leffe186

I seem to remember the second being better than the first.

It's good, but you'll read it in no time at all.

Nigeria just running out of ideas a little, and France's more organized attacking interplay is looking dangerous.

I don't think so - he said it was unacceptable or some such, eventually.

What happened?

How is he offside? Their bodies are level. Surely you're not "offside" just because your arm is past the last defender? He's offside because his foot is past the last defender. That's not the rule though There you go: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/worldfootball/clubfootball/01/37/04/27/interpretation_law11_en.pdf It's in the first fucking line .

Best backpass ever.

How is he offside? Their bodies are level. Surely you're not "offside" just because your arm is past the last defender? He's offside because his foot is past the last defender.

Not sure if you're being serious here. He's offside. "Advantage to the attacker" doesn't mean "if the attacker is only a bit offside then it's OK".

Canny going forward at least.

This is mental . This World Cup has been so ace.

Straight at him. Either side and it's pretty much goal of the tournament, James notwithstanding.

I really wasn't fussed about who won this, but right now I'd kinda like it to be Nigeria tbh.

Great decision, really thought that was on when he put it in.

Can we please stop posting that Ann Coulter piece?! Or indeed, any Ann Coulter piece? That's the third time, and each time we've had to point out that.she's an evil muppet who should be ignored (or prosecuted).

Butbutbut...there was "contact" .

Its not cheating to dive when you are fouled, its common sense We've been here before . Of course it's cheating. It sucks that refs almost never have the balls to blow unless someone falls over, and that it certainly seems that you sometimes have to dive to get the right decision made, but it's still cheating.

White for the '81 win, yellow for '82.

So, Liverpool have a player that they supported when he bit someone, claiming that the length of the ban was extreme and down to the FA and Premier League. He then doesn't learn his lesson and does it again. Liverpool now have a better chance of winning the league. Why should a team ever benefit when one of their players bites someone? I think you put it better in the earlier post. It's about punishing Suarez, not about punishing Uruguay or Liverpool. It just happens to feel right (to non-Uruguayans/Liverpool fans) because both have consistently stood behind him, and any club that bought him after his antics in the Netherlands will have recognized that his hyper-competitiveness can come at a price.

We've talked about this already...it's Ann Coulter. The woman is appalling and bereft of integrity. Google her if you don't know her already. Nothing to see here.

I don't entirely buy the argument that Liverpool are particularly hard done by. They bought Suarez knowing his record, then stuck by him through more incidents. This is what he does, and when you buy Suarez then you know you are buying it too. You take the risk, knowing that his hyper-competitiveness can be a double-edged sword.

That might just be my favourite kit ever (although obv the lack of sponsor helps).

Owen, surely?

God, I love that gif .

Yeah, fucking loved that, surprising how rarely you see it tbh.