Well, "One pill makes you larger and one pill makes you small..." I think Jack's taken a few of the former.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - New Mexico Linnet
Maybe not time for some Kool and the Gang (yet), but sadly never a better time to listen to some Donna Summer.
As the Guardian reported today:
"The depth of Summer's stamp on the zeitgeist was illustrated in a US Republican presidential debate earlier this year, when candidate Herman Cain quoted her in his closing statement. "A poet once said, 'life can be a challenge, life can seem impossible, but it's never easy when there's so much on the line'."
The words are from The Power of One, which Summer recorded as the theme song for Pokémon: The Movie 2000."
I know the late sixties were a weird and wonderful time, but can anyone elighten me as to the circumstances of the away win in a friendly against St. Pancratius on this day in 1969?
Or is it there just to see if anyone is paying attention?
Roll on pre-season!
We use the term "unlimited" rather than "roll on roll off" (the latter implies perhaps that the substitutions happen with the ball in play, which I assume not to be the case).
It works just fine - it allows everyone to participate and, if teams are playing opponents at the same level of seriousness/fitness, everyone has the same expectations about the general frequency of stoppage. In all my years of reffing these kinds of games, I've never seen the type of "strategic" or "tactical" substitutions that is being suggested would happen (and as happens, for example, in American Football).
You'd never allow a substution by a defending team if the attacking team is - for example - looking for a quick throw and the request is obviously just intended to slow down the attack. And players are generally smart enough to understand your reasoning (and appreciate that you'd do exactly the same thing at the other end of the field in the same circumstances).
It's the sort of modification of the Laws that allows old farts like me to consider playing at my age - having always been the #12 on all my teams at KES and rarely getting off the touchline until the last 5 minutes!
« on: April 30, 2012, 09:35:53 PM »
I think there's another little game up north we're watching....
Not a good decision, but when a defender lunges in like that - with no chance of getting anywhere near the ball - you can see how the ref made the mistake. The cheating attacker gained short term, but he will have a hard time living it down for the rest of his career. And he'll not get many legitimate shouts for a foul from refs who know his reputation.
I have enjoyed this post it's nice to get people discussing football.
I honestly don't believe it's an issue of keeping things "simple" - it's about keeping things consistent. The offside law really has two element, "offside position" and "offside infraction". Not blowing the whistle when a player is only in an "offside position" is one of the things that keeps the game flowing. "Wait(ing) and see(ing)" that a player is actually "participating in active play" means we get more time with the ball in play for our 8 quid.
ARs will often use the SOUND of the ball being kicked through to a player in an offside position as the point at which to judge position because - as you suggest - SEEING the ball kicked and SEEING the position of the attacker at the point at which the ball is kicked. Easier on the fields at North Lynn opposite the Fire Station than at Old Trafford or the Nou Camp? Hell, yes!
Nigel, I think you could also add that the majority of Players have only a limited knowledge of the Laws...and as for TV commentators and pundits!
Too true - which is one of the reasons why the periodic cries for ex-pros to be recruited as high-level refs just don't make sense!
OK. I'll bite.
KJR knows I will, so I can't disappoint him
I would say to Bodger that the majority of fans have only a limited understanding of the Laws of the Game and the instructions that referees are given - such that when superficially similiar incidents result in different actions by the referee they don't see why.
I didn't see either game, but let me speculate: QPR were winning when Tarrabt wasted time, Norwich were losing (or at most drawing). That's not inconsistency, that's called "intelligent refereeing".
Do we make mistakes? Of course.
Do we prance? Only some of us: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqkpWuQaE64