The conduct of Luis Suarez

Scott wrote:

He must be trolling

Mal wrote:

Scott wrote:

Yes, because if it hurt, then your natural reaction would be to react to the pain. Yes?

Are you seriously telling me that you could have a finger poked into your eye/eye gauged, and not even feel a thing and carry on as normal?

It doesn't matter if you feel a thing or not, you don't have to hold your eye for it to be a real eye gauge. You are spouting absolute bullshit now.

Er, no, you are.

My point is, if Parker's eye was gauged, he WOULD have felt it and WOULD have reacted to it, end of. It's impossible for a human to not react to an eye gauge, as it's one of the most painful/uncomfortable things ever. Therefore, Parker's eye wasn't actually gauged and the picture is misleading.

Wow, Scott, from those images, I can understand that it is really unfortunate that Parker was there! Otherwise it would've been a great volley.

Sure is a shame Parker exists, and was in existence in that spot at that time.













Also Suarez is looking at Parker in both those images, silly blind Uruguayan

I once gouged a guys eye by accident once, felt bad man.

Laurencio wrote:

Scott wrote:

He chose the moment where the ball hit parker's head which manipulated the trajectory and you decide to play around with paint and manipulate the trajectory some more?

I was showing him that pictures can be deceiving and that he was stupid to use a still frame as back up, as anyone can make their point look right with still frames.

Scott wrote:

What the fuck?

Scott wrote:

Mal wrote:

Scott wrote:

Yes, because if it hurt, then your natural reaction would be to react to the pain. Yes?

Are you seriously telling me that you could have a finger poked into your eye/eye gauged, and not even feel a thing and carry on as normal?

It doesn't matter if you feel a thing or not, you don't have to hold your eye for it to be a real eye gauge. You are spouting absolute bullshit now.

Er, no, you are.

My point is, if Parker's eye was gauged, he WOULD have felt it and WOULD have reacted to it, end of. It's impossible for a human to not react to an eye gauge, as it's one of the most painful/uncomfortable things ever. Therefore, Parker's eye wasn't actually gauged and the picture is misleading.

I don't give a shit about Parker and Suarez. I give a shit about you saying you have to react to it for it to be a proper eye gauge. That is complete and utter bullshit. Some people react to pain differently than others.

Scott you are an incredible specimen, And I'm sure I will encounter many like you when I get my doctorate of Psychology

Paulinho wrote:Wow, Scott, from those images, I can understand that it is really unfortunate that Parker was there! Otherwise it would've been a great volley.

Sure is a shame Parker exists, and was in existence in that spot at that time.













Also Suarez is looking at Parker in both those images, silly blind Uruguayan

Explain why his head is pointed lower down in the 2nd picture than the 1st? Because he was following the path of the ball. Also I didn't know head position determined where your eyes are looking.

Mal wrote:

Scott wrote:

Er, no, you are.

My point is, if Parker's eye was gauged, he WOULD have felt it and WOULD have reacted to it, end of. It's impossible for a human to not react to an eye gauge, as it's one of the most painful/uncomfortable things ever. Therefore, Parker's eye wasn't actually gauged and the picture is misleading.

I don't give a shit about Parker and Suarez. I give a shit about you saying you have to react to it for it to be a proper eye gauge. That is complete and utter bullshit. Some people react to pain differently than others.

I guess Suarez purposely eye gauged Parker and Parker is superhuman and doesn't react to pain, even though he went down like a baby when getting kicked.

Scott wrote:

Laurencio wrote:

He chose the moment where the ball hit parker's head which manipulated the trajectory and you decide to play around with paint and manipulate the trajectory some more?

I was showing him that pictures can be deceiving and that he was stupid to use a still frame as back up, as anyone can make their point look right with still frames.

That scenario is only valid if the ball turned into bricks mid-flight

Scott wrote:Explain why his head is pointed lower down in the 2nd picture than the 1st? Because he was following the path of the ball. Also I didn't know head position determined where your eyes are looking.

So that means he could have seen Parker in his peripheral vision, right?

Scott wrote:

Paulinho wrote:Wow, Scott, from those images, I can understand that it is really unfortunate that Parker was there! Otherwise it would've been a great volley.

Sure is a shame Parker exists, and was in existence in that spot at that time.













Also Suarez is looking at Parker in both those images, silly blind Uruguayan

Explain why his head is pointed lower down in the 2nd picture than the 1st? Because he was following the path of the ball. Also I didn't know head position determined where your eyes are looking.

Yes Scott, because Suarez would limit the accuracy of his vision, and
make things more difficult for himself by keeping his head down, but his
eyes up

ahlycotc wrote:

Scott wrote:Explain why his head is pointed lower down in the 2nd picture than the 1st? Because he was following the path of the ball. Also I didn't know head position determined where your eyes are looking.

So that means he could have seen Parker in his peripheral vision, right?

