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

I quite like Patrick Barclay, not that I've read him as opposed to his Twitter/ Sunday Supplement stuff.

In fact I very rarely read stuff in the paper these days as opposed to listen to podcasts etc, its far better when there is someone else there to argue against their bullshit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 10.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • eFestivals

    2125

  • ampersand

    1135

  • The Nal

    1089

  • TheGayTent

    766

Nope he wasn’t.

What surprises me though, is peoples surprise at Fergie having a go at refs like this. Hes been manager of Utd since 1986! :lol: Im not saying hes right, but hes a master at it. Ive no doubt his comments after the Wigan game helped Rooney escape a ban. He uses fear tactics very well, with players too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Besides the incorrect way you've phrased it as play would not be interupted at all, then I already have explained here.........

Care to point out where I said play would be interupted? :rolleyes:

What Isaid about your idea is that it would have "perfect ref decisions but imperfect play from those decisions within the game" - because that's what you've been putting forwards.

Just in case you're not getting it, you've said that decisions would be reversed within a game after a period of time (that's needed for a review) - which means that they'd be an amount of play of the game where the game had action but those actions would be contrary to the reviewed decisions.

And so you'd be swapping the current senario of imperfect ref decisions but perfect play from those decisions, for a system where there's perfect ref decisions but an amount of imperfect play to those decisions within the game.

It's no improvement to anything, and it's completely anti-intellectual. It's stupidity at its greatest. It means no one knows what is good and what is bad within any game because of the inconcsistencies of what happens within a game.

The current system isn't perfect, but it's a million times more perfect than what you're suggesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not so at all. It may help a little with in-play cheating perhaps, but only in terms of assessing the need of the foul. Players will still cheat and pick up the fine after the game so that they win the game. That would be compromised if they could be penalised during the game. Also, you can't make things fairer if you let a penalty or red card stand that should have been. You also can't have less ambiguity to rules if the ref's word still stands regarding a bad on-field decision.

I assure you that I don't. I'm still waiting for a reasonable (non-traditionalist/fatalistic/purist) point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Care to point out where I said play would be interupted? :rolleyes:

What Isaid about your idea is that it would have "perfect ref decisions but imperfect play from those decisions within the game" - because that's what you've been putting forwards.

Just in case you're not getting it, you've said that decisions would be reversed within a game after a period of time (that's needed for a review) - which means that they'd be an amount of play of the game where the game had action but those actions would be contrary to the reviewed decisions.

And so you'd be swapping the current senario of imperfect ref decisions but perfect play from those decisions, for a system where there's perfect ref decisions but an amount of imperfect play to those decisions within the game.

Edited by worm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

if it was a fine, yeah it would be pointless. even if it was a weeks wages. hefty ban is what i'm talking. not that it stops rino gattuso being a raj but it would be a good detterent for most. better than a yellow card in play as would be the only punishment they could give for diving.

Edited by worm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm down with the after match review. But I'm also down with in-play reviews too. That's all Boss.

I'm more than prepared to. I'm just not hearing anything other than 'I'd rather the cheating/unfairness/bad decisions stay than for the game to change', which is fine. I however do want it to change because I want these factors to be removed given the age we live in and the technology available. I'm no traditionalist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Semantics.

Brilliant. :lol::lol:

You've asked for reasonable points, and when you're given them you can't dismiss them with reason, so you use the dumb and call it 'semantics'. PMSL. :lol:

No it isn't.

yes it is. Everything I've said would happen within what you've said.

It's a system that would see fairer reversable decisions between plays regarding bad decisions, incorporating the factors I've just given you.

"fairer" is a matter of subjective opinion and not a fact. :rolleyes:

It's certainly the case that some people don't consider having a mixture of play based on both bad (the initial decision, from which play continues until after the in-game review) and good (the play after the review) as 'fairer'. For many people consistent is always fairer than a situation where no one knows at any point within a game what is good and what is bad - at least as things are curre3ntly, everyone knows what's what even if they don't agree with the decisions that have been made (and no one is ever going to agree with all decisions anyway).

What you've replied with is a load of meaningless semantic bullshit.

Or alternatively, you don't have enough brain cells to address what I've said with reason so you've reverted to bullshit. :lol:

What I've said is what you've said - but I've said it in such a way as to clearly expose the huge flaws in your idea, to make clear that your own ideas are at least as imperfect as what exists now (because there's still play that's made after a bad decision just as there is now), as well as being a situation where no one knows where things actually stand with the game.

The only genuine response is that people simply don't want the rules to change.

PMSL.

The genuine response is that there is no benefit in swapping one imperfect system for another that is no better (and in some people's eyes a damn sight worse).

They refuse such a system because they like it the way it is.

They refuse such a system because the system you're suggesting is stupidity at it's greatest. It's no improvement.

However, they've got zero right to moan about cheating etc if they want to keep it the same as it is and refuse alternatives that would go some way to removing such factors.

:rolleyes:

If the 'price' of addressing cheating is a system that's just f**king stupid most people with half a brain get to realise that such cheating is the lower price. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've asked for reasonable points, and when you're given them you can't dismiss them with reason, so you use the dumb and call it 'semantics'.

Edited by worm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that's a matter of opinion. As you can probably tell, I want football to modernise like other sports and I detest the unfairness and cheating that occurs. I'm willing to see changes. I think cheating etc undermines the integrity of the game, not that there is much left now. I think this approach could restore integrity and get people back into a modern game that is based upon the fine tradition of sport, that being may the best team win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it may be in theory, but as long as players are making 6, even 5 figure sums in a week, it will never be soley about that. you'd need to bring in serious pay cuts for that to really happen.

