comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
“It's a simple one for me, you're either offside or you're not. Done.”
This simplistic view is part of the problem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you see it as a problem. I don't.
Although if they decided to change the law, to fix this problem that some people have, I'd be willing to get behind it whilst it was tried out. I just firstly don't see what they would change the law to and secondly can see as many people if not more having a problem with an offside player having played a part in a goal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As ever, you completely miss the point.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 33 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
PGMOL didn't mention Silva's handball because they deemed TAA's handball legal/fair. Maybe it should have been a free kick due to Silva's handball. New rule says intent is irrelevant once you gain an attacking advantage in build up. No way it's a pen. Not in a million years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’ve posted the rule yourself though and it clearly doesn’t say that! It says you have to gain possession or control from a handball and then either score or create a goal scoring opportunity.
I’ll give another example. If a defender kicks it out and it accidentally hits an attackers hand, then the defender goes in for a tackle and fouls that attacker, then that would still be a penalty.
You’re focusing on the wrong thing, it is only a question of whether TAA had enough time to react.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Slightly different scenario. TAA's handball directly results from Silva's handball. The example you have given, though still subjective, requires further action (i.e. tackle by defender). It this instance ball directly comes off Silva's hand and hits TAA.
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
Yes, but I think they've forgotten the intent of the laws in the push to get to absolute certainty and they see the main benefit of technology of getting to that point. I don't, I see the main benefit of being correcting obvious howlers. If no one on the pitch is even questioning it, then I don't think it's worth the impact on the match going fan of overruling goals like that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then the opportunity, with VAR now able to be accurate down to a toe, needs to be taken to adjust the law. Seems to me there is too much messing about with offsides, too many variables, phases of play, active, interfering etc. It's a simple one for me, you're either offside or you're not. Done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It isn't able to be that accurate though, due to both the amount of frames and also at what point they draw the line at (as in, when the ball is kicked vs when it leaves the foot).
Even so though, if it's that close then to me there's no clear advantage and it doesn't need looking at that closely.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's not the law though. How do you implement this change you want in the law? A 2cm grace distance? Then you have the same issue, you're just moving the lines.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're not though as you're increasing the level of accepted ambiguity. Again, id reiterate just keep in mind the intent and reasoning behind the law as much as the implementation of it.
comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpeace (U1661)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 33 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
PGMOL didn't mention Silva's handball because they deemed TAA's handball legal/fair. Maybe it should have been a free kick due to Silva's handball. New rule says intent is irrelevant once you gain an attacking advantage in build up. No way it's a pen. Not in a million years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’ve posted the rule yourself though and it clearly doesn’t say that! It says you have to gain possession or control from a handball and then either score or create a goal scoring opportunity.
I’ll give another example. If a defender kicks it out and it accidentally hits an attackers hand, then the defender goes in for a tackle and fouls that attacker, then that would still be a penalty.
You’re focusing on the wrong thing, it is only a question of whether TAA had enough time to react.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Slightly different scenario. TAA's handball directly results from Silva's handball. The example you have given, though still subjective, requires further action (i.e. tackle by defender). It this instance ball directly comes off Silva's hand and hits TAA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, this one still needed further action too, you've just proved my point. The action is TAA handling it, which then makes it about whether TAA did that intentionally or not.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
Yes, but I think they've forgotten the intent of the laws in the push to get to absolute certainty and they see the main benefit of technology of getting to that point. I don't, I see the main benefit of being correcting obvious howlers. If no one on the pitch is even questioning it, then I don't think it's worth the impact on the match going fan of overruling goals like that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then the opportunity, with VAR now able to be accurate down to a toe, needs to be taken to adjust the law. Seems to me there is too much messing about with offsides, too many variables, phases of play, active, interfering etc. It's a simple one for me, you're either offside or you're not. Done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It isn't able to be that accurate though, due to both the amount of frames and also at what point they draw the line at (as in, when the ball is kicked vs when it leaves the foot).
Even so though, if it's that close then to me there's no clear advantage and it doesn't need looking at that closely.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's not the law though. How do you implement this change you want in the law? A 2cm grace distance? Then you have the same issue, you're just moving the lines.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're not though as you're increasing the level of accepted ambiguity. Again, id reiterate just keep in mind the intent and reasoning behind the law as much as the implementation of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I do understand where you're coming from but the law is the law. To get what you want it would need changed. What is the change? The allow a player to be offside a little bit? You then have lines in a different place and the same issue.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 second ago
comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpeace (U1661)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 33 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
PGMOL didn't mention Silva's handball because they deemed TAA's handball legal/fair. Maybe it should have been a free kick due to Silva's handball. New rule says intent is irrelevant once you gain an attacking advantage in build up. No way it's a pen. Not in a million years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’ve posted the rule yourself though and it clearly doesn’t say that! It says you have to gain possession or control from a handball and then either score or create a goal scoring opportunity.