MY POINT IS, HE DIDN'T KICK PARKER ON PURPOSE. END OF.

Scott wrote:

Mal wrote:

I don't give a shit about Parker and Suarez. I give a shit about you saying you have to react to it for it to be a proper eye gauge. That is complete and utter bullshit. Some people react to pain differently than others.

I guess Suarez purposely eye gauged Parker and Parker is superhuman and doesn't react to pain, even though he went down like a baby when getting kicked.

Now you're trying to say Parker overreacted to a hard kick to the stomach??!

Scott wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:

So that means he could have seen Parker in his peripheral vision, right?

MY POINT IS, HE DIDN'T KICK PARKER ON PURPOSE. END OF.

That wasn't your point. Stop trying to avoid it. You claimed that he didn't know where Parker was.

Paulinho wrote:

Scott wrote:

Explain why his head is pointed lower down in the 2nd picture than the 1st? Because he was following the path of the ball. Also I didn't know head position determined where your eyes are looking.

Yes Scott, because Suarez would limit the accuracy of his vision, and
make things more difficult for himself by keeping his head down, but his
eyes up

You haven't explained why his head position gets lower on the second picture, which backs up my point that he is following the path of the ball.

ahlycotc wrote:

Scott wrote:

MY POINT IS, HE DIDN'T KICK PARKER ON PURPOSE. END OF.

That wasn't your point. Stop trying to avoid it. You claimed that he didn't know where Parker was.

You have me mixed up with someone else. Find me a quote where I said he didn't know where Parker is.

Get your facts right, buffoon.

Scott wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:

Scott wrote:Explain why his head is pointed lower down in the 2nd picture than the 1st? Because he was following the path of the ball. Also I didn't know head position determined where your eyes are looking.

So that means he could have seen Parker in his peripheral vision, right?

MY POINT IS, HE DIDN'T KICK PARKER ON PURPOSE. END OF.

How do you know?

And to your other post: Parker could have reacted differently to most people, he is known as a 'hard man'. Plus we don't have a video of the eye gauge here it's just a picture. I am not saying it was one by the way. I'm just arguing against you thinking you have to react to it for it to be a 'proper' eye gauge.

Should ban Parker tbh, just got in the way and all

http://video.uk.msn.com/watch/video/graham-poll-suarez-should-have-been-sent-off/28b0bhu1t?from=gallery_en-gb

Scott wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:

Scott wrote:

I guess Suarez purposely eye gauged Parker and Parker is superhuman and doesn't react to pain, even though he went down like a baby when getting kicked.

Now you're trying to say Parker overreacted to a hard kick to the stomach??!

No, are you really that stupid? Why do you misinterpret everything I say? I was being sarcastic, because Mal said people react differently to pain, so if Parker didn't react to a painful eye gauge, then surely he shouldn't react to a kick either?

Mal wrote:

Scott wrote:

MY POINT IS, HE DIDN'T KICK PARKER ON PURPOSE. END OF.

How do you know?

And to your other post: Parker could have reacted differently to most people, he is known as a 'hard man'. Plus we don't have a video of the eye gauge here it's just a picture. I am not saying it was one by the way. I'm just arguing against you thinking you have to react to it for it to be a 'proper' eye gauge.

Ok, so are you seriously telling me that some people won't react to being gauged in the eye?

I feel this argument is going nowhere.

At the end of the day, we already knew Liverpool fans were deluded

Scott wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:

That wasn't your point. Stop trying to avoid it. You claimed that he didn't know where Parker was.

You have me mixed up with someone else. Find me a quote where I said he didn't know where Parker is.

Get your facts right, buffoon.

I thought that was the whole basis of your argument, that Suarez didn't know Parker was there?

Of course Suarez knew Parker was there. I never said he didn't. I said Suarez didn't expect Parker to get in the way of the ball the way he did after being pushed.

Scott wrote:

Mal wrote:

Scott wrote:

MY POINT IS, HE DIDN'T KICK PARKER ON PURPOSE. END OF.

How do you know?

And to your other post: Parker could have reacted differently to most people, he is known as a 'hard man'. Plus we don't have a video of the eye gauge here it's just a picture. I am not saying it was one by the way. I'm just arguing against you thinking you have to react to it for it to be a 'proper' eye gauge.

Ok, so are you seriously telling me that some people won't react to being gauged in the eye?

I'm not saying some people won't react. I'm saying some might react differently.

Zzonked wrote:

Eternal Witcher wrote:

Why would I know his reasons?

I don't know, which is why I kindly asked you to explain your point.

Well, it looks like we are both in dark.

BladeGunner wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:
I don't need to prove that he was going to block him, you need to prove that Rooney didn't think McCarthy was going to block him. So go on and do it.

What? No. Rooney is the one who's committed assault. It's up to you to prove that he did it to defend himself.

That's now it works my friend, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that it was not in self defence. Presumption of innocence extends to self defence.