Edited by worm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

You haven't given a reasonable point. You've indulged semantic bullshit.

yeah, it's unreasonable and sementic bullshit to point out how f**king stupid your idea is with reason. :lol:

It is better with regards to the factors of being fairer, having less cheating etc as I've already proven.

You've proven nothing. You've merely given your opinion that it would be fairer and there'd be less cheating. :rolleyes:

But how things can be fairer by having no consistent ruling on the field of play I don't know. And nor do you by the sounds of it, because you keep ignoring the fact that they'd be no consistent rulings on the field of play. ;)

And it very definitely the case that anything which in-play reviews can achieve towards stopping cheating can also be achieved by post-reviews of the match.

It will make referee decisions challangable and reversable, meaning that you'll have stuff like wrongful goals and sendings off overturned.

and within that scenario it would also create it's own "wrongful goals" (within what gets played that is subject to a won review) - very likely to a greater extent than the small-ish number of 'wrongful goals' that occur at the moment - and would also create the situation where refs would choose not to send someone off until it had been reviewed (because they look less foolish with their own decisions in that way than they would if their decision was over-ruled by the review), so they'd be increased instances of people being on the field when they should have been sent off.

You'd have more rigid terms of definition because they'd suit the review team as well as the referree, thus less ambiguity.

PMSL - yeah, there's less ambiguity when no one knows if any decision is going to stand after it's been reviewed than there is when a ref's decision is final (as it is now). :lol::lol:

FFS. Welcome to the world of one-brain-cell worm. :lol:

That's fairer, and you can f**k off with your retarded 'fair' is subjective semantic bullshit.

Oh, sorry, I must get a copy of the dictionary you're using, because it's the only correct one in the worlds. Care to tell me it's name so that I can? :lol:

And someone had better tell OED, quick. :lol:

How many more times?

.... can you prove yourself a moron? I dunno, but you've been managing it for something like 5 years here already, and I expect there's many more years still to come. :)

No it isn't. It's a game of football that will see reviewable calls that do not interfere with play alongside bans for incidents where a person has got away with a major foul.

If any initial decision is over-turned during a game then it interferes with play. :rolleyes:

It interferes because any play made during that successful review is 'bad' play that shouldn't have happened, exactly as exists now - but without any interference with what happens now, because any 'bad' decision is considered good because what the ref says is final.

What would be 'stupid' or 'anti-intellectual' about a game played in this way?

the complete lack of consistency to the play that happens on the field, and the lack of control that comes from that.

As things are now, a ref's decision is final. So while you or I might consider that ref's decision as 'bad', within the context of the game (of the ref's decision being final) it is 100% correct because it cannot be disputed or over-turned.

Within your idea, no decision is final and anything can be over-turned - so no one knows within the game what is a good call and what is bad one, and so there can be no proper control of the game.

eg: Fred commits a foul, and the ref gives him a red. Because Fred knows that the decision can be reviewed and might be over-turned he refuses to leave the field until there's been that review. The ref has no power, and the game has no control.

FFS, it's not difficult if you understand the game. You clearly don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm asking why? What can be done to improve the system I've provided. I've already altered it a number of times to incorporate issues when presented with them. It's a piece of piss.

What's this good and bad explanation? All Neil's done is shown that he hasn't a clue about what's being said. He's said this.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Yes I have.

oh sorry, my mistake. I'd forgotten that your opinions are solid facts, just because they're your opinions. :lol:

It couldn't stop France reaching the world cup unfairly. So you're wrong.

what part of "there is no rule currently in place which allowed for a review of that game" are you having such difficulties with? :lol:

Proof?

It's a scenario that could happen - which makes your solution to dealing with such things a cause of the same problem.

What part of that is too difficult for you to grasp?

Mine is that it doesn't happen in any other sport where this kind of system is applied. So you're wrong.

those other sports aren't football.

And, if the system you're suggesting for football is actually used in any other sport (a sport where the play continues while a review takes place), then you're talking bollocks. Anything could happen on the field within that review period. :rolleyes:

The review will apply less ambiguous laws than a referee, as is clear from my explanation.

Your idea is that we won't get +final decisions from the ref, but we'll get it sometime later (with the play carrying on in the meantime) - which very definitely makes your idea more ambiguous than what we have now. :rolleyes:

Fairness according to law, is the equal distribution of the law. As I said, f**k off with your semantic bullshit. If we throw out 'fair' because it's subjective then we have no law or cheating because everything's fair-game.

You are applying your subjectivity to everything being fair while the match continues as a review takes place - yet that piece of play is 'bad' if the review over-turns a decision, which makes that part of the game less than fair.

So your idea has no consistent idea of fairness being applied to the game, while the idea that the ref's decision is final very definitely does.

The view of which is fairer is very definitely subjective. :rolleyes:

Righteous inteference.

'righteous' or not it's interference - something you'd previously claimed didn't happen. :rolleyes:

As it would be anyway! The difference is, the rest of the game can be righted rather than be the result of bad play.

Yes, I get that.

But does the inconsistency in-built into your idea make things fairer or not? It's a subjective view - and the opinion of people here is overwhelmingly 'not'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

I have time for this too.

Yes, but you're a fan of stop/start snoozeball. :rolleyes:

Most football fans are not. They recognise that the speed of the game is its appeal; as do FIFA, as do UEFA, as do the FA.

Football has become the world's most successful sport precisely because it does not have the interruptions you think would be an improvement.

Yank Football has completely failed to take off around the world - despite huge attempts with massive funding to make it popular - precisely because it bores most people senseless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

with hindsight, i can see worms idea working. for example you can hardly argue against it with the henry handball incident.

but in practice it would be a disaster. which is why it will never be proposed, let alone trialled or implemented.

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...