I’ll give another example. If a defender kicks it out and it accidentally hits an attackers hand, then the defender goes in for a tackle and fouls that attacker, then that would still be a penalty.
You’re focusing on the wrong thing, it is only a question of whether TAA had enough time to react.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Slightly different scenario. TAA's handball directly results from Silva's handball. The example you have given, though still subjective, requires further action (i.e. tackle by defender). It this instance ball directly comes off Silva's hand and hits TAA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, this one still needed further action too, you've just proved my point. The action is TAA handling it, which then makes it about whether TAA did that intentionally or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What action did TAA take? City gained advantage directly from Silva's handball. Here's my own example... A defender makes a tackle in his own box, misses the ball and kick the attacker. However he only missed the ball because the it accidentally hits an attacker's arm and changes direction. Do you think the ref will give a pen or free kick?
I don't think it is a law change, as bear in mind the law has to account for everyone not using VAR too. I think it's just an implementation of VAR change in that even if they say they will always take it from the first frame after the ball has been hit, or left the foot, then that would be a start.
To me, if the naked eye can't tell if it's offside or not from a freeze frame then I don't think its enough to warrant being deemed a clear advantage. If they really do want to use the lines though, then factor in a certain amount of leeway.
comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpeace (U1661)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 second ago
comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpeace (U1661)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 33 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
PGMOL didn't mention Silva's handball because they deemed TAA's handball legal/fair. Maybe it should have been a free kick due to Silva's handball. New rule says intent is irrelevant once you gain an attacking advantage in build up. No way it's a pen. Not in a million years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’ve posted the rule yourself though and it clearly doesn’t say that! It says you have to gain possession or control from a handball and then either score or create a goal scoring opportunity.
I’ll give another example. If a defender kicks it out and it accidentally hits an attackers hand, then the defender goes in for a tackle and fouls that attacker, then that would still be a penalty.
You’re focusing on the wrong thing, it is only a question of whether TAA had enough time to react.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Slightly different scenario. TAA's handball directly results from Silva's handball. The example you have given, though still subjective, requires further action (i.e. tackle by defender). It this instance ball directly comes off Silva's hand and hits TAA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, this one still needed further action too, you've just proved my point. The action is TAA handling it, which then makes it about whether TAA did that intentionally or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What action did TAA take? City gained advantage directly from Silva's handball. Here's my own example... A defender makes a tackle in his own box, misses the ball and kick the attacker. However he only missed the ball because the it accidentally hits an attacker's arm and changes direction. Do you think the ref will give a pen or free kick?
----------------------------------------------------------------------That's the whole point, the question is what action did he take. If you think nothing (which I do) then it's no penalty. If you think he intentionally kept his arm there then it's a penalty. City didn't gain any advantage from Silvas handball, he'd lost possession.
On your scenario, yes they would give the penalty. I'm struggling to visualise that scenario happening though!
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 5 minutes ago
I don't think it is a law change, as bear in mind the law has to account for everyone not using VAR too. I think it's just an implementation of VAR change in that even if they say they will always take it from the first frame after the ball has been hit, or left the foot, then that would be a start.
To me, if the naked eye can't tell if it's offside or not from a freeze frame then I don't think its enough to warrant being deemed a clear advantage. If they really do want to use the lines though, then factor in a certain amount of leeway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In that case you open it up to being subjective and one official might not see it as offside and another would. You then lose consistency. Which is very difficult to take when you have the option of getting the correct call, according to the law, instead.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpeace (U1661)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 second ago
comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpeace (U1661)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 33 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
PGMOL didn't mention Silva's handball because they deemed TAA's handball legal/fair. Maybe it should have been a free kick due to Silva's handball. New rule says intent is irrelevant once you gain an attacking advantage in build up. No way it's a pen. Not in a million years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’ve posted the rule yourself though and it clearly doesn’t say that! It says you have to gain possession or control from a handball and then either score or create a goal scoring opportunity.
