Really liked the look of the new full backs. Caused some real problems bombing forward. Labadie looks fit and sharp, having him on form from day one is going to be huge for the county

Surprise, surprise. They have decided not to appeal the red card.

https://www.hucknalldispatch.co.uk/spor ... -1-9918821

No surprise there, any appeal would have been frivolous and treated as such. But what a load of bollocks about making it seem worse than it was. He wull have been done for violent conduct, not serious foul play, the force of the impact is immaterial, you can be done for violent conduct for swinging a punch and missing.

Amberexile wrote:No surprise there, any appeal would have been frivolous and treated as such. But what a load of bollocks about making it seem worse than it was. He wull have been done for violent conduct, not serious foul play, the force of the impact is immaterial, you can be done for violent conduct for swinging a punch and missing.

The sending off was in my opinion absolutely right. Whether Labadie made it look worse than it was known only to Labadie. However in my view you are right about the force of the impact being immaterial but make the error of confusing the force of the impact with the force of the blow. A swing punch which misses is clearly violent conduct, whilst a soft push that connects is probably not.

My view is that the sending off was correct but that Jacob Mellis deserves a two match ban. One for the minor assault and one for being a complete f@cking idiot.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Amberexile wrote:No surprise there, any appeal would have been frivolous and treated as such. But what a load of bollocks about making it seem worse than it was. He wull have been done for violent conduct, not serious foul play, the force of the impact is immaterial, you can be done for violent conduct for swinging a punch and missing.

My view is that the sending off was correct but that Jacob Mellis deserves a two match ban. One for the minor assault and one for being a complete f@cking idiot.

Well, he'll get 3

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Amberexile wrote:No surprise there, any appeal would have been frivolous and treated as such. But what a load of bollocks about making it seem worse than it was. He wull have been done for violent conduct, not serious foul play, the force of the impact is immaterial, you can be done for violent conduct for swinging a punch and missing.

The sending off was in my opinion absolutely right. Whether Labadie made it look worse than it was known only to Labadie. However in my view you are right about the force of the impact being immaterial but make the error of confusing the force of the impact with the force of the blow. A swing punch which misses is clearly violent conduct, whilst a soft push that connects is probably not.

My view is that the sending off was correct but that Jacob Mellis deserves a two match ban. One for the minor assault and one for being a complete f@cking idiot.

Your lack of knowledge of the laws of the game never cease to amaze me.

Amberexile wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Amberexile wrote:No surprise there, any appeal would have been frivolous and treated as such. But what a load of bollocks about making it seem worse than it was. He wull have been done for violent conduct, not serious foul play, the force of the impact is immaterial, you can be done for violent conduct for swinging a punch and missing.

The sending off was in my opinion absolutely right. Whether Labadie made it look worse than it was known only to Labadie. However in my view you are right about the force of the impact being immaterial but make the error of confusing the force of the impact with the force of the blow. A swing punch which misses is clearly violent conduct, whilst a soft push that connects is probably not.

My view is that the sending off was correct but that Jacob Mellis deserves a two match ban. One for the minor assault and one for being a complete f@cking idiot.

Your lack of knowledge of the laws of the game never cease to amaze me.

I wasn't commenting on the laws of the game. The point I was making was on your inability to see the difference between a blow which connects and one which does not.

I am never ceased to be amazed at your inability to see fouls committed by County players. An understandable trait in young lads who are County fanatics, somewhat sad in a man who has refereed and is of advancing years.

I'm looking forward to this one...

Please do explain how the phrase "you can be done for violent conduct for swinging a punch and missing." equates to an

"inability to see the difference between a blow which connects and one which does not."

Amberexile wrote:I'm looking forward to this one...

Please do explain how the phrase "you can be done for violent conduct for swinging a punch and missing." equates to an

"inability to see the difference between a blow which connects and one which does not."

Read my post, I agree it was a sending off for violent conduct. Where I disagreed with you was you writing '..what a load of bollocks about making it seem worse than it was'. Which is why I wrote 'Whether Labadie made it look worse than it was was known only to Labadie'.

To me it seemed as if Labadie did make a meal of it. But Labadie alone knows the truth. Whilst I agree the force of the impact was immaterial to the law I doubt very much whether that was on Labadie's mind at the time. Had Labadie got up immediately do I think the referee would have seen it as violent conduct. I'm not sure. Unlike yourself I lack the ability to read people's minds.

Why do you look forward to me making you look stupid?

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Amberexile wrote:I'm looking forward to this one...

Please do explain how the phrase "you can be done for violent conduct for swinging a punch and missing." equates to an

"inability to see the difference between a blow which connects and one which does not."

