Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

Football 2010-2011


Guest eFestivals

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 10.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • eFestivals

    2125

  • ampersand

    1135

  • The Nal

    1089

  • TheGayTent

    766

It's difficult to know what's right without knowing all the details - cos there's a big difference between shooting someone by accident and shooting them deliberately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

i googled earlier and couldn't find, but what's the average time for ball in play in a football game?

the amount of throw ins, free kicks, goal kicks, restarts after goals, injuries etc, it's far more stop start than you would be led to think by neil and you had you never seen a game.

the actual playing time is usually around 2/3's of the 90 minutes I think. As a comparison, yank football (which works the minutes in a different manner) takes over twice the playing time to complete the match.

But the difference between the stoppages in football and the stoppages in other sports is the length of the stoppages. A stoppage can be just one second, because the stoppages are included within the playing time and so there's an incentive to get on with the game. Once you start having forced stoppages for reviews then the whole method of playing the game also has to change to for it work properly, and the stoppage time is likely to be taken outside of the playing time.

When the yanks had the world cup in '94 they tried their hardest to get FIFA to change the rules - they asked for halves of no longer than 30 minutes (so they could get in more ad-breaks), and they asked for stoppages to not be a part of the playing time (to get in more ad-breaks). FIFA very rightly told them where to shove it, because they recognised that the flow of the game is a big part of its appeal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's difficult to know what's right without knowing all the details - cos there's a big difference between shooting someone by accident and shooting them deliberately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just wanted to add/correct/clarify a few things;

The biggest timewaster for NFL games are adverts. NFL games usually last 3hr - 3hr15 all in. The games I used to play - college rules - but basically the same, usually lasted 2hr30 - 2hr 45.

NFL reviews take place during the adverts, because (except very near the end of a game) they go to adverts when there is a review... it is an extra stoppage. And sometimes the stoppage can be getting on for 5 minutes. But that usually isn't the case.

BUT - NFL reviews don't stop foul play. They're used for 'factual' events; did the receiver get two feet down before going out of bounds, did the ball touch the ground before being caught, did the ball cross the plane of the goalline etc.

They are not used to stop foul play; things like holding & blocks in the back aren't eligible for review. But you don't often hear about calls like those being missed.

Then again, the NFL has 7 officials to watch 22 people. Maybe that's the way to improve things.

Edited by Gre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

You only get two per half though, so you aren't inclined to waste them on trivialities.

so what you're saying is that the game would be improved by the removal of errors, but that you don't care about removing the errors if there's a lot of them. :lol::lol:

Yeah, that makes things all so much better, and really fits with the whole idea you've put forwards for why we should be doing this.

A rule that says errors don't matter if there's too many of them is far more stupid than anything about the current system, which at least tries to be consistent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the actual playing time is usually around 2/3's of the 90 minutes I think. As a comparison, yank football (which works the minutes in a different manner) takes over twice the playing time to complete the match.

But the difference between the stoppages in football and the stoppages in other sports is the length of the stoppages. A stoppage can be just one second, because the stoppages are included within the playing time and so there's an incentive to get on with the game. Once you start having forced stoppages for reviews then the whole method of playing the game also has to change to for it work properly, and the stoppage time is likely to be taken outside of the playing time.

When the yanks had the world cup in '94 they tried their hardest to get FIFA to change the rules - they asked for halves of no longer than 30 minutes (so they could get in more ad-breaks), and they asked for stoppages to not be a part of the playing time (to get in more ad-breaks). FIFA very rightly told them where to shove it, because they recognised that the flow of the game is a big part of its appeal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

You can adapt it to apply to football quite easily. The NFL/Cricket referal system is a good one and I reckon you can incorporate some instances to ongoing play so that you'll get word without it stopping the game. I personally think that this would add excitement and have people praying at the big screens, while watching the game.

PMSL.

Thank f**k you're just a pretend fan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the actual playing time is usually around 2/3's of the 90 minutes I think. As a comparison, yank football (which works the minutes in a different manner) takes over twice the playing time to complete the match.