I’ll give another example. If a defender kicks it out and it accidentally hits an attackers hand, then the defender goes in for a tackle and fouls that attacker, then that would still be a penalty.
You’re focusing on the wrong thing, it is only a question of whether TAA had enough time to react.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Slightly different scenario. TAA's handball directly results from Silva's handball. The example you have given, though still subjective, requires further action (i.e. tackle by defender). It this instance ball directly comes off Silva's hand and hits TAA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, this one still needed further action too, you've just proved my point. The action is TAA handling it, which then makes it about whether TAA did that intentionally or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What action did TAA take? City gained advantage directly from Silva's handball. Here's my own example... A defender makes a tackle in his own box, misses the ball and kick the attacker. However he only missed the ball because the it accidentally hits an attacker's arm and changes direction. Do you think the ref will give a pen or free kick?
----------------------------------------------------------------------That's the whole point, the question is what action did he take. If you think nothing (which I do) then it's no penalty. If you think he intentionally kept his arm there then it's a penalty. City didn't gain any advantage from Silvas handball, he'd lost possession.
On your scenario, yes they would give the penalty. I'm struggling to visualise that scenario happening though!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Giving City a pen would have been giving them possession/advantage directly from a handball. So therefore under the rules it's never a pen. Not in a million years. We can agree to disagree.
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 54 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 5 minutes ago
I don't think it is a law change, as bear in mind the law has to account for everyone not using VAR too. I think it's just an implementation of VAR change in that even if they say they will always take it from the first frame after the ball has been hit, or left the foot, then that would be a start.
To me, if the naked eye can't tell if it's offside or not from a freeze frame then I don't think its enough to warrant being deemed a clear advantage. If they really do want to use the lines though, then factor in a certain amount of leeway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In that case you open it up to being subjective and one official might not see it as offside and another would. You then lose consistency. Which is very difficult to take when you have the option of getting the correct call, according to the law, instead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think it's that difficult, it just needs people to think more about whether there's been a clear advantage rather than worrying about milimetres, I.e. the original intent of the law.
Most replays, you can clearly tell straight away if the player is offside or not. The ones that aren't clear cut, I've never seen as something that needed to be fixed - as I said, it's the ones that are obviously wrong that should be eradicated first.
This year when I was checking in for a flight, I noticed a couple in the queue next to me we’re stuck behind someone who was having to wait for quite a while. Behind them was a family with a young boy and a newborn baby.
As I finished I said to the person checking people in that perhaps they could see that family next, as they were clearly having a hard time and were being forced to wait for quite a while.
The guy said no. Queues are queues and they’ll just have to wait their turn. YOU CANNOT SWITCH QUEUE, he said, in a stern voice.
TOOR, you don’t work in a Spanish airport by any chance, do you?
comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpeace (U1661)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpeace (U1661)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 second ago
comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpeace (U1661)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 33 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
PGMOL didn't mention Silva's handball because they deemed TAA's handball legal/fair. Maybe it should have been a free kick due to Silva's handball. New rule says intent is irrelevant once you gain an attacking advantage in build up. No way it's a pen. Not in a million years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’ve posted the rule yourself though and it clearly doesn’t say that! It says you have to gain possession or control from a handball and then either score or create a goal scoring opportunity.
I’ll give another example. If a defender kicks it out and it accidentally hits an attackers hand, then the defender goes in for a tackle and fouls that attacker, then that would still be a penalty.
You’re focusing on the wrong thing, it is only a question of whether TAA had enough time to react.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Slightly different scenario. TAA's handball directly results from Silva's handball. The example you have given, though still subjective, requires further action (i.e. tackle by defender). It this instance ball directly comes off Silva's hand and hits TAA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, this one still needed further action too, you've just proved my point. The action is TAA handling it, which then makes it about whether TAA did that intentionally or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What action did TAA take? City gained advantage directly from Silva's handball. Here's my own example... A defender makes a tackle in his own box, misses the ball and kick the attacker. However he only missed the ball because the it accidentally hits an attacker's arm and changes direction. Do you think the ref will give a pen or free kick?
----------------------------------------------------------------------That's the whole point, the question is what action did he take. If you think nothing (which I do) then it's no penalty. If you think he intentionally kept his arm there then it's a penalty. City didn't gain any advantage from Silvas handball, he'd lost possession.
