Penalty Incident

Still don't get it.

 

Really? well I suggest you do some research

http://www.google.co.uk

Start from there and do some digging

 

Willie Collum is a Catholic!
(edit.just realised that had already been posted)
He isnt a hun whatever way you look at it.I think he just made a call, and the fact we are so divided, makes you realise how hard a call it was to make.

Myself i think he was clipped, but could easily have stayed on his feet.He dived, pure and simple and that sideways view clip makes the dive look even worse.He went down like a sack of spuds! Could easily have been given though.

 

So let me get this straight,you say he is clipped yet he dived gies peace its 1 or the other.And 2 what the * has wullie collums religion got to do with how bad his decisions are eh

 

Yes he felt contact,and was clipped....but exaggerated the contact and went down heavily.He made no attempt to stay on his feet, which may have cost him the penalty.(in my humble opinion!)

 

So he was clipped then which in my opinion no matter what action afterwards makes it a penalty aye or naw.Still has * all to do with collums religion either

 

If he's clipped as you have said then that makes it a penalty, no matter whether Stokes exaggerated or not.

 

I know he is an uncle tom? well you tell me, the last Catholic ref was ridiculed for being a tim, Steve Conroy so it's not so silly to think that another well known Catholic ref has to toe the line. But Wharton. McCluskey, McDonald and Dallas would you like to make excuses for them too?

 

Read the previous posts.


Re the contact...well i dont know the exact rules in football, but im pretty sure it is still a contact sport, and i dont think the contact in itself would have seen him go down if it was 2 guys playing in a park.I think he would have felt it, but stayed on his feet.He exaggerated it too much for me!
Like i said, technically it could have been given, but i think his dive cost him the chance of it been given.I think Collum thought he dived.

 

Well said

 

If there is contact on a player without playing the ball then it is a foul, plain and simple. As I have already said though, we didn't really deserve anything today and it sums up how poor we were that we are needing a penalty in the last minute just to get a draw against Killie

 

Any contact?

 

You really need to read the fifa directive a tackle from behind in which contact is made is illegal it doesnt say HOW much contact or IF the so called player has made the most of it.And as for reading previous posts yes what has collums religion got to do with how bad a decision he has made.

 

Yes.

 

Every post I read of yours in a lot of threads on a lot of subjects always has to be "controversial" shall we say? but you always back it up with utter pish, so all I can say is just wrap it for once

 

Says the Ron Paul fan!

Ok...i'll take the bait.How is my post "controversial"?What is this "utter pish"?

Less than 60% believe it was a penalty, and yet my post is controversial?

 

Mate im too tired.
Read from post 171 onwards, including my edit from my first post.

 

Bait? and who the * is Ron Paul?

Well I've read a lot of your stuff in the history and politics section so....

Your post is controversial because you enter the discussion and immediately spouted * about referees religion (nice job of dodging my first reply by the way ) a true houdini move :bbpd: but this is you all in a nutshell, I've nothing against you personally, you're probably a nice guy but your posts antagonise people

 

I didnt dodge your first question, i didnt see it.I seen ridgleyboy's post first and responded to it, without noticing yours.

I personally dont believe he is an Uncle Tom.I dont believe there is a referee club with an agenda against us.Some individuals may have one, but i do not believe that Collum is aware of such a thing, and has turned a blind eye for a career....nor do i think anyone else has for that matter.If there is a club within the club, then that is a different matter.

 

50/50 decision