But the difference between the stoppages in football and the stoppages in other sports is the length of the stoppages. A stoppage can be just one second, because the stoppages are included within the playing time and so there's an incentive to get on with the game. Once you start having forced stoppages for reviews then the whole method of playing the game also has to change to for it work properly, and the stoppage time is likely to be taken outside of the playing time.

When the yanks had the world cup in '94 they tried their hardest to get FIFA to change the rules - they asked for halves of no longer than 30 minutes (so they could get in more ad-breaks), and they asked for stoppages to not be a part of the playing time (to get in more ad-breaks). FIFA very rightly told them where to shove it, because they recognised that the flow of the game is a big part of its appeal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the actual playing time is usually around 2/3's of the 90 minutes I think. As a comparison, yank football (which works the minutes in a different manner) takes over twice the playing time to complete the match.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

to be fair neil

to 'accidentally' shoot someone at work means.......

accidentally loading your air gun

accidentally taking your air gun to work

accidentally aiming it at someone

accidentally forgetting that it was loaded

accidentally pulling the trigger

im pretty sure that almost any other walk of life, accidental or not, if any 'normal' person took an air gun to work and shot the work experience kid, we'd be given our P45's just as the rozzers turned up

I had my cat shot with an airgun by some little arsehole years ago, so I understand what happens. And what happens is that a moving target is far more interesting to shoot at than a static one. ;)

But that aside, perhaps Cole had been given permission to shoot his gun on the site, on the basis that it was site big enough for it to be used safely. I don't know the details, so this might be the case - and if it is then most of what you say above is irrelevant. It was that I was getting at.

And it might have been a genuine accident. It probably wasn't, but I don't know that for sure.

If it was a genuine accident and the gun was being used on that site with Chelsea's permission then from one angle the punishment is quite harsh.

But of course if it's as you lay it out then it's a joke .... but these are footie players, where the real world doesn't much apply because that's the situation that fans have allowed to happen by buying into the bollocks that clubs have tried to sell them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so what you're saying is that the game would be improved by the removal of errors, but that you don't care about removing the errors if there's a lot of them. :lol::lol:

Yeah, that makes things all so much better, and really fits with the whole idea you've put forwards for why we should be doing this.

A rule that says errors don't matter if there's too many of them is far more stupid than anything about the current system, which at least tries to be consistent.

Edited by worm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

also, how is any of this different to the flawed current format of a ref speaking to his buddy on the line. where they can be stood talking for 30 seconds before the ref walks up to either caution someone or award a penalty?

that breaks up play that people say is fine as it is. what's so wrong with technology playing the part of the linesman?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah i heard that they wanted it changed to quarters for 94 by an old teacher. that's obviously ridiculous though.

i'm fine with how we have it just now, there's nothing funnier than a bunch of foaming mouthed fans at a blatant incorrect decision. on either side. i stand behind one of the moaniest guys on the planet who spends the majority of his time shouting at the ref.

but you can have a player down injured for ten minutes. and i don't think that makes that game any worse because it's been interrupted. and you wouldn't be interupting the game for ten minutes at a time. probably not even ten minutes a game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

I see you lack a counter argument and have reverted to ignoring the points put to you.

yeah, cos there's a sensible counter-argument to be made to someone who thinks stoppages will improve the game, and that watching big screen is the best excitement to be had at a match. :lol::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah, cos there's a sensible counter-argument to be made to someone who thinks stoppages will improve the game, and that watching big screen is the best excitement to be had at a match. :lol::lol:

Edited by worm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

No. What I'm saying is that there is a much, much better system that would cease majorly wrong decisions from standing, would increase fair play and would decrease cheating at the expense of having a team of video reviewers review big plays. The play doesn't even have to stop for the review, just for the manager to call for a review.

Keep up.

the play doesn't have to stop for a review in that manner. But the play has to be wiped and re-started for any successful review. :rolleyes:

So what happens if the other team scores a perfectly good goal in the play that shouldn't have happened because a wrong call had been made previous to it? :lol:

And any call that the ref might make can be ignored by the players, because that call might be reviewed and over-turned. So there's no meaningful control of the game at all at any time.