Read my post, I agree it was a sending off for violent conduct. Where I disagreed with you was you writing '..what a load of bollocks about making it seem worse than it was'. Which is why I wrote 'Whether Labadie made it look worse than it was was known only to Labadie'.

To me it seemed as if Labadie did make a meal of it. But Labadie alone knows the truth. Whilst I agree the force of the impact was immaterial to the law I doubt very much whether that was on Labadie's mind at the time. Had Labadie got up immediately do I think the referee would have seen it as violent conduct. I'm not sure. Unlike yourself I lack the ability to read people's minds.

Why do you look forward to me making you look stupid?

Piss poor attempt at evasion.

Please do explain how the phrase "you can be done for violent conduct for swinging a punch and missing." equates to an

"inability to see the difference between a blow which connects and one which does not."

Just answer the question.

Amberexile wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Amberexile wrote:I'm looking forward to this one...

Please do explain how the phrase "you can be done for violent conduct for swinging a punch and missing." equates to an

"inability to see the difference between a blow which connects and one which does not."

Read my post, I agree it was a sending off for violent conduct. Where I disagreed with you was you writing '..what a load of bollocks about making it seem worse than it was'. Which is why I wrote 'Whether Labadie made it look worse than it was was known only to Labadie'.

To me it seemed as if Labadie did make a meal of it. But Labadie alone knows the truth. Whilst I agree the force of the impact was immaterial to the law I doubt very much whether that was on Labadie's mind at the time. Had Labadie got up immediately do I think the referee would have seen it as violent conduct. I'm not sure. Unlike yourself I lack the ability to read people's minds.

Why do you look forward to me making you look stupid?

Piss poor attempt at evasion.

Please do explain how the phrase "you can be done for violent conduct for swinging a punch and missing." equates to an

"inability to see the difference between a blow which connects and one which does not."

Just answer the question.

To answer the question again. Your assertion that Labadie making a meal of the foul was a load of bollocks is simply wrong. On what I saw I thought there was a very strong case to be made he did. That was what I was being critical of in your post. Reading your post it Mellis was guilty of violent conduct, therefore Labadie making a meal of the foul is b@llocks.

Please try to refrain from comments such as I am making a piss poor attempt to evade the question. I always endeavour to answer questions and let people who read the posts make their own minds up.

I see you have no answer as to why

Please do explain how the phrase "you can be done for violent conduct for swinging a punch and missing." equates to an

"inability to see the difference between a blow which connects and one which does not."

So let me give you the Janet and John on this.

We were talking about a newspaper report including comments made by John Dempster where he said “Joss Labadie played really well on Saturday, but the reaction from him and Newport players probably made the officials think it was worse than it was,”

That is a load of bollocks. He was sent off for violent conduct. Whether or not Labadie made the force of the impact seem worse than it was is irrelevant as the force of the impact is irrelevant. As I pointed out, you can be done for violent conduct for swinging a punch and missing i.e. where the force of impact is zero. Hence the comments by Dempster being a load of bollocks. It was a red card with or without Labadie's reaction.

Amberexile wrote:I see you have no answer as to why. .........

......As I pointed out, you can be done for violent conduct for swinging a punch and missing i.e. where the force of impact is zero.

I'm sorry Paul, but you did say that in terms that Labadie making a meal of it was a load of bollox.

Now unlike you I don't say that simply because I think something I must be right. I think Labadie made a meal of it, I think the reaction of the County players may have influenced the referee. That is not to say that I am right on that. In any event the decision was right.

However we all know that a foul in the penalty area is a penalty regardless of whether the fouled player goes down. However when was a penalty given when a fouled player didn't hit the deck? Never. Which is why the slightest touch and forwards hit the deck like they have been hit by a bullet in the guts.

So we see every game players trying to make out they have been more severely 'assaulted' than is the case dimply to influence the referee. To then say that Labadie being less seriously hurt than he made out was bollox is in my view nonsense.

If you were not trying to say that Labadie being less seriously hurt was bollox, or that the referee was not possibly influenced, and that this notwithstanding, the decision of the referee was correct then I agree with you. But reading your post you clearly equate Labadie's response as being the only possible one as the Mellis was guilty of violent conduct. Hence my remarks.

For what it's worth I think that is what you meant. But it didn't read that way.

However it might be an idea to ask people to clarify rather than saying I am avoiding answering you. I'm not Alan Briant. Then again not being a director of Newport County I can't say I'm overly offended.

Sleep tight.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Amberexile wrote:I see you have no answer as to why. .........

......As I pointed out, you can be done for violent conduct for swinging a punch and missing i.e. where the force of impact is zero.

I'm sorry Paul, but you did say that in terms that Labadie making a meal of it was a load of bollox.

