Fatwax

Shearer did better than Beckham I reckon in the film.

I definitely would not cash in on Given in January. What'd be the point?

Correct. Isnt there a blooper with the Kluivert goal v Chelsea as well Think so, like the yellow ball turns white when they celebrate. Not 100% sure but isn't the signing of that other striker like a month before the end of the season.. Yeah it's something daft like that. The timeline in it is really muddled up. It's watchable though, they're meant to be making a third one where he plays for Argentina, or are, or have, or whatever. Mexico? Aye, Mexico even. I read somewhere ages ago it'd be Argentina I'm sure.. ahh well. Wonder if Sven'll be in it again

Correct. Isnt there a blooper with the Kluivert goal v Chelsea as well Think so, like the yellow ball turns white when they celebrate. Not 100% sure but isn't the signing of that other striker like a month before the end of the season.. Yeah it's something daft like that. The timeline in it is really muddled up. It's watchable though, they're meant to be making a third one where he plays for Argentina, or are, or have, or whatever.

2010. Cheers Does that mean the next home kit will only be for one season then, or will they just changed the sponsor?

Surely the Northern Rock sponsorship is nearly up? How much longer are we stuck with them?

Some of our current players would get destroyed in masters football.

You're probably getting at this and I'm being dense but Robson said we should go for Steve Bruce a few times in the last year or so..

I agree with this.

He looked similar in his first season at Depor to how he has for us to be honest. Generally a good defender with some questionable performances here and there. The guys on the Depor forums said he'd take a season to properly settle in at least with us when we signed him.

Every player is allowed an off day. He played woeful today but I've seen enough of him this season to know that he's not Taylor-esque. He was terrible today though.

It's a red card if you're stopping an obvious goalscoring opportunity.. so straight on at goal with no-one but the keeper to beat. With a player on the line there's doubt in the outcome and so the opportunity is no longer 'obvious'.

Obviously, yes. But what if the offense starts at point A and continues to point B so it is still the original infringement and not a new one? As I saw it Bassong kept hold of Heskey until he was in the penalty box and then Heskey dived. You can hardly count every seperate tug on a shirt as a different foul. It's a different situation to Bassong tugging his shirt, letting him run 8 yards and then doing it again.

to be fair heskey was pulled back constantly for about 20yds so the ref could have pulled it up at any point. at no point after entering the box did bassong do anything likely to stop heskey proceding. Exactly, it was the wrong decision. Play should have been brought back to the original impedance. Whether it was a red or not is another matter but as I remember it he was the last defender so it was in all probability a red card. I'd have to see it again though. there was defo a pull just outside the box aswell. the ref coyuld have done it then had he wanted. the ref can pull it back to whichever foul he sees fit.whichever one he thinks will give most advantage to the team fouled against. No, it's the original offense that gets penalised. As as referee you can allow play to continue if it will benefit the infringed team and pull back play to the original offense if the advantage doesn't ensue at the time. Unless they've changed the rules in the last 2 years that is.

He's a smoggie isn't he? Always gets like this against us and the Mackems.

to be fair heskey was pulled back constantly for about 20yds so the ref could have pulled it up at any point. at no point after entering the box did bassong do anything likely to stop heskey proceding. Exactly, it was the wrong decision. Play should have been brought back to the original impedance. Whether it was a red or not is another matter but as I remember it he was the last defender so it was in all probability a red card. I'd have to see it again though.

This came up in one of those 'You Are the Ref' features in a paper only last week. Keith Hackett was quite definite. If you play advantage after a foul, and then a second foul is committed, the ref doesn't have to go back to the first foul. Yes I know. There's a difference between losing advantage and being fouled. From what I saw, I didn't see the fall in the box as a foul more Heskey falling over far too easily. I saw that as a loss of advantage, not a foul.

I'd have to see it again but to my memory even though it wasn't in the box it was still last man so Bassong would have got the red card. Heskey was fouled outside of the box in the lead up as flagged by the assistant referee, but the play was allowed to continue due to the advantage. When Heskey fell the advantage was lost so play should have been brought back to the original foul. The reason this didn't happen was because the ref saw the fall from Heskey as a continuation of the original foul and not a loss of advantage, therefore a penalty was given. There you go Mowen.

