SCANDAL: Fulham are the most booked team in the Premiership!

[Whitesideup]

That picture ... Taylor is warning Lukic  .. one more challenge like that, recklessly attacking Toney with your leg and head, and you'll be in the book young man.

[HammerHead]

Fulham is one of the most hard working teams in the league,
Yes you play physical but not dirty, it's a badge of honor and the reason you're overachieving.

Overachieving? We are where we are with the points we have earned. Why is it that a team have got some good players and a good coach in place they are overachieving.

To say that someone is overachieving can simply be a referal to previous and/or common expectations. I believe very few (people here included) thought that Fulham would be in with a decent chance for a European spot with less than a third of the season to go. Thus, overachieving compared to expectations. To say someone is overachieving doesn't have to mean that the achievment is not deserved, but rather that it is contrary (in a positive way) to expectations. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with the word at all in relation to Fulham this season. It means we are doing very well.

Ok, but I still don't like it.

It was definitely meant as a compliment.

[alfie]

 082.gif

Fulham is one of the most hard working teams in the league,
Yes you play physical but not dirty, it's a badge of honor and the reason you're overachieving.

Overachieving? We are where we are with the points we have earned. Why is it that a team have got some good players and a good coach in place they are overachieving.

To say that someone is overachieving can simply be a referal to previous and/or common expectations. I believe very few (people here included) thought that Fulham would be in with a decent chance for a European spot with less than a third of the season to go. Thus, overachieving compared to expectations. To say someone is overachieving doesn't have to mean that the achievment is not deserved, but rather that it is contrary (in a positive way) to expectations. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with the word at all in relation to Fulham this season. It means we are doing very well.

Ok, but I still don't like it.

It was definitely meant as a compliment.

082.gif

[SP]

Sky just showed Bruno Fernandez antics against Liverpool, how on earth did they allow him to kick opponents, push the Lino & feign injury?

[Ruislip White]

The ref was inconsistent last night.  Toney's challenge has a nasty outcome, but looked unintentional where as lukic knew what he was doing.  Overall I felt we got away with avoiding another suspension and ultimately the better team won.
To suggest that referees are biased against Fulham is nonsense.  They are simply inconsistent and VAR is imperfect.  No one has an agenda against us and I doubt Anthony Taylor plotted to help Brentford out ahead  of our game with him.

[RaySmith]

Fulham is one of the most hard working teams in the league,
Yes you play physical but not dirty, it's a badge of honor and the reason you're overachieving.

Overachieving? We are where we are with the points we have earned. Why is it that a team have got some good players and a good coach in place they are overachieving.

To say that someone is overachieving can simply be a referal to previous and/or common expectations. I believe very few (people here included) thought that Fulham would be in with a decent chance for a European spot with less than a third of the season to go. Thus, overachieving compared to expectations. To say someone is overachieving doesn't have to mean that the achievment is not deserved, but rather that it is contrary (in a positive way) to expectations. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with the word at all in relation to Fulham this season. It means we are doing very well.

But 'overachieving' sort of implies that we're playing above the level we are normally capable of, and thus will not keep the level we've achieved up - so next season, or even this, if we start to struggle, people could say 'Well, they overachieved before, this is really their level.'

'Overachieving' has an implicit criticism in it, I think.

[SerbianLad]

David Coote will be the ref for Arsenal game. He was the referee in the Chelsea win. I remember him from the Championship as well, can't remember which games though, some might not have even involved Fulham, but I always thought he was a decent ref. Hopefully he'll do a better job than the supposed best referee in the league Anthony Taylor, although that shouldn't be hard.

[Arthur]

To suggest that referees are biased against Fulham is nonsense.

I agree.

The whole notion that referees are much poorer at officiating now than in the past seems to me to be based on a false premise: the evidence provided by television cameras.

Had Monday night's game taken place, say, 50 years ago, most on this forum would have known little, if anything, about Mr Taylor's standard of refereeing. I was at the game and, along with every other of our supporters, didn't know whether the award of a penalty was the correct decision because it happened suddenly in a busy goalmouth at the far end of the pitch. The only opinion I was able to form was that it didn't look clear cut. Nor did I know whether Toney's challenge deserved a red card because, again, it wasn't clear to see exactly what contact the Brentford striker made with Lukic in an incident that happened in a split-second. All I could think at the time was that it looked as if it might have been dangerous play.

And 50 years ago, with no television cameras present, that would have been it. Those of us in attendance would have come away from the game with question marks next to those two decisions and never known whether the referee was right or wrong. And the overwhelming majority who were not at the match would have had even less of an idea still - their only clue perhaps coming from a brief mention in a radio report or a line in the newspapers, neither of which would have stirred the emotions anywhere near as much as having the opportunity (as we all now have) to view these key moments many times from different angles in both real-time speed and slow motion.

Having refereed at lower levels myself, I have no doubt Taylor wanted to make the correct decisions (because that is all I, and every other referee I ever spoke with, wanted to do). I have no doubt he had no intention whatsoever to be biased against either team. However, even officials who are competent enough to referee at the highest level will (just like the high-level players they share the field with) not always be at their best. As far as I am concerned, to suggest Taylor was purposely seeking to favour Brentford is utter rubbish.

