Shak

KAAABLAHHHH!!

If not, we'll be somewhere around the middle most likely.

Warming the balls.

Ameobi Carroll Lovenkrands Ranger Harewood Shola is clearly the best we have right now, that's not really up for reasonable debate. The next four are pretty close, put Harewood at the bottom cos he'll be gone soon enough so I'd look to phase him out as soon as Shola is ready to go. I'd like to see Lovenkrands and Shola get a couple of games up front together, that may be our best potential partnership. Carroll has been decent, he's good depth at this level. Ranger I don't think is ready. He's got some decent ability but he looks about as likely to score as Harper does for the most part. I'd look to keep giving him cameo roles from the bench as soon as everyone is fit. Maybe one goal will open the floodgates for him, hopefully.

Worst penalty appeal there ever from the Everton crowd.

Sunderland at SJP would be pretty awesome.

Probably about 10, tops. Half of those being Kezman.

"Oh Darren, they shouted horrible things at me." "Prove it or STFU, mum."

It's a great laugh logging on here at half three and seeing the official match thread read 'Newcastle United 3-0 Swansea City' though, has to be said.

Ranger should be a sub once Ameobi is fit, Shola and Carroll are more effective at this point. Really bizarre that he's not getting games ahead of Harewood though, as shit as Goomba has looked for us.

Sky have the first half on the red button, the fucking cunts. God forbid anyone miss 'The Last Word'. Anyone who watches that show is a cunt.

"You rest your case?" "I'm sorry, I thought that was just a figure of speech. Case closed."

Pretty much impossible to guess at this point. Really don't think England will be far away from it this time, now that they finally have a manager.

Shite manager, complete gobshite. I'd prefer that his operation is a success though, if I had to choose.

Must say I find the level of complaints from Irish people in general to be over the top, the campaign to get the game replayed is absolutely embarrassing. It was a shit refereeing decision after an act of cheating from an opposition player. It's not anything remarkeable that doesn't happen in several big games a year worldwide. Yes it sucks and I feel we were cheated, but this kind of thing happens. People have turned into such pussies, take it on the chin and move on FFS.

Most of the Nigeria current 11 will have died from old age by the time the WC actually takes place, pointless them going.

If Swedish people weren't such blind cunts we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Winning a group with the world champions should have been pretty easy alright, that's a really not shite at all point you've made there to be sure.

And would you limit it to 1 per team? What if there was 1 more seriously dodgy incident then challenges allowed? The argument would start all over again wouldn't it? As soon as a manager has an unsuccesful appeal, he has no further right to challenge. This way managers will be very careful about appealing something, knowing that getting it wrong could cost them huge later on in the game. Also, only certain things would be reviewable. Balls over the line for a goal, penalties, sendings off. Only the major decisions that change the course of a game dramatically. Problem is though, that you could have one incident where the manager thinks he has a right to challenge. But he is in the little box thing he has to stand in on the touchline so he is not level with play. So he appeals because from his viewpoint he thinks he is right, but it turns out he is wrong. Then the ref misses a handball like the one last night, and the other team score. And we end up having this discussion again. That's on the manager then. Managers shouldn't just be challenging shit for the sake of it, hoping for the best because they think a call might have been wrong. They have their challenge, and they damn well better be sure it's going to be successful when they use it because they could have an absolute whopper go against them later in the game if not. Most games should have no challenges at all.

Which goes back to my point about clear evidence. Some penalties/sendings off are clearly the wrong decision. Ronaldo against Bolton last year, for example, would be reversed because it was absolutely clearly the wrong call. Whereas Rooney against Arsenal this year, which I though wasn't a penalty at all, would still be a penalty because its kind of open to interpretation.

And would you limit it to 1 per team? What if there was 1 more seriously dodgy incident then challenges allowed? The argument would start all over again wouldn't it? As soon as a manager has an unsuccesful appeal, he has no further right to challenge. This way managers will be very careful about appealing something, knowing that getting it wrong could cost them huge later on in the game. Also, only certain things would be reviewable. Balls over the line for a goal, penalties, sendings off. Only the major decisions that change the course of a game dramatically.

Where do you draw the line. That is the logical reason. As someone else already said, you will get all the players surrounding the ref clammering for a video replay because unlike the rugby codes the footballers have no respect for the ref. It should be down to the manager to make a challenge/review, not the ref. If the players are convinced the ref has got ot wrong, they tell their manager and he can make a challenge.

Think the challenge system works very well in the NFL personally. American football is already a slow, slow sport and it seems like every challenge takes at least five or six minutes. Half the time they conference for five minutes than realise that the play was actually not reviewable in the first place. Not to mention, that they still get it wrong half the time. That happened once man. You very rarely see them get a call wrong on review either. They leave the ones open for debate as called on the field, which is the fairest way to do it as far as I can see.

Think the challenge system works very well in the NFL personally.

Why would it need to be stopped all the time? How many times do they use the video in rugby? So what would you limit video decisions for? Offsides? Handballs? Whether a ball has gone over the line? Pulling and pushing in the box? Fouls? Where do you draw the line? I'd limit it to questionable balls over the line, and/or massive complaints from players which a faulty decision may have gone against leading to a goal. You'd have players over-appealing far too much then. In theory I'm for video refereeing, but they need to find a way to ensure that the average game isn't being stopped for a review more than once or twice in the 90 minutes. Best way is that a manager has one challenge he can make to a referee's ruling per game. A soon as he challenges something and gets it wrong, he's got no more right to send things to the video ref. Managers also aren't allowed any access to replay on the sideline, so the mistake will need to be very blatant. Also, the video ref can only overturn something if it's absolutely clear beyond any doubt that the wrong call was made. Anything that has any sort of question mark over it, the call stays the same.