It's completely unworkable, before even thinking of the wider effects on the appeal of the game. Just because you like snoozeball doesn't mean that's what footie fans want to see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've given absolutely no rationale at all to suggest that this would butcher the game. None whatsoever. What you've done is stated it.

Do you really think I'd support 'butchering' a game I enjoy to watch? My argument is that it wouldn't be butchered and yours is purist nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

There's just no counter argument Neil as you've clearly ignored every comeback and continued as if nothing's been said.

To clarify:

1. There are already stoppages (as explained).

2. The play can continue while a review is in progress (as explained).

What problem do you see with that, other than fear of change and purist romanticism?

1. there are, but are too short for reviews. So they'd be longer stoppages - it's not unchanged as you're suggesting.

2. that creates more problems than it solves. A perfectly good goal (which is nothing to do with what's under review) could be scored before a call is made on that review.

I have no fear of change. I have great fear of gross stupidity that's not joining up the dots.

I have no purist romantisicm, I do the practical. And nothing you're saying is practical without changing the game we love into one that we don't.

If I was a fan of snoozeball I'd already be a fan of yank football and cricket and other things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • In August 2009, in his Spectator blog he wrote about Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour Party, in unflattering terms. Liddle began the article by asking: "So — Harriet Harman, then. Would you? I mean after a few beers obviously, not while you were sober."[27] Tanya Gold wrote in The Guardian that Liddle had delivered a "tissue-thin polemic." Pointing out that it was The Spectator's cover story that week.[28] Rachel Cooke in The Observer nearly two months later recalled finding Liddle's piece "disgusting"[29] Cooke went on to say: "I would still like to do something really unpleasant to the man who wrote [the article]." Liddle said two months later that the Harman column "was supposed to be a parody of guttural, base sexism", a joke he assumed readers would understand. After the negative response from Gold (and then Cooke, among other female journalists) he continued: "And then I suppose I came to the conclusion – gradually – that I must have got it wrong."[30] In June 2014, he said that of those he had offended, Harman was the one person to whom he would apologise.[31] In November 2009, again for The Spectator website, he offered "a quick update on what the Muslim savages are up to," a brief article about the stoning to death of a 20-year-old woman in Somalia after she was accused of adultery, and the similar death of a 13-year-old the year before. He made remarks, considered sarcastic, that read: "Incidentally, many Somalis have come to Britain as immigrants recently, where they are widely admired for their strong work ethic, respect for the law and keen, piercing, intelligence."[32][33] In December 2009, on his Spectator blog, Liddle referred to two black music producers, Brandon Jolie and Kingsley Ogundele, who had plotted to kill Jolie's 15-year-old pregnant girlfriend, as "human filth" and said the incident was not an anomaly. He continued: When he was accused of racism, Liddle said he was instead engaging in a debate about multiculturalism.[35][36] In March 2010 the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) upheld a complaint against Liddle, who became the first journalist to be censured over the contents of a blog, because he had not been able to prove his claim about the crime statistics.[37] After the publication of London crime figures in June 2010, The Sunday Telegraph suggested Liddle was largely right on some of his claims, but that he was probably wrong on his claims about knife crimes and violent sex crimes.[38] In October 2010, Liddle called for the abolition of the Welsh language TV channel S4C as a result of the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review. In his article for The Spectator, he described Welsh nationalists as "miserable, seaweed munching, sheep-bothering pinch-faced hill-tribes".[39] On 23 May 2013, Liddle wrote about the murder of soldier Lee Rigby near the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, London. In the original version of a blog article for The Spectator, he referred to the perpetrators as "two black savages".[40] After many objections to his language use,[41] this phrase was modified.[42] Liddle apologised.[40][43] Giving a speech at Durham University in December 2021, Liddle said: "It is fairly easily proven that colonialism is not remotely the major cause of Africa's problems, just as it is very easy to prove that the educational underachievement of British people of Caribbean descent or African Americans is nothing to do with institutional or structural racism."[44] Independent editor rumour and Millwall supporters' website The Guardian reported on 8 January 2010 that the expected purchase of The Independent by Alexander Lebedev, a Russian billionaire, would be followed by the appointment of Liddle as editor.