Oh gosh. Somebody's taking this a little bit too seriously. I wish I didn't buy you a copy of the rule book for your birthday now. I have to say, you'd make a great traffic warden though Dan
As I've said, if you're disagreeing with the principle that Vidic should have been booked on the same basis that Young was, then you need to take your head out of your backside.
99 times out of 100 when a player does what he does, he ends up booked. And you'd hope that 100 times out of 100 he'd be booked if an oppo player had been booked for the same thing. Not that I agree with the rule, it's simply a matter of consistency.
If you're not disagreeing with that, then you're simply being a bit sad trying to pick apart the wording of what I said to deviate from the original point.
The 2nd part of my post where I was being pedantic was clearly tongue in cheek. It was a throw away comment, I hadn't been up all night reading the law book like you.
Last edited:
