Mike Dean yet again being Mike Dean

[Badger 2,405]

1 hour ago, lake district canary said:

Don't know what all the fuss is about. The defender's elbow is up at forehead height for no good reason and there is a connection. Has to be a red card by the book.  As for pundits calling it out....they are the same pundits that often say "he was touched so he's entitled to go down"........go figure.....

Exactly this.

[Ken Hairy 3,760]

2 hours ago, TIL 1010 said:

The clue is in the link title .

You do know not all streams are illegal? 😂

[TIL 1010 4,722]

1 hour ago, Ken Hairy said:

You do know not all streams are illegal? 😂

Which are and which are not then Ken ?

[Mr Angry 1,545]

Looks like a correct decision-Soucek raises the elbow, catches Mitrovic on the temple.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

36 minutes ago, Mr Angry said:

Looks like a correct decision-Soucek raises the elbow, catches Mitrovic on the temple.

For what its worth I think Mitrovic has hold of him and he is just putting his arm up to shrug him off.

Mitrovic knew that and thats why heappeled to Dean not to send him off. Dean, having seen VAR, should have booked Mitrovic for simulation.

[Greavsy 2,412]

What the point in making a "clash" look worse than it is, then appealing to ref not to take action. Makes no sense to me. Oh unless he can defend himself in any retrospective action by saying he appealed for him to not be sent off. 

All footballers are out to deceive and cheat. Simple as.

[Ken Hairy 3,760]

59 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Which are and which are not then Ken ?

A stream is simply a live video. For example you can watch BBC live on their iplayer, so that's a legal stream. 

Similarly ITV hub, Sky Go, BT etc etc, they only become illegal when someone re-transmits it without permission of the owner. 

 

[Ken Hairy 3,760]

As for the red card. Those of you thinking it is a sending off, give your collective heads a wobble. 

[Greavsy 2,412]

3 minutes ago, Ken Hairy said:

A stream is simply a live video. For example you can watch BBC live on their iplayer, so that's a legal stream. 

Similarly ITV hub, Sky Go, BT etc etc, they only become illegal when someone re-transmits it without permission of the owner. 

 

With a  licence, for bbc iplayer. 

[Ken Hairy 3,760]

4 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

With a  licence, for bbc iplayer. 

Yes true, but its still an example of legal streaming. 

[TIL 1010 4,722]

19 minutes ago, Ken Hairy said:

A stream is simply a live video. For example you can watch BBC live on their iplayer, so that's a legal stream. 

Similarly ITV hub, Sky Go, BT etc etc, they only become illegal when someone re-transmits it without permission of the owner. 

 

So do you have permission to watch Stoke next Saturday at 3pm on a stream ? No is the answer so it is illegal.

As was this........... https://streamable.com/sygfkz

Edited February 7, 2021 by TIL 1010

[WD40 720]

1 minute ago, TIL 1010 said:

So do you have permission to watch Stoke next Saturday at 3pm on a stream ? No is the answer so it is illegal.

Back to the point of asking the question - the original link that was shared was just a link to a video. You incorrectly inferred illegality from the name. 

I hope modern day law enforcement are better informed.

[TIL 1010 4,722]

2 minutes ago, WD40 said:

 

I hope modern day law enforcement are better informed.

I wasn't aware the Police took action on such things WD.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

And watching a stream — even if it’s unauthorized by the copyright holder — doesn’t technically violate these rights. There have been numerous challenges and interpretations as copyright law has adapted to the internet, but this reading has essentially held true. 

“I think the best interpretation of copyright law is that it’s not illegal to watch unlicensed content,” Gibson said. “The person who’s merely watching a stream should incur no copyright liability from that act alone.”

Copyright attaches liability only to public performances, and streams aren’t public performances,” Gibson said. “Streams are performances, but they’re not public if it’s just you in the privacy of your own home and you’re not making a permanent copy — you start it and you stop it and that’s your only interaction with it.”

Edited February 7, 2021 by keelansgrandad

[Ken Hairy 3,760]

14 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

So do you have permission to watch Stoke next Saturday at 3pm on a stream ? No is the answer so it is illegal.

As was this........... https://streamable.com/sygfkz

You said 'the clue was in the title' simply because it had the word 'stream' in it. That was incorrect.

As for Stoke next week, yes you can legally watch it on a stream, it's called ifollow.

Edited February 7, 2021 by Ken Hairy

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

So as far as the law is concerned, only if you download it are you doing anything illegal.

[Ken Hairy 3,760]

1 minute ago, keelansgrandad said:

So as far as the law is concerned, only if you download it are you doing anything illegal.

Thats not what I'm debating with Tilly though, he seems to think only when something has been illegally broadcast is it a stream, when in fact ALL live broadcasting is streaming. 

So for example, iFollow is a form of legal streaming, those that then reproduce it (so the links Bill likes) is when they become illegal. 

As as your watching the video stream from the source direct (whether they charge or not is irrelevant), you are legally steaming. 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Watching the rugby at the moment and thinking about the OP, if refs were miked then th at might alleviate some of the VAR problems as well as other.

The ref has just said quite clearly "next time it will be a free kick Tom".

[WD40 720]

37 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

I wasn't aware the Police took action on such things WD.

It's long been threatened but don't know if every successfully acted on, in the UK that is

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

3 minutes ago, WD40 said:

It's long been threatened but don't know if every successfully acted on, in the UK that is

Because they have no powers of arrest as it is not illegal to stream.

[Mr Angry 1,545]

1 hour ago, keelansgrandad said:

For what its worth I think Mitrovic has hold of him and he is just putting his arm up to shrug him off.

Mitrovic knew that and thats why heappeled to Dean not to send him off. Dean, having seen VAR, should have booked Mitrovic for simulation.

Yes, Mitrovic had a hold on him, or at least had his hands on him-but elbowing someone in the face isn’t shrugging him off. Regardless of Mitrovic’s antics when he was hit, I think it’s violent conduct.

[Ken Hairy 3,760]

This is the only explanation that seems legit for Dean's atrocious decision 😏

[cambridgeshire canary 6,676]

5 hours ago, Ken Hairy said:

This is the only explanation that seems legit for Dean's atrocious decision 😏

Ah all makes sense now

[Greavsy 2,412]

On 07/02/2021 at 11:52, TIL 1010 said:

He is lurking around as usual.

He's back lurking.....

[Greavsy 2,412]

Just seeing red has been rescinded on appeal.

However following death threats Mike Dean has asked not to referee this weekend.

What is the world coming too? Its a game ffs. 

[TIL 1010 4,722]

5 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

Just seeing red has been rescinded on appeal.

However following death threats Mike Dean has asked not to referee this weekend.

What is the world coming too? Its a game ffs. 

Mike Dean: Referee notifies police over death threats to family - BBC Sport

[TIL 1010 4,722]

Mike Dean issued two red cards within the last week and both he got wrong.

[TheGunnShow 5,932]

Anyone sending a referee a death threat needs their head looking at. What a moron.

[Greavsy 2,412]

2 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Anyone sending a referee a death threat needs their head looking at. What a moron.

Anyone sending anyone a death threat needs their head looking at, not just referees. 

My guess is its another bored child, like the one who abused Chris Whitty last week.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Surely what has happened is nothing to do with hatred or racism. Its just someone doing it because they can. I would like to know how you can stop it?

Without infringing civil liberties, how do you prevent someone with a sick or evil mind, posting their views or thoughts online?

We are continually told about freedom of speech. So where do you draw the line.