Norway (a) - 17/6/23

[Virtual Insanity]

I actually don't disagree with the thrust of your argument at all, we didn't play well, but you do yourself no favours by saying a draw would have represented daylight robbery. They were the better team but not by such margins that a draw would have been in any way an unreasonable result, especially given the way they played from 1-0 up. 

[No_Problemo]

17 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Yes, but this was an extreme example of it.

Christ almighty!

Aye, when you use non existent penalty claims to back up your point it makes it easier to come to that conclusion. 

A draw being daylight robbery btw and other people aren’t balanced. 

Edited June 18, 2023 by No_Problemo

[Gordon EF]

1 minute ago, No_Problemo said:

Aye, when you use non existent penalty claims to back up your point it makes it easier to come to that conclusion. 

That's being objective.

[Monkey Tennis]

Just now, No_Problemo said:

Aye, when you use non existent penalty claims to back up your point it makes it easier to come to that conclusion. 

The claim existed.

The response to it on here was the starkest example of objectivity vacating the premises.  It's genuinely nuts.

 

[No_Problemo]

Just now, Monkey Tennis said:

The claim existed.

The response to it on here was the starkest example of objectivity vacating the premises.  It's genuinely nuts.

 

When a ball deflects off a knee and hits someone’s arm, it is categorically not a penalty. It is good to know that in the future that every time a player claims for a penalty, that you are riding your luck if it is not given. 

McGinn smashing the ball off a defenders leg was as much of a penalty. 

[Monkey Tennis]

3 minutes ago, Virtual Insanity said:

I actually don't disagree with the thrust of your argument at all, we didn't play well, but you do yourself no favours by saying a draw would have represented daylight robbery. They were the better team but not by such margins that a draw would have been in any way an unreasonable result, especially given the way they played from 1-0 up. 

I'm basing it on the fact that until the very late stage of the equaliser, I couldnt, for the life of me, see us getting anything.  It felt like we'd sneaked an unlikely looking point, having not really threatened at all.

To score again immediately was wonderful, but crazy.

[Gordon EF]

3 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

The claim existed.

The response to it on here was the starkest example of objectivity vacating the premises.  It's genuinely nuts.

 

So you're saying that most people on here don't think it was a penalty but if it had happened at the other end, they would have thought it was a penalty? You might be correct, but that's absolutely not a position reached from a point of objectivity. You're completely making up a scenario and then being smug about people being wrong in your hypothetical scenario.

[Monkey Tennis]

1 minute ago, No_Problemo said:

When a ball deflects off a knee and hits someone’s arm, it is categorically not a penalty. 

I know this, which is why I said that very thing a few posts back.

It was a close call though, and much of the bleating on here at the time missed that point.  

[Monkey Tennis]

Just now, Gordon EF said:

So you're saying that most people on here don't think it was a penalty but if it had happened at the other end, they would have thought it was a penalty? 

Yes. Yes I am, because the fact that like me they wanted Scotland to win, would have completely dictated the view they took.

[No_Problemo]

2 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

I know this, which is why I said that very thing a few posts back.

It was a close call though, and much of the bleating on here at the time missed that point.  

Well no, it’s not a close call as the rules dictate it isn’t a penalty. It isn’t something with shades of grey, it’s a black and white decision. 

Just now, Monkey Tennis said:

Yes. Yes I am, because the fact that like me they wanted Scotland to win, would have completely dictated the view they took.

Well no, at no point would I claim for a penalty for handball that isn’t remotely a penalty. 

Anyway, this is boring now

[Gordon EF]

7 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Yes. Yes I am, because the fact that like me they wanted Scotland to win, would have completely dictated the view they took.

Which would be fine if you weren't bleating about being the only objective one here. Because that argument is utterly subjective.

[Hursty]

49 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Yes, that's the one.

The type of thing that should never be a penalty of course, but often is these days.  It was certainly worth a shout and a check.  I think the fact that it reared up off his knee was decisive.

I promise you though, that loads of the posters on here would adopt a completely opposite view to that they've taken, if it happened at the other end.  It's amazing that some can't see or accept that.

In that totally made up scenario then anyone claiming it was a penalty would have been shot down due to the fact it simply wasn't one.  And if we hadn't been awarded it then we wouldn't have been unlucky, it would just have been ref / VAR doing its job correctly. 

Edited June 18, 2023 by Hursty

[Spring Onion]

Scotland shots on target 3

Norway shots on target 3

 

Scotland 2

Norway 1

 

End of conversation, Scotland deserved the win. The game is about goals, not possession, corners, dodgy penalty claims or how many shots on target. FFS sucking the life out of a victory

 

[G_&_T]

I think anybody who claims we weren't lucky yesterday is deluded. However, that's part of the game. I can remember so many times when we were robbed. Let's just be thankful that we took all three points and hope we don't screw up against Georgia.  

[Donathan]

This thread is fast becoming rather tedious 

[welshbairn]

The shockingly bad Norwegian defence and the manager's complacency in changing key players after they went one up, along with Scotland's never-say-die dogged determination won the game.

[Bing.McCrosby]

1 hour ago, Gordon EF said:

Everybody thinks they're the objective one though, don't they?

I think some people just aren't very good at recognising attempts at humour.

I wasn't talking about you I think your posts are always rational and reasonable. Wether we agree or disagree.

[Brother Blades]

Bit of a shame this tedium over the last few pages, thread had potential for the gold forum just for pages 26-33 last night. 

[Gordon EF]

3 minutes ago, Bing.McCrosby said:

I wasn't talking about you I think your posts are always rational and reasonable. Wether we agree or disagree.

I didn't say you were.

[Bing.McCrosby]

Just now, Gordon EF said:

I didn't say you were.

Alrighty then

I dont believe everyone can believe their being objective. There was a guy on here a while ago who all he would say was "I agree with all Steve Clarkes decisions, because he's a football manager"

Thats not objective, or even worthwhile posting