On your scenario, yes they would give the penalty. I'm struggling to visualise that scenario happening though!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Giving City a pen would have been giving them possession/advantage directly from a handball. So therefore under the rules it's never a pen. Not in a million years. We can agree to disagree.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We can, I can't agree under the rules it's never a pen though as it simply doesn't say that, you posted the rules yourself.
City would have gained possession from TAA handling the ball. Now if you believe he didn't mean to handle it, then it's no penalty as I said. If he intentionally handled it, then it wasn't Silva handling the ball that causes it, it's TAAs own actions.
I'm in agreement it's not a penalty, just not on the rationale you're using for it.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
This year when I was checking in for a flight, I noticed a couple in the queue next to me we’re stuck behind someone who was having to wait for quite a while. Behind them was a family with a young boy and a newborn baby.
As I finished I said to the person checking people in that perhaps they could see that family next, as they were clearly having a hard time and were being forced to wait for quite a while.
The guy said no. Queues are queues and they’ll just have to wait their turn. YOU CANNOT SWITCH QUEUE, he said, in a stern voice.
TOOR, you don’t work in a Spanish airport by any chance, do you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you checked in and made sure you were ok before alerting attention to the family?
Why didn’t you give them your place?
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 54 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 5 minutes ago
I don't think it is a law change, as bear in mind the law has to account for everyone not using VAR too. I think it's just an implementation of VAR change in that even if they say they will always take it from the first frame after the ball has been hit, or left the foot, then that would be a start.
To me, if the naked eye can't tell if it's offside or not from a freeze frame then I don't think its enough to warrant being deemed a clear advantage. If they really do want to use the lines though, then factor in a certain amount of leeway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In that case you open it up to being subjective and one official might not see it as offside and another would. You then lose consistency. Which is very difficult to take when you have the option of getting the correct call, according to the law, instead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think it's that difficult, it just needs people to think more about whether there's been a clear advantage rather than worrying about milimetres, I.e. the original intent of the law.
Most replays, you can clearly tell straight away if the player is offside or not. The ones that aren't clear cut, I've never seen as something that needed to be fixed - as I said, it's the ones that are obviously wrong that should be eradicated first.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah I just don't like it. Offside is an easy one, with technology. Therefore we should just keep it simple.
comment by KLS - Harry Kane wears Mo Salah pyjamas (U1695)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
This year when I was checking in for a flight, I noticed a couple in the queue next to me we’re stuck behind someone who was having to wait for quite a while. Behind them was a family with a young boy and a newborn baby.
As I finished I said to the person checking people in that perhaps they could see that family next, as they were clearly having a hard time and were being forced to wait for quite a while.
The guy said no. Queues are queues and they’ll just have to wait their turn. YOU CANNOT SWITCH QUEUE, he said, in a stern voice.
TOOR, you don’t work in a Spanish airport by any chance, do you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you checked in and made sure you were ok before alerting attention to the family?
Why didn’t you give them your place?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because I had a 4 month old baby myself.
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 54 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 5 minutes ago
I don't think it is a law change, as bear in mind the law has to account for everyone not using VAR too. I think it's just an implementation of VAR change in that even if they say they will always take it from the first frame after the ball has been hit, or left the foot, then that would be a start.
To me, if the naked eye can't tell if it's offside or not from a freeze frame then I don't think its enough to warrant being deemed a clear advantage. If they really do want to use the lines though, then factor in a certain amount of leeway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In that case you open it up to being subjective and one official might not see it as offside and another would. You then lose consistency. Which is very difficult to take when you have the option of getting the correct call, according to the law, instead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think it's that difficult, it just needs people to think more about whether there's been a clear advantage rather than worrying about milimetres, I.e. the original intent of the law.
Most replays, you can clearly tell straight away if the player is offside or not. The ones that aren't clear cut, I've never seen as something that needed to be fixed - as I said, it's the ones that are obviously wrong that should be eradicated first.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah I just don't like it. Offside is an easy one, with technology. Therefore we should just keep it simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It will be, it isn't yet though as it isn't accurate enough for the reasons I mentioned.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
This year when I was checking in for a flight, I noticed a couple in the queue next to me we’re stuck behind someone who was having to wait for quite a while. Behind them was a family with a young boy and a newborn baby.
As I finished I said to the person checking people in that perhaps they could see that family next, as they were clearly having a hard time and were being forced to wait for quite a while.
The guy said no. Queues are queues and they’ll just have to wait their turn. YOU CANNOT SWITCH QUEUE, he said, in a stern voice.
TOOR, you don’t work in a Spanish airport by any chance, do you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Afraid not.