How wasn't ours a penalty? Kirkland missed the ball and punched Carroll in the head! If that's not classed as a penalty then I'm stumped as to what is. cos it didn't seem anywhere near enough to impede the player and the keeper was going for the ball. other way round and you wouldn't say it was a pen. It doesn't matter if he was getting the ball or not. Keepers get away with stuff like all the time. Think that was the only good thing Dean did all match. Keepers get a free-kick for the slightest touch from a corner or whatever, and then he comes charging out, misses the ball, and punches a player in the head and expects to get away with it. didn't punch him.more of a swipe, and had the ball fell to carroll i very much doubt he'd have gone down. Now you're just being picky. A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player strikes or attempts to strike an opposing player. Kirkland didn't deliberately set out to hit him, but he did and was punished for it according to the letter of the law. thats like saying if any contact is made before contact with the ball then it's a free kick Isn't that pretty much the exact definition of a free-kick? watch a football match...thats covers almost every fair tackle No it's not. A fair tackle is when the balls taken first. A free-kick is when a defender goes through the player and then gets to the ball. so no nudges from the side,no using an arm or hand to fend someone off ? None of them are classed as 'a tackle'. When you attempt to tackle the ball but make contact with the player before the ball that's a direct free kick. how many times does the arm or hand make first contact with the opposing player during a tackle/tussle and it isn't a free kick,or the hips or knees ? i always think if a player uses his arms etc it's a free kick if it impedes the opposition...if not call it's basketball for feet. Yes but in this case the arm was being used to go for the ball as opposed to a foot. The hand missed the ball, hit the players face and impeded him. Penalty just as much as it would be if it were a foot missing the ball taking the player and impeding him. i see it more as the player makes an attempt for the ball,misses and touches the opposing player but nowhere near enough to impede him....however there was contact. i'd say no pen unless i see it again and think it impeded him. which i haven't saw on three watches. The penalty wasn't for impeding him, it was for striking him. It sounds picky, but there it is. was it ? then he should've been sent off for striking an opponent. (don't watch any corners ...your head will explode) Ahhh well actually it wasn't a red card as it wasn't deliberate and wasn't considered serious foul play or violent conduct. It was however classed as unsporting behaviour, hence the yellow card.

How wasn't ours a penalty? Kirkland missed the ball and punched Carroll in the head! If that's not classed as a penalty then I'm stumped as to what is. cos it didn't seem anywhere near enough to impede the player and the keeper was going for the ball. other way round and you wouldn't say it was a pen. It doesn't matter if he was getting the ball or not. Keepers get away with stuff like all the time. Think that was the only good thing Dean did all match. Keepers get a free-kick for the slightest touch from a corner or whatever, and then he comes charging out, misses the ball, and punches a player in the head and expects to get away with it. didn't punch him.more of a swipe, and had the ball fell to carroll i very much doubt he'd have gone down. Now you're just being picky. A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player strikes or attempts to strike an opposing player. Kirkland didn't deliberately set out to hit him, but he did and was punished for it according to the letter of the law. thats like saying if any contact is made before contact with the ball then it's a free kick Isn't that pretty much the exact definition of a free-kick? watch a football match...thats covers almost every fair tackle No it's not. A fair tackle is when the balls taken first. A free-kick is when a defender goes through the player and then gets to the ball. so no nudges from the side,no using an arm or hand to fend someone off ? None of them are classed as 'a tackle'. When you attempt to tackle the ball but make contact with the player before the ball that's a direct free kick. how many times does the arm or hand make first contact with the opposing player during a tackle/tussle and it isn't a free kick,or the hips or knees ? i always think if a player uses his arms etc it's a free kick if it impedes the opposition...if not call it's basketball for feet. Yes but in this case the arm was being used to go for the ball as opposed to a foot. The hand missed the ball, hit the players face and impeded him. Penalty just as much as it would be if it were a foot missing the ball taking the player and impeding him. i see it more as the player makes an attempt for the ball,misses and touches the opposing player but nowhere near enough to impede him....however there was contact. i'd say no pen unless i see it again and think it impeded him. which i haven't saw on three watches. The penalty wasn't for impeding him, it was for striking him. It sounds picky, but there it is.

