less to be honest.

Thanks for confirming exactly what I knew then. I didn't keep going on complaining about it, if you can find stream of posts to display this then post them . I will apologise straight away, you might find a handful at most. They were also not complaints, it was just me saying either I didn't agree with the biased against, or I was saying we have to compare this alleged biased against with the other top teams.

As soon as that was mentioned, you became very keen to point out others could do what they wanted and it was clear you were not keen on the comparison. It stood out an absolute mile.You ideally just wanted to focus this on the agenda against us.

So I'm well aware what your thread was for. if your so confident about all this, answer the questions below honestly?

You jumped all over Costa should have had a penalty in the Swansea game - yes or no

You kept this going for 4/5 posts claiming agenda- yes or no

You were proven wrong and knee jerk - yes or no

You want to compare punishment from the same referee giving two totally different decisions - yes or no

Yet you wonder why I said it had no credibility ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you admit that your "research" is biased from the start. Pointless exercise as you will only ever include "evidence" that agrees with your pre-ordained theory.

I for one am glad you're not going to continue with this.

It's not biased when you highlight inconsistencies. It's not biased when you give everyone the information so they can make up their own mind.

What's biased is to do research without showing what you've done and then just post your conclusions. That's not at all what I intended to do. As I've said many times now - I offered the evidence AND my own opinion,

I safely assumed that people would be able to tell the difference between the two but maybe that was a mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You jumped all over Costa should have had a penalty in the Swansea game - yes or no

After I had seen the highlight again I clearly stated it wasn't a penalty.

You kept this going for 4/5 posts claiming agenda- yes or no

No, not after I had seen the second replay.

You were proven wrong and knee jerk - yes or no

No.

You want to compare punishment from the same referee giving two totally different decisions - yes or no

Yes. Two wildly different outcomes for essentially the same crime. That's exactly what I wanted to highlight. If you thought that was irrelevant the smart move would have been to ignore it. You didn't so...

Yet you wonder why I said it had no credibility ;)

Yes I do. Still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zoowraa   

I know you didn't carry it on after you saw the replays, I was referring to before that replay. You went knee jerk off the back of seeing it once - yes or no?

So you have answered the questions, kind dodged/ changed one of them. It's obvious that no-one would keep pushing the agenda thing after they were proven wrong. Point is you went knee jerk after seeing it once and brought biased/agenda straight into it.

Now it's your chance to pull up all these posts of mine when I was up in arms , complaining and behaving like a teenage girl ????? Go find them and post them and let's really debate if your claim was accurate ????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know you didn't carry it on after you saw the replays, I was referring to before that replay. You went knee jerk off the back of seeing it once - yes or no?

So you have answered the questions, kind dodged/ changed one of them. It's obvious that no-one would keep pushing the agenda thing after they were proven wrong. Point is you went knee jerk after seeing it once and brought biased/agenda straight into it.

Now it's your chance to pull up all these posts of mine when I was up in arms , complaining and behaving like a teenage girl ????? Go find them and post them and let's really debate if your claim was accurate ????

If you don't mind I rather spend my Saturday doing something else.

Be safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zoowraa   

If you don't mind I rather spend my Saturday doing something else.

Be safe.

Fair enough. Little surprised though, quite happy to compile a huge post to disect the influence of Ramires a few weeks back. It was a very good post which I agreed with. Must of taken a long time though.

I'm sure you would have found the time to produce my numerous teenage girl posts if it was a debate you could actually win and prove your point. Just like you did on the Ramires debate.

Let's just drop it eh.

I'll only accept questions from my disciples ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.