Any who watches any games could tell what happened sure.
Wasnât hard.
Jim McGuinness thinks different.
Youâre still speculating.
No Iâm stating what happened before my eyes.
@Bandage Iâve gone through the article and canât find this bit. has it been edited out of it since it was initially published? Itâs almost like someone corrected them and pointed out the mistake the McGuinness made.
2 Likes
Yes, Iâve clicked back into the article and the offending text has been removed. It appears that McGuinness and/or his ghostwriter have acknowledged the mistake and taken appropriate action. As I said, it was unfounded and wild speculation to suggest that they turned down a tap over point. Letâs stick to the facts here where the refereeâs and playersâ actions and reactions clearly pointed to an indirect free kick restart. I think this has been decisively put to bed now, guys.
2 Likes
Agreed. Only a holocaust denier would try to argue otherwise.
1 Like
But his whole article is clouded now. He obviously used that passage to help form a strong opinion on how Monaghan saw out the game. He should take the whole thing down.
1 Like
Ouch.
Yes, a very valid point. You also had posters who were unaware of the indirect free kick procedure incorrectly citing this incident as an example of McManus being awarded soft frees too. As a complete neutral I didnât take issue with the indirect free kick in this instance although McManus was fouled on two other occasions in the first half and Tyrone broke forward to score in the immediate aftermath each time. The audit trail undeniably backs up my posts on the game since Sunday but I understand how this may have caused confusion, from anyone to an All Ireland winner like McGuinness to somebody making a rare appearance at a match.
3 Likes
Why does it settle it? Itâs speculation.
1 Like
Lads wanting to settle things through speculation.
Hilarious.
Crazy
Because the chief plank of your defence, the all Ireland winner, has had to retract his opinions due to his lack of knowledge of the rules of the game. Itâs safe to say that a lad with no idea of the rules canât be relied on. But you did just that. Heâs done you up like a kipper fella.
The chief plank of my defence is you guys are speculating.
1 Like
No weâre not. The referee followed the standard prescribed procedure for awarding an indirect free kick when a player requires treatment to be administered.
He did nothing out of the ordinary.
Once again, you are speculating.
Iâm not. Iâm stating what happened.
Once again you are showing that you do not understand the meaning of word that youâre using to try and argue something.
Youâre speculating on what happened. Thatâs the only statement of fact relevant here. Everything else is guesswork by you and a severe misunderstanding of reality.
Where is the speculation in what I wrote here?