How wasn't ours a penalty? Kirkland missed the ball and punched Carroll in the head! If that's not classed as a penalty then I'm stumped as to what is. cos it didn't seem anywhere near enough to impede the player and the keeper was going for the ball. other way round and you wouldn't say it was a pen. It doesn't matter if he was getting the ball or not. Keepers get away with stuff like all the time. Think that was the only good thing Dean did all match. Keepers get a free-kick for the slightest touch from a corner or whatever, and then he comes charging out, misses the ball, and punches a player in the head and expects to get away with it. didn't punch him.more of a swipe, and had the ball fell to carroll i very much doubt he'd have gone down. Now you're just being picky. A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player strikes or attempts to strike an opposing player. Kirkland didn't deliberately set out to hit him, but he did and was punished for it according to the letter of the law. thats like saying if any contact is made before contact with the ball then it's a free kick Isn't that pretty much the exact definition of a free-kick? watch a football match...thats covers almost every fair tackle No it's not. A fair tackle is when the balls taken first. A free-kick is when a defender goes through the player and then gets to the ball. so no nudges from the side,no using an arm or hand to fend someone off ? None of them are classed as 'a tackle'. When you attempt to tackle the ball but make contact with the player before the ball that's a direct free kick. how many times does the arm or hand make first contact with the opposing player during a tackle/tussle and it isn't a free kick,or the hips or knees ? i always think if a player uses his arms etc it's a free kick if it impedes the opposition...if not call it's basketball for feet. The only time you'd get a free kick for use of the arms, hands etc. on another player is if you're impeding them - and even then it's only an indirect freekick. The arms would only come into play when actually tackling another player in order to push through on a tackle or to maintain balance.. a foul with the arms and a foul with the legs are two different subjects and talking about use of the hips and all that is just being picky. It's not common practice to go into a slide tackle hips-first.

How wasn't ours a penalty? Kirkland missed the ball and punched Carroll in the head! If that's not classed as a penalty then I'm stumped as to what is. cos it didn't seem anywhere near enough to impede the player and the keeper was going for the ball. other way round and you wouldn't say it was a pen. It doesn't matter if he was getting the ball or not. Keepers get away with stuff like all the time. Think that was the only good thing Dean did all match. Keepers get a free-kick for the slightest touch from a corner or whatever, and then he comes charging out, misses the ball, and punches a player in the head and expects to get away with it. didn't punch him.more of a swipe, and had the ball fell to carroll i very much doubt he'd have gone down. Now you're just being picky. A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player strikes or attempts to strike an opposing player. Kirkland didn't deliberately set out to hit him, but he did and was punished for it according to the letter of the law. thats like saying if any contact is made before contact with the ball then it's a free kick Isn't that pretty much the exact definition of a free-kick? watch a football match...thats covers almost every fair tackle No it's not. A fair tackle is when the balls taken first. A free-kick is when a defender goes through the player and then gets to the ball. so no nudges from the side,no using an arm or hand to fend someone off ? None of them are classed as 'a tackle'. When you attempt to tackle the ball but make contact with the player before the ball that's a direct free kick.

How wasn't ours a penalty? Kirkland missed the ball and punched Carroll in the head! If that's not classed as a penalty then I'm stumped as to what is. cos it didn't seem anywhere near enough to impede the player and the keeper was going for the ball. other way round and you wouldn't say it was a pen. It doesn't matter if he was getting the ball or not. Keepers get away with stuff like all the time. Think that was the only good thing Dean did all match. Keepers get a free-kick for the slightest touch from a corner or whatever, and then he comes charging out, misses the ball, and punches a player in the head and expects to get away with it. didn't punch him.more of a swipe, and had the ball fell to carroll i very much doubt he'd have gone down. Now you're just being picky. A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player strikes or attempts to strike an opposing player. Kirkland didn't deliberately set out to hit him, but he did and was punished for it according to the letter of the law. thats like saying if any contact is made before contact with the ball then it's a free kick No it's not. It was a strike, whether deliberate or not, because of the use of the hand. Just because a keeper is allowed to handle a ball doesn't mean he's allowed to go through somebody's face to get it.

How wasn't ours a penalty? Kirkland missed the ball and punched Carroll in the head! If that's not classed as a penalty then I'm stumped as to what is. cos it didn't seem anywhere near enough to impede the player and the keeper was going for the ball. other way round and you wouldn't say it was a pen. It doesn't matter if he was getting the ball or not. Keepers get away with stuff like all the time. Think that was the only good thing Dean did all match. Keepers get a free-kick for the slightest touch from a corner or whatever, and then he comes charging out, misses the ball, and punches a player in the head and expects to get away with it. didn't punch him.more of a swipe, and had the ball fell to carroll i very much doubt he'd have gone down. Now you're just being picky. A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player strikes or attempts to strike an opposing player. Kirkland didn't deliberately set out to hit him, but he did and was punished for it according to the letter of the law.

How wasn't ours a penalty? Kirkland missed the ball and punched Carroll in the head! If that's not classed as a penalty then I'm stumped as to what is. cos it didn't seem anywhere near enough to impede the player and the keeper was going for the ball. other way round and you wouldn't say it was a pen. He got the man not the ball and if you strike a player in the head it's a foul.