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

It would remove a lot of the more ridiculous and profound moments (not to mention embarrassing). I'm thinking of the French goal against Ireland, the disallowed Spurs goal against Man Utd, Bolton going down on the last day when they'd scored a goal etc.

It has without question improved other sports and the question is why is it not being adapted to football: the most popular sport in the world. The question isn't why should it be.

Edited by Benj
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

  • Admin

Look at you not listening to me again.

I've never once said that a referee refers the decion. Not once. Not least of all because a referee cant refer. I've said all along that a manager has a number of referrals, which is common practice in many other sports.

No Neil. A referee DEFERS. A referee cannot refer as he has been refered to (hence his name).

You haven't a f**king clue have you.

I'm got more of a clue about the English language than you have, that's for sure. :lol:

In cricket, everything that happened is controlled by the Umpire. If the umpire is unsure about what is the right decision, he REFERS that instance to the off-field decision makers and the replays they have access to. He then DEFERS to their decision.

FFS. :lol::lol::lol:

re·fer

–verb (used with object)

1. to direct for information or anything required: He referred me to books on astrology.

2. to direct the attention or thoughts of: The asterisk refers the reader to a footnote.

3. to hand over or submit for information, consideration, decision, etc.: to refer the argument to arbitration.

4. to assign to a class, period, etc.; regard as belonging or related.

5. to have relation; relate; apply.

–verb (used without object)

6. to direct attention, as a reference mark does.

7. to have recourse or resort; turn, as for aid or information: to refer to one's notes.

8. to make reference or allusion: The author referred to his teachers twice in his article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

What is the point to this other than pointless semantic bullshit?

What's your problem with a two second delay that's occuring when play has stopped anyway? You aren't being in the least bit sincere, you're just attempting to win a lost argument.

is an extra two seconds an extra delay or not? :rolleyes:

It's not semantic bullshit, it's a statement of fact - a fact I'm correct about, and a fact that you're wrong about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

I'm talking about implementing a REFERRAL system, not a deferral system, so you're spouting irrelevant goop.

I REFER you to the definition of REFER, which you can read and then DEFER to my correct use of the English language and reject your wrong use of the English language. :lol::lol::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Erm...its you not knowing what you're talking about in this case, the players can call (a limited number of) reviews now too! :lol:

My words were still correct - the Umpire still refers to the off-field system for a decision to be made.

As it happens, I watched the highlights of the England/Ireland match last night, where exactly that happened at least twice. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

None of which the Umpire is doing. What he's doing is deferring the decision making (as he hasn't made one) to someone else. He can only refer it if he has made a decision, which is of course stupid.

Had enough of the semantic bullshit yet?

Yours, yes I have.

Yet again, you are literally wrong. It's as funny as it gets from someone who believes themselves the dogs bollocks about language.

He is deferring the decision making. He refers the situation that he needs a decision for to that off-field system.

It's very simple, except for the very stupid - you. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yours, yes I have.

Yet again, you are literally wrong. It's as funny as it gets from someone who believes themselves the dogs bollocks about language.

He is deferring the decision making. He refers the situation that he needs a decision for to that off-field system.

It's very simple, except for the very stupid - you. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

A pointless fact used because you've lost an argument. I've asked for you to make it a meaningful one in relation to the argument by answering this question: what difference does a two second delay make to the game?

Not a pointlewss fact - you had categorically stated that there is NO delay.

Is a 2 second delay a delay, or not?

You were wrong. I was right.

It's an extra delay. Delays change how people feel about what they're watching. After all, watching an injured player on the field getting treatment is a delay, and it's not what people have come to see - if the game was full of injury delays, then watching a game is not the same experience as a without those delays.

The delays might be small, but they're still delays. That has effects elsewhere, as I've stated and you dismiss as rubbish. What is rubbish is your dismissal of such things as meaningless, when they're not.

The likes of FIFA has decided they're not meaningless either, so it's not just me. But if your ideas are so fantastic then you'll be able to convince FIFA won't you .... so off you go, do it. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

To steady the ship:

A referral system in sport means that a player or manager refers the referee's decision for a review upstairs.

A deferral system in sport means that a referee can defer a situation that they cannot judge for a decision upstairs.

Are we clear now?

I've always had it clear - that you read things so poorly you don't correctly read what I've said. :rolleyes:

I've used refer correctly at all points. At no point have I talked about "A referral system" or "A deferral system", I've talking about "a review system" or "your idea".

I say it again: I've used 'refer' correctly at every point.

As ever, the error is with your reading and not what I've said. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The likes of FIFA has decided they're not meaningless either, so it's not just me. But if your ideas are so fantastic then you'll be able to convince FIFA won't you .... so off you go, do it. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My words were still correct - the Umpire still refers to the off-field system for a decision to be made.

As it happens, I watched the highlights of the England/Ireland match last night, where exactly that happened at least twice. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

So a two second delay would affect how people feel about watching the game. So shall we stop free kicks from happening and get rid of the offside rule? Maybe we could have walls instead of touch lines so that the ball stays in play.

Load of shite Neil. Nothing but a desperate attempt at argumentation for the sake of it.

It's an extra delay. Delays are not what people go to see. :rolleyes:

And two seconds is a hypothetical anyway - in rugby they're often longer, in cricket they're often longer, so in football they'd often be longer. These are all true facts.

The stoppages that currently exist are a part of a hugely successful game. You cannot (rightly ;)) say with any certainty that adding further delays wouldn't lessen it's appeal, and you have no rationale to back that up either.

There is a rationale to back up what I'm saying, because people do not games to watch delays.

It might be the case that people wouldn't care about those extra delays. But that's not my conclusion - and more importantly, it's not the conclusion of the people who run the game and have considered these things in great depth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

In that case, why did you say that a referee would change their behaviour by referring (meaning deferring, but whatever) their decisions to a reviewer?

That wouldn't happen in a referral system.

Currently a referee has no immediate oversight of their decisions, so they approach their decisions in a particular way. They can have confidence that their decisions are not about to be immediately called into question in a way that changes anything about that decision.

If there was immediate oversight of their decisions, then they'd feel less confident about the making of their decisions than they currently do. It doesn't take a genius to realise that.

Or do you think that people don't ever self-censor, with that self-censoring influenced by their situation at that moment in time? :lol:

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...