The mancityfans.net football forum

Mikhail Chigorin wrote:Zabba was tripped and the referee gave a penalty, according to the rules of the game correctly applied.

whoops. did i say that it wasnt a penalty? my bad. didnt mean to type that. must've happened in my sleep or something.

soft penalty is what happened to Zaba. stonewall penaty is whenever Jagielka challenges in the box. both are penalties but the action that causes the penalty to be called varies across a wide spectrum. im positing that Zaba's incident was on the lower end of the spectrum. hence, soft.

dazby wrote:Enough of the bullying chaps.

When Phips posts in one thread and gets it fair enough, when he picks the match thread then the zaba thread and then ressurects a year old dead thread about refs to get the response he derserves what he gets.

He literally picked out best performance or at least result in a month or so to get on and wind everyone up and deflate the 1st positive vibe this place has had in a while. He's a cunt. End of.

Provocation is every bit as bad as "bullying", if not worse given the fact the object of the exercise is to rile someone up.

That happens in person and you're getting grief at best and most likely a slap.

That cunt knows well what he's doing. Bullying indeed.

Original Dub wrote:Provocation is every bit as bad as "bullying", if not worse given the fact the object of the exercise is to rile someone up.

That happens in person and you're getting grief at best and most likely a slap.

That cunt knows well what he's doing. Bullying indeed.

Disagree.

Provocation/trolling is not directed at an individual; bullying is.

If you want to take offence at what others write then you are just causing yourself grief; does it really matter what a 'troll', if that's what he is, writes? Surely such a person is to be pitied rather than scorned as trolling is just a way to waste time that could be spent on doing something positive.

Personally I'm undecided between ultra-cynical City fan, knowledgeable City observer, and troll, although leaning towards the ultra-cynical as I look for the best in people and, er, I'm quite cynical myself (as if you hadn't guessed).

phips wrote:

Mikhail Chigorin wrote:Zabba was tripped and the referee gave a penalty, according to the rules of the game correctly applied.

whoops. did i say that it wasnt a penalty? my bad. didnt mean to type that. must've happened in my sleep or something.

soft penalty is what happened to Zaba. stonewall penaty is whenever Jagielka challenges in the box. both are penalties but the action that causes the penalty to be called varies across a wide spectrum. im positing that Zaba's incident was on the lower end of the spectrum. hence, soft.

It wasn't a soft penalty. What you mean is it was a 'soft challenge' that caused the penalty. A penalty is a penalty. How they come about - rash two footed tackle compared to a trip is different.

There's no spectrum for the actual penalty. There is for the challenge though.

dazby wrote:Enough of the bullying chaps.

Bullying? Who? Name names pal.

Ah, fuck it. The place is turning to shit with cunts like you giving it the 'Victim' card. Fucking hate that. Phips is well aware of what he is doing and loves to revel in his trolling, and as such, gets abuse for it.

I'm out.

Beefymcfc wrote:

dazby wrote:Enough of the bullying chaps.

Bullying? Who? Name names pal.

Ah, fuck it. The place is turning to shit with cunts like you giving it the 'Victim' card. Fucking hate that. Phips is well aware of what he is doing and loves to revel in his trolling, and as such, gets abuse for it.

I'm out.

Soft cunt.

Less of the C word lads! I absolutely hate it!!

Mase wrote:Less of the C word lads! I absolutely hate it!!

Carl isn't an IT, he's a real boy.

Just seen the fb post about pep meeting the refs for a discussion. Good to see the clubs pursuing this if true. The consistency is really poor. Bottom of fair play and the likes of scum getting away with two footers on a weekly basis.

We absolutely should be asking these questions.

dazby wrote:

Beefymcfc wrote:

dazby wrote:Enough of the bullying chaps.

Bullying? Who? Name names pal.

Ah, fuck it. The place is turning to shit with cunts like you giving it the 'Victim' card. Fucking hate that. Phips is well aware of what he is doing and loves to revel in his trolling, and as such, gets abuse for it.

I'm out.

Soft cunt.

I'll reserve that comment for yourself. Accusing people of bullying without any context to it. Nothing worse in my book and for that I'll take no part. You and Phips can crack on and I'll just ignore anything either of you have to say.

Have a nice day.

london blue 2 wrote:Just seen the fb post about pep meeting the refs for a discussion. Good to see the clubs pursuing this if true. The consistency is really poor. Bottom of fair play and the likes of scum getting away with two footers on a weekly basis.

We absolutely should be asking these questions.

I'm sure we can add yesterday's foul by Young into the mix and ask why it's one rule for one ...... Etc.

I did think it was just a story though, made up by the Mirror in reaction to Pep's interview.

Beefymcfc wrote:

london blue 2 wrote:Just seen the fb post about pep meeting the refs for a discussion. Good to see the clubs pursuing this if true. The consistency is really poor. Bottom of fair play and the likes of scum getting away with two footers on a weekly basis.

We absolutely should be asking these questions.