On the same note my street is often filled with cars parked up one side of the road, creating one free lane for both directions. My wife was driving up the road but as she was about to turn into the drive somebody was coming the other way and stopped just enough to stop her turning in. The waiting for a minute before he drove up the curb to go past her. She asked why he didn't move back. He said he had right if way as it was his side. She asked so you wanted me to reverse the whole way back for you to drive when all you had to do was reverse one metre and I'm turning into the drive way for you to drive on? He said rules are rules you stupid bltch.
Winston - you don't happen to drive a Silver Tuscon by any chance?
We’re you having a hard time with your 4 month old - akin to what you said about them having a hard time?
*completely misses the point as I suspect KLS has also 😂
By the way, I’m stuffed. Had an Indian takeaway. Still loads left as well.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 54 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 5 minutes ago
I don't think it is a law change, as bear in mind the law has to account for everyone not using VAR too. I think it's just an implementation of VAR change in that even if they say they will always take it from the first frame after the ball has been hit, or left the foot, then that would be a start.
To me, if the naked eye can't tell if it's offside or not from a freeze frame then I don't think its enough to warrant being deemed a clear advantage. If they really do want to use the lines though, then factor in a certain amount of leeway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In that case you open it up to being subjective and one official might not see it as offside and another would. You then lose consistency. Which is very difficult to take when you have the option of getting the correct call, according to the law, instead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think it's that difficult, it just needs people to think more about whether there's been a clear advantage rather than worrying about milimetres, I.e. the original intent of the law.
Most replays, you can clearly tell straight away if the player is offside or not. The ones that aren't clear cut, I've never seen as something that needed to be fixed - as I said, it's the ones that are obviously wrong that should be eradicated first.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah I just don't like it. Offside is an easy one, with technology. Therefore we should just keep it simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It will be, it isn't yet though as it isn't accurate enough for the reasons I mentioned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But your preference makes it less accurate, surely?
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
This year when I was checking in for a flight, I noticed a couple in the queue next to me we’re stuck behind someone who was having to wait for quite a while. Behind them was a family with a young boy and a newborn baby.
As I finished I said to the person checking people in that perhaps they could see that family next, as they were clearly having a hard time and were being forced to wait for quite a while.
The guy said no. Queues are queues and they’ll just have to wait their turn. YOU CANNOT SWITCH QUEUE, he said, in a stern voice.
TOOR, you don’t work in a Spanish airport by any chance, do you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Afraid not.
On the same note my street is often filled with cars parked up one side of the road, creating one free lane for both directions. My wife was driving up the road but as she was about to turn into the drive somebody was coming the other way and stopped just enough to stop her turning in. The waiting for a minute before he drove up the curb to go past her. She asked why he didn't move back. He said he had right if way as it was his side. She asked so you wanted me to reverse the whole way back for you to drive when all you had to do was reverse one metre and I'm turning into the drive way for you to drive on? He said rules are rules you stupid bltch.
Winston - you don't happen to drive a Silver Tuscon by any chance?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Doesn’t make much sense does it, given you’re the one obsessed with rules being 100% stuck to and I’m more interested in keeping the spirit of the game in tact.
Jumped into that one a bit soon TOOR, must try harder.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by KLS - Harry Kane wears Mo Salah pyjamas (U1695)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
This year when I was checking in for a flight, I noticed a couple in the queue next to me we’re stuck behind someone who was having to wait for quite a while. Behind them was a family with a young boy and a newborn baby.
As I finished I said to the person checking people in that perhaps they could see that family next, as they were clearly having a hard time and were being forced to wait for quite a while.
The guy said no. Queues are queues and they’ll just have to wait their turn. YOU CANNOT SWITCH QUEUE, he said, in a stern voice.
TOOR, you don’t work in a Spanish airport by any chance, do you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you checked in and made sure you were ok before alerting attention to the family?
Why didn’t you give them your place?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because I had a 4 month old baby myself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As long as you were ok!
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 3 minutes ago
We’re you having a hard time with your 4 month old - akin to what you said about them having a hard time?
*completely misses the point as I suspect KLS has also 😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We were. It also wasn’t apparent how long the delay at the adjacent desk was until we were next to them.
Sign in if you want to comment
Great game
Page 5 of 7
6 | 7
posted on 10/11/19
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
“It's a simple one for me, you're either offside or you're not. Done.”
This simplistic view is part of the problem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you see it as a problem. I don't.
