Taylor Swift

Yet Stoke are the better performing club and look more stable. Fulham have been shite this season.

I don't think Spurs will put out a strong side in the latter stages if they're competing with Arsenal for the last CL place. That leaves Chelsea, who I'm sure we can beat over two legs with our full eleven playing, even if they play their best team as well. I would fancy us over the rest of the other teams in the competition. So yeah, we're pretty close to being favourites for this whole thing now. We're underrated because our form doesn't look so good but since we signed the frenchies, we've been a different team and we're still missing our best player.

Honestly, mate.

He did it to rough their striker up and it worked.

With Ben Arfa, we're favourites for this now.

2-0.

Hopefully Ben Arfa plays

Yesssss

Decent from us so far

No the reason to not use replays is that it would likely break up the game too often. This doesn't, so your 'all or nothing' argument doesn't stack up. I'm not really making the all or nothing argument, I'm countering the 'goal line should be it' argument. I see your point obviously, but I don't think the interrupting the game thing is that clear cut. As other people have posted, there are many other points when the game stops and things could be looked at. FWIW I just think that football is such a fluid game that technology is quite difficult to get right. For example, what about the situation I mentioned where the ball is flagged to have crossed the line but a replay shows the striker offside when scoring? The technology is not supposed to handle offsides so what's your point? It handles goal line stuff and it will do so better than a human referee and cause no disruption to the game. What's there to discuss? If the assistant ref made the wrong offside decision then it would still be wrong whether the goal line technology exists or not. Implementing this would result in an end to controversy regarding goal line stuff. Whether a goal should or shouldn't have been given because of offsides or fouls in the lead up aren't important because those things already exist and can't be fixed without interrupting the game. My point is that you've just moved the controversy to another part of the play, one that could be equally important to whether the goal should stand. And you've also struck a blow against the whole idea of technology in sport, which is presumably to ensure the correct outcome of the game. And also against the idea that technology is protecting the referee and linesman. TV replays will still show up a number of things which could have invalidated the goal that has been given by hawkeye. None of this necessarily means we shouldn't use the goal line technology, we were just discussing what it might/should lead to and the validity of saying 'this should be it for technology'. How will it strike a blow against the idea of technology in the game? One decision will now not be subjective and be pretty much guaranteed that the correct decision will be made. How is that bad for the game and for the future of technology in the game? The offsides thing is not relevant to this. That decision would have been made either way, whether the goal line tech exists or not. If the goal line tech works, it'll make all decisions that were previously controversial equivalent to a normal goal. Of course, normal goals today are still subjected to the same scrutiny. Did a foul occur in the build up? Was the throw in given to the correct team? Etc etc What goal line tech will do is push this issue further. Like I said, ten years from now, hopefully someone will solve the offsides issue because it is a fact based thing, for the most part.

In that case, the linesman will let more offsides go rather than signal because if you signal, the game comes to a stop. Are you going to give a goal to the striker when he was incorrectly ruled offside but when he shot, the keeper had already stopped moving? It introduces far too much confusion and would inevitably lead to way more disruption in the game. You say 30 seconds as if its a short amount of time. In actual fact, it's a substantial amount of time that would seriously affect the flow of the game. I am all for technology to help but not when it disrupts the game. The technology available today that fulfills this criteria is goal line and ball in ball it. Everything else will definitely disrupt the game. The penalty thing is even more fraught with problems. First of all, not even everyone on here agrees with penalty decisions even when given three or four views. You can never really solve this problem without stopping the game, and that is something that should never be done. And of course, players complain when they don't get penalties but the other team usually plays on quick enough that the delay is in the order of seconds, not half a minute or so which would be required to view multiple replays from different angles. You can only use it to overrule penalty decisions that are given but again, the game will be subjected to significant delays. The next time there is a controversial penalty given, try timing it and you'll see that it's a relatively short amount of time, even taking into account all the players bitching.

Eventually technology will handle offsides as well. When a computer program is powerful enough to be able to spot the difference between players on both teams and can 'identify' when passes are made, it's a matter of simple calculation and observation whether the recipient of the ball was offsides or not. Within the next ten years, someone will have developed a viable solution to this and the assistant will only be there to 'overrule' it when it's extremely subjective.