I'm sure we can add yesterday's foul by Young into the mix and ask why it's one rule for one ...... Etc.

I did think it was just a story though, made up by the Mirror in reaction to Pep's interview.

Yeah thought that. But I hope there is some truth to it. Need to start applying pressure

london blue 2 wrote:

Beefymcfc wrote:

london blue 2 wrote:Just seen the fb post about pep meeting the refs for a discussion. Good to see the clubs pursuing this if true. The consistency is really poor. Bottom of fair play and the likes of scum getting away with two footers on a weekly basis.

We absolutely should be asking these questions.

I'm sure we can add yesterday's foul by Young into the mix and ask why it's one rule for one ...... Etc.

I did think it was just a story though, made up by the Mirror in reaction to Pep's interview.

Yeah thought that. But I hope there is some truth to it. Need to start applying pressure

Either way, at least it's been highlighted. There was an obvious change in our players attitude in the 2nd half of the Burnley game, as if we tried to ignore the ref. We stayed away from heavy tackles and blatantly kept away from anything the ref had to say - no arguing etc. This continued in the West Ham game and I can't remember us committing many fouls, never mind getting stuck in on the tackles.

I think everybody at the club are now we'll aware of the underlying current of the PL/Sky getting their favoured teams back at the top and impeding teams like us in the process. They won't stand by idolly knowing that the implications of not being in the CL are too great; 100 million great.

dazby wrote:Enough of the bullying chaps.

Yeh I suppose it's a waste of time when the cunt doesn't read 98% of the posts on here

Mase wrote:

phips wrote:

Mikhail Chigorin wrote:Zabba was tripped and the referee gave a penalty, according to the rules of the game correctly applied.

whoops. did i say that it wasnt a penalty? my bad. didnt mean to type that. must've happened in my sleep or something.

soft penalty is what happened to Zaba. stonewall penaty is whenever Jagielka challenges in the box. both are penalties but the action that causes the penalty to be called varies across a wide spectrum. im positing that Zaba's incident was on the lower end of the spectrum. hence, soft.

It wasn't a soft penalty. What you mean is it was a 'soft challenge' that caused the penalty. A penalty is a penalty. How they come about - rash two footed tackle compared to a trip is different.

There's no spectrum for the actual penalty. There is for the challenge though.

true. right you are. fair enough.
although id argue im hardly the first person to use the term "soft penalty".

freshie wrote:

dazby wrote:Enough of the bullying chaps.

Yeh I suppose it's a waste of time when the cunt doesn't read 98% of the posts on here

it really is considering most of the people who lash out are me have been added to my Foe list so i dont even see what they write.
OD, FIBD, DM, Bigblue, rulablue, and others. they're just wasting their time and clogging up the threads.

phips wrote:

Mase wrote:

phips wrote:

Mikhail Chigorin wrote:Zabba was tripped and the referee gave a penalty, according to the rules of the game correctly applied.

whoops. did i say that it wasnt a penalty? my bad. didnt mean to type that. must've happened in my sleep or something.

soft penalty is what happened to Zaba. stonewall penaty is whenever Jagielka challenges in the box. both are penalties but the action that causes the penalty to be called varies across a wide spectrum. im positing that Zaba's incident was on the lower end of the spectrum. hence, soft.

It wasn't a soft penalty. What you mean is it was a 'soft challenge' that caused the penalty. A penalty is a penalty. How they come about - rash two footed tackle compared to a trip is different.

There's no spectrum for the actual penalty. There is for the challenge though.

true. right you are. fair enough.
although id argue im hardly the first person to use the term "soft penalty".

You're not mate, it just does my head in when people use it haha. Like when people say "just offside" - no he's offside. It doesn't matter by how far!

To be fair penalties are awarded for fouls. Some fouls are more blatant or obvious than others. But they are fouls nonetheless so a penalty kick is awarded. But that's not to say some fouls aren't "softer" than others, perhaps where minimal contact is made, or a handball where it's ambiguous whether it even hits an arm or where the defender couldn't get out of the way even if he tried, ball to hand rather than hand to ball.

I personally would look at a penalty that has been awarded for us and judge if it's a "soft" one by whether I'd be disappointed if that was given against us. Not all penalties are blatant stonewallers.

Also the biggest sticking point is the consistency of the referees interpretation of the rules. Some referees will give penalties that others wouldn't. Also the ground they are awarded at can have a bearing. How many penalties have been awarded to the away side at the Kop end, or the Stretford end. Not fucking many. Yet how many have been awarded to the rags or dippers that the rest of the footballing world have groaned "not again, lucky bastards" where they have been soft

phips wrote:

freshie wrote:

dazby wrote:Enough of the bullying chaps.

Yeh I suppose it's a waste of time when the cunt doesn't read 98% of the posts on here

it really is considering most of the people who lash out are me have been added to my Foe list so i dont even see what they write.
OD, FIBD, DM, Bigblue, rulablue, and others. they're just wasting their time and clogging up the threads.

OK, so you're a lonely troll then.