Although if they decided to change the law, to fix this problem that some people have, I'd be willing to get behind it whilst it was tried out. I just firstly don't see what they would change the law to and secondly can see as many people if not more having a problem with an offside player having played a part in a goal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As ever, you completely miss the point.
posted on 10/11/19
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 33 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
PGMOL didn't mention Silva's handball because they deemed TAA's handball legal/fair. Maybe it should have been a free kick due to Silva's handball. New rule says intent is irrelevant once you gain an attacking advantage in build up. No way it's a pen. Not in a million years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’ve posted the rule yourself though and it clearly doesn’t say that! It says you have to gain possession or control from a handball and then either score or create a goal scoring opportunity.
I’ll give another example. If a defender kicks it out and it accidentally hits an attackers hand, then the defender goes in for a tackle and fouls that attacker, then that would still be a penalty.
You’re focusing on the wrong thing, it is only a question of whether TAA had enough time to react.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Slightly different scenario. TAA's handball directly results from Silva's handball. The example you have given, though still subjective, requires further action (i.e. tackle by defender). It this instance ball directly comes off Silva's hand and hits TAA.
posted on 10/11/19
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
Yes, but I think they've forgotten the intent of the laws in the push to get to absolute certainty and they see the main benefit of technology of getting to that point. I don't, I see the main benefit of being correcting obvious howlers. If no one on the pitch is even questioning it, then I don't think it's worth the impact on the match going fan of overruling goals like that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then the opportunity, with VAR now able to be accurate down to a toe, needs to be taken to adjust the law. Seems to me there is too much messing about with offsides, too many variables, phases of play, active, interfering etc. It's a simple one for me, you're either offside or you're not. Done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It isn't able to be that accurate though, due to both the amount of frames and also at what point they draw the line at (as in, when the ball is kicked vs when it leaves the foot).
Even so though, if it's that close then to me there's no clear advantage and it doesn't need looking at that closely.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's not the law though. How do you implement this change you want in the law? A 2cm grace distance? Then you have the same issue, you're just moving the lines.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're not though as you're increasing the level of accepted ambiguity. Again, id reiterate just keep in mind the intent and reasoning behind the law as much as the implementation of it.
posted on 10/11/19
comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpeace (U1661)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 33 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
PGMOL didn't mention Silva's handball because they deemed TAA's handball legal/fair. Maybe it should have been a free kick due to Silva's handball. New rule says intent is irrelevant once you gain an attacking advantage in build up. No way it's a pen. Not in a million years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’ve posted the rule yourself though and it clearly doesn’t say that! It says you have to gain possession or control from a handball and then either score or create a goal scoring opportunity.
I’ll give another example. If a defender kicks it out and it accidentally hits an attackers hand, then the defender goes in for a tackle and fouls that attacker, then that would still be a penalty.
You’re focusing on the wrong thing, it is only a question of whether TAA had enough time to react.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Slightly different scenario. TAA's handball directly results from Silva's handball. The example you have given, though still subjective, requires further action (i.e. tackle by defender). It this instance ball directly comes off Silva's hand and hits TAA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, this one still needed further action too, you've just proved my point. The action is TAA handling it, which then makes it about whether TAA did that intentionally or not.
posted on 10/11/19
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
Yes, but I think they've forgotten the intent of the laws in the push to get to absolute certainty and they see the main benefit of technology of getting to that point. I don't, I see the main benefit of being correcting obvious howlers. If no one on the pitch is even questioning it, then I don't think it's worth the impact on the match going fan of overruling goals like that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then the opportunity, with VAR now able to be accurate down to a toe, needs to be taken to adjust the law. Seems to me there is too much messing about with offsides, too many variables, phases of play, active, interfering etc. It's a simple one for me, you're either offside or you're not. Done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It isn't able to be that accurate though, due to both the amount of frames and also at what point they draw the line at (as in, when the ball is kicked vs when it leaves the foot).