No the reason to not use replays is that it would likely break up the game too often. This doesn't, so your 'all or nothing' argument doesn't stack up. I'm not really making the all or nothing argument, I'm countering the 'goal line should be it' argument. I see your point obviously, but I don't think the interrupting the game thing is that clear cut. As other people have posted, there are many other points when the game stops and things could be looked at. FWIW I just think that football is such a fluid game that technology is quite difficult to get right. For example, what about the situation I mentioned where the ball is flagged to have crossed the line but a replay shows the striker offside when scoring? The technology is not supposed to handle offsides so what's your point? It handles goal line stuff and it will do so better than a human referee and cause no disruption to the game. What's there to discuss? If the assistant ref made the wrong offside decision then it would still be wrong whether the goal line technology exists or not. Implementing this would result in an end to controversy regarding goal line stuff. Whether a goal should or shouldn't have been given because of offsides or fouls in the lead up aren't important because those things already exist and can't be fixed without interrupting the game.

Matt is spot on. It's about the flow of the game. You can't have offsides always being reviewed because Cisse is offsides ten times a game. But goal line technology doesn't need a human operator. It will signal when there's a goal. It's a matter of fact whether it did or not. There won't be any disruption to the game. All of Ian's other suggestions require stopping the game to review the decisions. I sincerely hope that never happens because it's far too much. I think once we get past goal line technology, we'll go for all in-out balls, which again is a matter of fact. Stuff is like offsides and fouls and penalties are all a matter of opinion. You can see this forum for a good example of the different reactions that people have from viewing the same footage. See how many people think Bale dived or was fouled. Those decisions are opinions. It's not a fact that technology can resolve without disrupting the flow of the game so I'm against it at this moment of time.

I said its the one important area where it can be used easily without interfering with the game, not that its the one important area full stop (as in the most important one). Yeah, I suppose you're right on that. It is the easiest place to introduce technology, but it doesn't really make a significant impact on fairness in the game. Which would be my reason for wanting technology. Personally I would use no technology and educate people to accept the decision of the ref, but I realise that won't be happening. That's just idiotic. It's as black and white a thing you can get. Either it's in or it's not. I've gone into greater detail regarding the subject on page two of this thread or something. It's nothing like other decisions in the game where it's about the ref making a wrong call. A goal is a goal is a goal. A wrong offside decision is a wrong offside decision and does not have the same impact even if a goal is wrongly ruled out because of it because at least we know if the ball was in or not. If a ball is in the net and there's no offside/foul play, the ball is in the net. It's not a human decision anymore like if a ref pulls back advantage based on his own mindset even if a player gets through split seconds after. It's a goal or it's not a goal. It's not video reffing, it's not taking out the human aspect of the game. It's just helping the referee, who can't really see if a ball cross the line or not unless it's quite clear, if it's a goal or not. Normally a referee should be able to see if there's an offside (with help from his linesmen) or if there's a foul as he's in the situation. It's not comparable situations regarding solutions whatsoever. Absolutely spot on. Whenever this gets implemented, it won't be soon enough.

I would say a manager who changes clubs and leagues and continues to succeed is better than someone who stays in the same league and continues to succeed.

Managing a big club compared to a small club requires different skill sets, though. That's why you see managers who are successful at smaller clubs struggle to step up and vice versa. Players are motivated differently, transfers are conducted differently and tactically it's not the same. Just because managers fail when they change clubs doesn't mean that they weren't good in the first place. There is no recipe for success. You can be tough and fail, you can be soft and fail, you can be tactically brilliant but fail and you can be a brilliant man-manager and still fail.

Great, let's talk about selling the best player we've had in 20 years some more.

For the first ten games of the season, it was a coin toss between him and van Persie for the best player (and I said it on here before anyone wants to argue otherwise). He has the potential to be that great and he's shown it in glimpses which have been interrupted by injury. For all the talk about Bale and his game changing ability, I'd take Hatem any day of the week, and when he's fully fit, he'll prove it.

I love it, Ed.

What watch is he wearing

People aren't able to accept the good times?

You're doing it all wrong. I thought you were a good gambler because you won a shit load last year but the more I see it, the more it seems that you just lucked out by betting on teams that you like. We and Real did brilliantly last year so you made a lot of money. We and Real have been shit this year so you've lost a shit load of money. That's not a sign of a good gambler. It's a sign of a regular Joe fan who likes to bet on his teams. You should have done what dinho said and bet on no more goals. That's what a gambler betting for money would have done. It seems that you just bet on teams that you like and you don't evaluate why things haven't gone as expected. I mean, Madrid must have cost you a thousand Euros this year yet you still bet big on them. Likewise with Newcastle. If you're going to do that then bet what you can afford to lose and just have a good time like most people on the forum. But if you want to bet for money then I suggest you chill out a bit and seek out good odds, even if it means betting against a team that you like. It's not fun seeing people throw away hundreds of Euros without thinking.

It's not a poor result because they're the best counter attacking team on the planet.

Harsh.