[45] Roy Greenslade wrote on 11 January that the reports were provoking a "major internal and external revolt" by The Independent's staff and readers.[46] The stories about Liddle's posts on Millwall Online apparently further reduced the likelihood of his being offered the job.[47] Finally, on 19 February, Stephen Brook of The Guardian reported that Liddle was no longer in the running for the post.[48] Tim Luckhurst, professor of journalism at the University of Kent, argued that Liddle's prospects of editing The Independent were nullified "by the people behind a viciously intolerant campaign of liberal bigotry".[49] In January 2010, the press drew attention to allegedly racist and misogynist comments posted under the username "monkeymfc"—a name Liddle has used—on Millwall Online, a fan club web forum with no official connection to Millwall Football Club. Liddle attributed some of the comments to opposition fans logging in under his name to embarrass him. He later said he had written some of the posts that were being criticised, including one in support of the BNP excluding Black and Asian people from the party.[50] Another post, in which he joked about not being able to smoke at Auschwitz,[51] led to his being asked to explain what he meant in The Jewish Chronicle.[47] While he said in June 2014 that his comments were taken out of context, he said that he did not regret making them. "No. Never. Absolutely not. I thought about my mates at Millwall Online, God I respect them so much more than these other people, these ghastly f**king people."[31] Stephen Lawrence, disabled and transgender people In November 2011, an article by Liddle for The Spectator suggested the trial of two men accused (and later convicted) of murdering Stephen Lawrence would not be fair.[52] It was referred to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve by the judge for possible contempt of court,[53] and he ordered the jurors not to read it. Having decided that it might have breached a court order, Grieve passed the case on to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions.[54] The decision that The Spectator was to be prosecuted by the CPS for breaching reporting restrictions was announced on 9 May 2012, with a court hearing scheduled for 7 June, although Liddle as the author was not himself liable for prosecution. Fraser Nelson, the magazine's editor, announced that the prosecution would not be contested,[55] and the magazine pleaded guilty at the hearing. The fine was £3,000, plus £2,000 compensation to Stephen Lawrence's parents and £625 costs.[56] In January 2012, Liddle wrote that many people in the UK were "pretending to be disabled" in his column for The Sun,[57] an opinion defended by James Delingpole.[58] Frances Ryan in The Guardian accused him of "belittling something that on a daily basis affects real people" who can be "a huge benefit to society. Maybe for a month Liddle would like to try that."[59] In May 2015, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) upheld a complaint from Trans Media Watch that Liddle had been discriminatory towards Emily Brothers, a blind and transgender Labour candidate at the 2015 general election, in two Sun columns published in December 2014 and January 2015. In commenting in the way he had Liddle had breached two sections of the editors' code.[60][61] Column on poppers and gay sex During a parliamentary debate on the Psychoactive Substances Bill – which "makes it an offence to produce, supply, offer to supply, possess with intent to supply, possess on custodial premises, import or export psychoactive substances"[65] the Conservative politician Crispin Blunt admitted he used poppers: Liddle responded in his Spectator blog: The satirical and current affairs magazine Private Eye described this as hypocritical, pointing out Liddle's account in The Sunday Times of using Viagra in July 2004.[68][69] A spokesperson from the LGBT rights charity Stonewall said of Liddle's remarks: "Comments like this are shocking and damaging, but we wouldn't expect anything less from repeat offending bigots like Rod Liddle."[70] Column on Muslim voters In October 2019, Liddle penned a column in The Spectator commenting on the forthcoming December 2019 UK general election, which suggested that the election should be held on a Muslim holy day to reduce the Labour vote. The column was criticised by senior political figures including Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid and former Conservative Deputy Prime Minister David Lidington. Liddle defended the content as being humorous. The article also criticised the Labour MP Rosie Duffield's recent speech about her experience of trying to exit an abusive relationship; Duffield described the article as "racist and misogynistic".[74]
    • A true social democrat
    • I thought the same thing I thought when Baresi went which is there sure is a hell of alot of people who don't make the new pension age.
    • 1, The Menzingers- Everything I Ever Saw 2, Quicksand- Bring On The Psychics 3, Radkey- Bedroom Sand  
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...