Even so though, if it's that close then to me there's no clear advantage and it doesn't need looking at that closely.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's not the law though. How do you implement this change you want in the law? A 2cm grace distance? Then you have the same issue, you're just moving the lines.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're not though as you're increasing the level of accepted ambiguity. Again, id reiterate just keep in mind the intent and reasoning behind the law as much as the implementation of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I do understand where you're coming from but the law is the law. To get what you want it would need changed. What is the change? The allow a player to be offside a little bit? You then have lines in a different place and the same issue.
posted on 10/11/19
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 second ago
comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpeace (U1661)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 33 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
PGMOL didn't mention Silva's handball because they deemed TAA's handball legal/fair. Maybe it should have been a free kick due to Silva's handball. New rule says intent is irrelevant once you gain an attacking advantage in build up. No way it's a pen. Not in a million years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’ve posted the rule yourself though and it clearly doesn’t say that! It says you have to gain possession or control from a handball and then either score or create a goal scoring opportunity.
I’ll give another example. If a defender kicks it out and it accidentally hits an attackers hand, then the defender goes in for a tackle and fouls that attacker, then that would still be a penalty.
You’re focusing on the wrong thing, it is only a question of whether TAA had enough time to react.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Slightly different scenario. TAA's handball directly results from Silva's handball. The example you have given, though still subjective, requires further action (i.e. tackle by defender). It this instance ball directly comes off Silva's hand and hits TAA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, this one still needed further action too, you've just proved my point. The action is TAA handling it, which then makes it about whether TAA did that intentionally or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What action did TAA take? City gained advantage directly from Silva's handball. Here's my own example... A defender makes a tackle in his own box, misses the ball and kick the attacker. However he only missed the ball because the it accidentally hits an attacker's arm and changes direction. Do you think the ref will give a pen or free kick?
posted on 10/11/19
I don't think it is a law change, as bear in mind the law has to account for everyone not using VAR too. I think it's just an implementation of VAR change in that even if they say they will always take it from the first frame after the ball has been hit, or left the foot, then that would be a start.
To me, if the naked eye can't tell if it's offside or not from a freeze frame then I don't think its enough to warrant being deemed a clear advantage. If they really do want to use the lines though, then factor in a certain amount of leeway.
posted on 10/11/19
comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpeace (U1661)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 second ago
comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpeace (U1661)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 33 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
PGMOL didn't mention Silva's handball because they deemed TAA's handball legal/fair. Maybe it should have been a free kick due to Silva's handball. New rule says intent is irrelevant once you gain an attacking advantage in build up. No way it's a pen. Not in a million years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’ve posted the rule yourself though and it clearly doesn’t say that! It says you have to gain possession or control from a handball and then either score or create a goal scoring opportunity.
I’ll give another example. If a defender kicks it out and it accidentally hits an attackers hand, then the defender goes in for a tackle and fouls that attacker, then that would still be a penalty.
You’re focusing on the wrong thing, it is only a question of whether TAA had enough time to react.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Slightly different scenario. TAA's handball directly results from Silva's handball. The example you have given, though still subjective, requires further action (i.e. tackle by defender). It this instance ball directly comes off Silva's hand and hits TAA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, this one still needed further action too, you've just proved my point. The action is TAA handling it, which then makes it about whether TAA did that intentionally or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What action did TAA take? City gained advantage directly from Silva's handball. Here's my own example... A defender makes a tackle in his own box, misses the ball and kick the attacker. However he only missed the ball because the it accidentally hits an attacker's arm and changes direction. Do you think the ref will give a pen or free kick?
----------------------------------------------------------------------That's the whole point, the question is what action did he take. If you think nothing (which I do) then it's no penalty. If you think he intentionally kept his arm there then it's a penalty. City didn't gain any advantage from Silvas handball, he'd lost possession.
On your scenario, yes they would give the penalty. I'm struggling to visualise that scenario happening though!
posted on 10/11/19
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 5 minutes ago
I don't think it is a law change, as bear in mind the law has to account for everyone not using VAR too. I think it's just an implementation of VAR change in that even if they say they will always take it from the first frame after the ball has been hit, or left the foot, then that would be a start.
To me, if the naked eye can't tell if it's offside or not from a freeze frame then I don't think its enough to warrant being deemed a clear advantage. If they really do want to use the lines though, then factor in a certain amount of leeway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In that case you open it up to being subjective and one official might not see it as offside and another would. You then lose consistency. Which is very difficult to take when you have the option of getting the correct call, according to the law, instead.
posted on 10/11/19
Massive fume tonight!
posted on 10/11/19
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpeace (U1661)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 second ago
comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpeace (U1661)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 33 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
PGMOL didn't mention Silva's handball because they deemed TAA's handball legal/fair. Maybe it should have been a free kick due to Silva's handball. New rule says intent is irrelevant once you gain an attacking advantage in build up. No way it's a pen. Not in a million years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’ve posted the rule yourself though and it clearly doesn’t say that! It says you have to gain possession or control from a handball and then either score or create a goal scoring opportunity.