Now unlike you I don't say that simply because I think something I must be right. I think Labadie made a meal of it, I think the reaction of the County players may have influenced the referee. That is not to say that I am right on that. In any event the decision was right.

However we all know that a foul in the penalty area is a penalty regardless of whether the fouled player goes down. However when was a penalty given when a fouled player didn't hit the deck? Never. Which is why the slightest touch and forwards hit the deck like they have been hit by a bullet in the guts.

So we see every game players trying to make out they have been more severely 'assaulted' than is the case dimply to influence the referee. To then say that Labadie being less seriously hurt than he made out was bollox is in my view nonsense.

If you were not trying to say that Labadie being less seriously hurt was bollox, or that the referee was not possibly influenced, and that this notwithstanding, the decision of the referee was correct then I agree with you. But reading your post you clearly equate Labadie's response as being the only possible one as the Mellis was guilty of violent conduct. Hence my remarks.

For what it's worth I think that is what you meant. But it didn't read that way.

However it might be an idea to ask people to clarify rather than saying I am avoiding answering you. I'm not Alan Briant. Then again not being a director of Newport County I can't say I'm overly offended.

Sleep tight.

No. I clearly said it in context of the newspaper article linked in the post immediately above it and went on to explain a point of law which explained why the reaction was irrelevant to the red card. A simple point for anyone seeking to understand what is actually written.

Now, how about actually answering the question?

Please do explain how the phrase "you can be done for violent conduct for swinging a punch and missing." equates to an "inability to see the difference between a blow which connects and one which does not."

As you seem to be finding this a tricky one, I'll make a start for you - the phrase "you can be done for violent conduct for swinging a punch and missing." equates to an "inability to see the difference between a blow which connects and one which does not." because...

There you go, you should be able to finish that off now, I'd suggest 20 words or less will do it but somehow I see another failure on the cards.

Amberexile wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Amberexile wrote:I see you have no answer as to why. .........

......As I pointed out, you can be done for violent conduct for swinging a punch and missing i.e. where the force of impact is zero.

I'm sorry Paul, but you did say that in terms that Labadie making a meal of it was a load of bollox.

Now unlike you I don't say that simply because I think something I must be right. I think Labadie made a meal of it, I think the reaction of the County players may have influenced the referee. That is not to say that I am right on that. In any event the decision was right.

However we all know that a foul in the penalty area is a penalty regardless of whether the fouled player goes down. However when was a penalty given when a fouled player didn't hit the deck? Never. Which is why the slightest touch and forwards hit the deck like they have been hit by a bullet in the guts.

So we see every game players trying to make out they have been more severely 'assaulted' than is the case dimply to influence the referee. To then say that Labadie being less seriously hurt than he made out was bollox is in my view nonsense.

If you were not trying to say that Labadie being less seriously hurt was bollox, or that the referee was not possibly influenced, and that this notwithstanding, the decision of the referee was correct then I agree with you. But reading your post you clearly equate Labadie's response as being the only possible one as the Mellis was guilty of violent conduct. Hence my remarks.

For what it's worth I think that is what you meant. But it didn't read that way.

However it might be an idea to ask people to clarify rather than saying I am avoiding answering you. I'm not Alan Briant. Then again not being a director of Newport County I can't say I'm overly offended.

Sleep tight.

No. I clearly said it in context of the newspaper article linked in the post immediately above it and went on to explain a point of law which explained why the reaction was irrelevant to the red card. A simple point for anyone seeking to understand what is actually written.

Now, how about actually answering the question?

Please do explain how the phrase "you can be done for violent conduct for swinging a punch and missing." equates to an "inability to see the difference between a blow which connects and one which does not."

As you seem to be finding this a tricky one, I'll make a start for you - the phrase "you can be done for violent conduct for swinging a punch and missing." equates to an "inability to see the difference between a blow which connects and one which does not." because...

There you go, you should be able to finish that off now, I'd suggest 20 words or less will do it but somehow I see another failure on the cards.

How about try reading my post? As I said I now understand what you meant.

Had you written.

But what a load of b@llocks the Mansfield bench made by complaining that Labadie made a meal of it. whether or not Labadie was injured is irrelevant,the only matter with violent conduct is intent, a punch that misses being equal in intent to one which does not, then this confusion would not have arisen. Because that is what I accept you meant to say.

However that which was actually written was.'But what a load of b@llocks about making it seem worse than it was'. With no mention of the Mansfield bench, with no mention of the fact Labadie might have been making a meal of his 'pain' it reads that Labadie was clearly badly hurt and to suggest otherwise was b@llocks.

Matter cleared up Paul. I simply misunderstood what you meant because of your very poor writing skills.