Big moments for the gutless officials

[davidjenkin]

And how would you know if you didn't see them? FFS, 'seems to me' - based on what, the fact you didn't see them? You really are a fool at times.

Seems to me, that even from over in the USA Pete has got it spot on - by use of logic, and reason, rather than through the iffy medium of moxeyvision!!

 

[Antony Moxey]

Seems to me, that even from over in the USA Pete has got it spot on - by use of logic, and reason, rather than through the iffy medium of moxeyvision!!

Yeah, and it seems to me the pair of you have snagged the rights to talking ill-informed b*ll*cks, but hey, it's just an opinion right?

 

[davidjenkin]

Yeah, and it seems to me the pair of you have snagged the rights to talking ill-informed b*ll*cks, but hey, it's just an opinion right?

Not at all, that's just more Moxeyvision - which we've already ascertained is not a reliable source of data collection [y]

 

[Antony Moxey]

And not seeing something on the telly supposedly is?

 

[davidjenkin]

And not seeing something on the telly supposedly is?

You're missing the point - only you and a handful of other exewebbers, and Paul D*ckov believe Oldham deserved two penalties. Yet neither penalty claim even made it as far as the neutral highlights, only 1-2 Oldham players actually bothered to appeal for a penalty as they saw it was weak, even their fans didn't seem too animated about it. They didn't make it into any match reports (except yours no doubt), in fact both their penalty claims were so negligible to almost not be worthy of mention. We can't take another look at them because like so many challenges where players go down in the box easily, they have been instantly swept from the memory of most

They could have been penalties, we'll never know. What we do know is that the people charged with highlighting all the controversial moments and key events deemed them irrelevant and they may well have had access to replays

 

[Antony Moxey]

You're missing the point .

They could have been penalties, we'll never know. What we do know is that the people charged with highlighting all the controversial moments and key events deemed them irrelevant and they may well have had access to replays

No, it's you that's missing the point. I couldn't care less whether you think they weren't from seeing the incidents 60 yards further away from me, they looked like penalties to me because that's what I saw.

And now you're saying because a highlights show didn't include them then they can't have been otherwise they would have been shown. What a load of guff - basically the point is you can't prove my opinion to be wrong because you have no evidence to support your own claim, other than there is no evidence!

 

[davidjenkin]

No, it's you that's missing the point. I couldn't care less whether you think they weren't from seeing the incidents 60 yards further away from me, they looked like penalties to me because that's what I saw.

Yeah but my eyes are about thirty years younger than yours ;-)