[toshes mate]

Ruislip White and Arthur make valuable points about integrity and then spoil it with the words 'nonsense and utter rubbish' based upon their beliefs about what they think they know about themselves and others.
As Richard Feynman said the easiest person in the world to fool is yourself.  I have also refereed but I didn't last very long because my heart got me into trouble which was not why I became a referee. 

Integrity cannot be manufactured or described as a want or a wish - neutrality is either heartfelt and automatically processed like skillfully shifting through the gears of a vehicle with careful clutch control or it is a feigned desire to appear to be so doing.  We know these fallibities about human nature and the fact some people really did at one time believe witches could be fairly tried and proven guilty by the means they used and, at other times, true religious beliefs could be extracted by inquisition, torture, and execution.   Were these people for real or just fooling themselves?   A referee is no different - they are just another fallible human being.

In football did declining standards of regulation lead to VAR or was its arrival just a desire to look to be doing something that looked like an improvement?  Box ticking takes ever more victims because it doesn't measure reality other than for lazy people with lazy minds.  Only the subject - in this case Anthony Taylor - can know if their integrity is intact.  I am humble enough to say it looked to me as if he was trying to prove something and that means he was acting and not being honest.  I am probably wrong but that is what makes me human just like Mr Taylor gifted with the means to utter nonsense and talk rubbish. 

[Ruislip White]

Ruislip White and Arthur make valuable points about integrity and then spoil it with the words 'nonsense and utter rubbish' based upon their beliefs about what they think they know about themselves and others.
As Richard Feynman said the easiest person in the world to fool is yourself.  I have also refereed but I didn't last very long because my heart got me into trouble which was not why I became a referee. 

Integrity cannot be manufactured or described as a want or a wish - neutrality is either heartfelt and automatically processed like skillfully shifting through the gears of a vehicle with careful clutch control or it is a feigned desire to appear to be so doing.  We know these fallibities about human nature and the fact some people really did at one time believe witches could be fairly tried and proven guilty by the means they used and, at other times, true religious beliefs could be extracted by inquisition, torture, and execution.   Were these people for real or just fooling themselves?   A referee is no different - they are just another fallible human being.

In football did declining standards of regulation lead to VAR or was its arrival just a desire to look to be doing something that looked like an improvement?  Box ticking takes ever more victims because it doesn't measure reality other than for lazy people with lazy minds.  Only the subject - in this case Anthony Taylor - can know if their integrity is intact.  I am humble enough to say it looked to me as if he was trying to prove something and that means he was acting and not being honest.  I am probably wrong but that is what makes me human just like Mr Taylor gifted with the means to utter nonsense and talk rubbish.

That is an impressively written post!  Bravo

[Arthur]

Ruislip White and Arthur make valuable points about integrity and then spoil it with the words 'nonsense and utter rubbish' based upon their beliefs about what they think they know about themselves and others.

My reference to integrity was to opine that I had 'no doubt he (Taylor) had no intention whatsoever to be biased against either team'. What, therefore, is illogical about a corollary that brands as 'utter rubbish' the suggestion 'Taylor was purposely seeking to favour Brentford'? Nothing.

For sure, I have expressed an opinion in unusually strong terms. I have done so because I am confident of it and, thus, am prepared to appear gullible if it transpires Taylor was not impartial. But an opinion is all that it is.

I see you hold a different view: 'I am humble enough to say it looked to me as if he was trying to prove something and that means he was acting and not being honest.'

I am struggling as to how the inclusion of the words 'it looked to me' demonstrate humility. They simply confirm it's your opinion. Now I might consider myself to be many things if I were accusing a referee of dishonesty, but 'humble' wouldn't be one of them, especially if I then qualified my assessment with the admission I am 'probably wrong'. (Although I guess such an instantaneous step backwards does endorse Feynman's maxim.)

By all means, post your second and third paragraphs and let the forum make of them what it will, but your opening paragraph is wasted.

[toshes mate]

Ruislip White and Arthur make valuable points about integrity and then spoil it with the words 'nonsense and utter rubbish' based upon their beliefs about what they think they know about themselves and others.

My reference to integrity was to opine that I had 'no doubt he (Taylor) had no intention whatsoever to be biased against either team'. What, therefore, is illogical about a corollary that brands as 'utter rubbish' the suggestion 'Taylor was purposely seeking to favour Brentford'? Nothing.

For sure, I have expressed an opinion in unusually strong terms. I have done so because I am confident of it and, thus, am prepared to appear gullible if it transpires Taylor was not impartial. But an opinion is all that it is.

I see you hold a different view: 'I am humble enough to say it looked to me as if he was trying to prove something and that means he was acting and not being honest.'

I am struggling as to how the inclusion of the words 'it looked to me' demonstrate humility. They simply confirm it's your opinion. Now I might consider myself to be many things if I were accusing a referee of dishonesty, but 'humble' wouldn't be one of them, especially if I then qualified my assessment with the admission I am 'probably wrong'. (Although I guess such an instantaneous step backwards does endorse Feynman's maxim.)

By all means, post your second and third paragraphs and let the forum make of them what it will, but your opening paragraph is wasted.

The whole thing was wasted on you but thanks anyway.