Yes, you're wrong on that too. [Link]

A direct free kick is awarded when a player commits any of the following in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
- Kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
- Trips or attempts to trip an opponent
- Jumps at an opponent
- Charges an opponent
- Strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
- Pushes an opponent
- Tackles an opponent

Or commits any the following offences:
- Holds an opponent
- Impeding the progress of an opponent with contact
- Spits at an opponent
- Handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)

None of this applies to Dann's mild brush at the shoulder of Niasse.

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

You're not still here, are you?

Not playing the ball is fine as long as it doesn't pitch in line with the stumps. HTH.

Edited by chateauferret (27 Nov 2017 10.05pm)

============
The Ferret
============

well it is a start, and better then nothing wouldn't you agree?

I strongly believe video refs and a revamp of the rules is the way forward but am well aware others may feel completely different about that.

Perhaps that should be judged in light of the likely treatment one of us could expect to receive on a rivals boards? We have a board for Away Fans for a reason and, whilst I would never bother to post on another team's forum, I wouldn't expect to receive much brotherly love if I'd posted the views this fellow has on someone else's forum.

Bexley Dave

Can you hear the Brighton sing? I can't hear a ******* thing!

"The most arrogant, obnoxious bunch of deluded little sun tanned, loafer wearing mummy's boys I've ever had the misfortune of having to listen to" (Burnley forum)

Thanks to Midland Eagle for alerting me to the forum's rules.
I will happily desist from/ not engage in flaming in the future- whichever of the two is appropriate.

First of all, however, I need to understand which of the sentences infringes the rule: particularly I must understand exactly what is regarded as malicious or abusive, or as a personal attack.

If the concern is raised about the point about Tuttle not being bothered to think is the offending phrase, I would be happy to retract that. To be fair he has clearly 'bothered' to think, but I believe his conclusion is founded on a desirability bias (rather than confirmation bias, which I now must correct given that the matter has been drawn to my attention) and that that particular cognitive bias has prevented his adequately informed analysis of the matter.

Cognitive biases are alive and kicking amongst all of us, be we football supporters or not: drawing attention to such errors of thinking might actually be of value in reducing the degree of enmity that arises from such debates.

If the concern is about my suggestion that Tuttle does not understand physics or mechanics then I am happy to retract that as a generalisation and say that in this instance it seems, on the face of it, that he has misinterpreted the consequences of the physical impact between the two bodies and has consequently drawn an erroneous conclusion.

I certainly did not set out to make any inflammatory comments and apologise to anyone that is offended by opinions.

I hope that my corrections are satisfactory and am eager to understand any contraventions on my part.

Sorry mate, that is a load of rubbish, Dann didn't play the man, he slightly brushed him with his arm, he didn't push him, he didn't even make a challenge, if you think that was a foul you obviously think football is a non contact sport