• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

World Cup 2026: Mexico, USA and Canada

Daisuk said:
Haha.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

The ball didn't really change direction in any meaningful way, so I'm not sure why people are bothered making such a mess out of it. If anything, it's a shame we got that goal disallowed for Anderson obviously diving like a little pussy.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I was really annoyed with Anderson. Happy to give it, but couldn't handle taking it in return. Proper Arsenal mould.

Great player who had a great game, though. Should make a big difference for City next season.
 
revlis said:
Righto mate, think you’ll find these are not given in 99.9% of cases. But we all know you just like to find the most extreme view of any situation and try to argue it.
Click to expand...

Not everything is confrontational/intended to cause confrontation. It's an opinion. FWIW I have always had a problem with how these decisions are adjudicated. There is no way Spence is 'trying to con a pen' in that situation, look at it in real time, the guy's trying to maintain his advantage on the ball by establishing himself infront of the defender. The fact he managed that and the defender knocks through him is a consequence. I laughed at the explanation: 'the attacker put his leg in front of the defender'...I am aware that there is a second language at play, however isn't the point of attacking to put your leg in front of the defender?! So yeah, perhaps not as extreme an opinion, and just an opinion?
 
thfcsteff said:
Not everything is confrontational/intended to cause confrontation. It's an opinion. FWIW I have always had a problem with how these decisions are adjudicated. There is no way Spence is 'trying to con a pen' in that situation, look at it in real time, the guy's trying to maintain his advantage on the ball by establishing himself infront of the defender. The fact he managed that and the defender knocks through him is a consequence. I laughed at the explanation: 'the attacker put his leg in front of the defender'...I am aware that there is a second language at play, however isn't the point of attacking to put your leg in front of the defender?! So yeah, perhaps not as extreme an opinion, and just an opinion?
Click to expand...

Where did I say Spence is trying to con a pen? He’s allowed to step across. He didn’t commit a foul, neither did the defender.
 
Argentina haven’t really turned up tonight. I really want them to win so it’s an England v Argentina semi final. I think that would be a great match, even if Argentina are not quite as good as us on paper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back