Football 2010-2011

[worm]

he does - but only on TV. If he'd experienced it for real he might have a different opinion.

But, don't cha know, you can become an expert on every stupid yank idea by watching it on TV.

[TheGayTent]

Any Stokies answer me this - how do the blocks go in the south stand?

I've got tickets in block 39 - would be interested if that's towards the main stand, in the middle, towards the wraparound stand?

Anybody help? Ta

[worm]

Surely you're wrong?

After all, he's from "the hotbed of football", so must be at the stadium of lightweights every week and know that what you're saying is completely wrong.

Or perhaps he's never been to a game. Just a thought.

[Benj]

it would be exciting but then so would adding a multi-ball segment.

you either leave it as it is, or you use technology during a break as soon as a protest is made from the authorised party.

[Benj]

it would be exciting but then so would adding a multi-ball segment.

[eFestivals]

Yawn.

so if you go to games, how come you don't know that they don't show replays of controversial incidents on the big screens in grounds?

(I don't go to games where there's screens, and even I knew that!).

Exposed by your own words matey. Get over it.

[Steve P]

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

[ampersand]

What do you mean 'exactly'?

I'm asking for a play by play account of the hypothetical example you just gave to me.

Are you saying that in real time a penalty decision is turned down by the referee? And in the ensuing action the other team score?

If so, there are a number of options. Firstly, the way you put it. Or secondly, you could call this unreviewable as it was not a refereeing decision. That is to say that only refereeing decisions (a penalty award, a goal, a dissallowed goal for a foul, a red card, a foul) can come under review. This would keep play flowing.

[Benj]

tried to keep it short and simple to avoid confusing you/me/both.

cole tackles rooney. ref waves play on but ferguson/ferdinand raises hand to have it reviewed. in the meantime, chelsea go on the counter attack and drogban scores. after that, it's decided that rooney was fouled and the penalty is given. but chelsea are still 1-0 up.

i'm not arsed about the flow though. that decision could be made in 30 secs. your way just complicates things. and things are complicated enough with bloody phases in offside.

[eFestivals]

Totally agree. To have been using a gun at a place of work there'd have need to be all kind of risk assessments and other stuff in place. No way would they have been done, because they wouldn't have the first clue how to put them together. Christ, i've just been told i could be sacked if I came back to the office after going out for a pint at lunch time. Someone should be deep in it over this, and it'd be disgraceful if nothing comes of it because in any normal walk of life someone would end up in court at the very least.

I don't disagree with anything you've said, but ...

1. when have Prem footballers operated like normal life?

2. is your workplace huge fields where shooting an air gun can be done perfectly safely?

The fact is that Cole might have been given permission to use the gun there - stupid if he was, but far from impossible.

[ampersand]

As Neil mentioned earlier that gives the opposition the chance to stop a breakaway, although that could be fun in itself (if you only had a couple of reviews)

[eFestivals]

do they not? that surprises me! even in the superbowl? do they have these reviews in college football as well? where obviously screens may not be there.

my comment was about Prem football, not (I like TGT's words ) "rugby for girls".

[Benj]

so if you go to games, how come you don't know that they don't show replays of controversial incidents on the big screens in grounds?

(I don't go to games where there's screens, and even I knew that!).

Exposed by your own words matey. Get over it.

[sifi]

i think i stole that from the simpsons. they used something else too but i forget now!

[Benj]

my comment was about Prem football, not (I like TGT's words ) "rugby for girls".

[worm]

tried to keep it short and simple to avoid confusing you/me/both.

cole tackles rooney. ref waves play on but ferguson/ferdinand raises hand to have it reviewed. in the meantime, chelsea go on the counter attack and drogban scores. after that, it's decided that rooney was fouled and the penalty is given. but chelsea are still 1-0 up.

Edited March 1, 2011 by worm

[worm]

More people died in one season of NFL before they bought in the protection than the whole history of top level Rugby.

Girls they are most certainly not

[worm]

so if you go to games, how come you don't know that they don't show replays of controversial incidents on the big screens in grounds?

[eFestivals]

Well given that I've seen them shown, I'd be rather backward to think that they aren't.

Ooooo, get you. You must be awesome.

i reckon you saw them on the radio station you listen to the games on which doesn't actually broadcast the games.

[TheGayTent]

'Rugby for girls' is a retarded suggestion said by ignorant people, as well we know.

[worm]

No, it's said (certainly in this case) slightly tongue in cheek

[worm]

i reckon you saw them on the radio station you listen to the games on which doesn't actually broadcast the games.

[ampersand]

my comment was about Prem football, not (I like TGT's words ) "rugby for girls".

[worm]

an immediate review would work a lot better than what you're suggesting. though as neil has pointed out, that has it's flaws too.

[ampersand]

How and why? In what sense?

In what way does allowing each manager, say, one review a game for a refereeing decision fail to work? Let's say that they get to keep it if the review overturns the refs decision.

And, can it not be used in conjunction with, rather than as exclusive of, the other two factors you mention?