I’ll give another example. If a defender kicks it out and it accidentally hits an attackers hand, then the defender goes in for a tackle and fouls that attacker, then that would still be a penalty.
You’re focusing on the wrong thing, it is only a question of whether TAA had enough time to react.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Slightly different scenario. TAA's handball directly results from Silva's handball. The example you have given, though still subjective, requires further action (i.e. tackle by defender). It this instance ball directly comes off Silva's hand and hits TAA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, this one still needed further action too, you've just proved my point. The action is TAA handling it, which then makes it about whether TAA did that intentionally or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What action did TAA take? City gained advantage directly from Silva's handball. Here's my own example... A defender makes a tackle in his own box, misses the ball and kick the attacker. However he only missed the ball because the it accidentally hits an attacker's arm and changes direction. Do you think the ref will give a pen or free kick?
----------------------------------------------------------------------That's the whole point, the question is what action did he take. If you think nothing (which I do) then it's no penalty. If you think he intentionally kept his arm there then it's a penalty. City didn't gain any advantage from Silvas handball, he'd lost possession.
On your scenario, yes they would give the penalty. I'm struggling to visualise that scenario happening though!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Giving City a pen would have been giving them possession/advantage directly from a handball. So therefore under the rules it's never a pen. Not in a million years. We can agree to disagree.
posted on 10/11/19
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 54 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 5 minutes ago
I don't think it is a law change, as bear in mind the law has to account for everyone not using VAR too. I think it's just an implementation of VAR change in that even if they say they will always take it from the first frame after the ball has been hit, or left the foot, then that would be a start.
To me, if the naked eye can't tell if it's offside or not from a freeze frame then I don't think its enough to warrant being deemed a clear advantage. If they really do want to use the lines though, then factor in a certain amount of leeway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In that case you open it up to being subjective and one official might not see it as offside and another would. You then lose consistency. Which is very difficult to take when you have the option of getting the correct call, according to the law, instead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think it's that difficult, it just needs people to think more about whether there's been a clear advantage rather than worrying about milimetres, I.e. the original intent of the law.
Most replays, you can clearly tell straight away if the player is offside or not. The ones that aren't clear cut, I've never seen as something that needed to be fixed - as I said, it's the ones that are obviously wrong that should be eradicated first.
posted on 10/11/19
This year when I was checking in for a flight, I noticed a couple in the queue next to me we’re stuck behind someone who was having to wait for quite a while. Behind them was a family with a young boy and a newborn baby.
As I finished I said to the person checking people in that perhaps they could see that family next, as they were clearly having a hard time and were being forced to wait for quite a while.
The guy said no. Queues are queues and they’ll just have to wait their turn. YOU CANNOT SWITCH QUEUE, he said, in a stern voice.
TOOR, you don’t work in a Spanish airport by any chance, do you?
posted on 10/11/19
comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpeace (U1661)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpeace (U1661)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 second ago
comment by {honestlivpool~five~times} 👽 🐎 #worldpeace (U1661)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 33 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
PGMOL didn't mention Silva's handball because they deemed TAA's handball legal/fair. Maybe it should have been a free kick due to Silva's handball. New rule says intent is irrelevant once you gain an attacking advantage in build up. No way it's a pen. Not in a million years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’ve posted the rule yourself though and it clearly doesn’t say that! It says you have to gain possession or control from a handball and then either score or create a goal scoring opportunity.
I’ll give another example. If a defender kicks it out and it accidentally hits an attackers hand, then the defender goes in for a tackle and fouls that attacker, then that would still be a penalty.
You’re focusing on the wrong thing, it is only a question of whether TAA had enough time to react.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Slightly different scenario. TAA's handball directly results from Silva's handball. The example you have given, though still subjective, requires further action (i.e. tackle by defender). It this instance ball directly comes off Silva's hand and hits TAA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, this one still needed further action too, you've just proved my point. The action is TAA handling it, which then makes it about whether TAA did that intentionally or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What action did TAA take? City gained advantage directly from Silva's handball. Here's my own example... A defender makes a tackle in his own box, misses the ball and kick the attacker. However he only missed the ball because the it accidentally hits an attacker's arm and changes direction. Do you think the ref will give a pen or free kick?
----------------------------------------------------------------------That's the whole point, the question is what action did he take. If you think nothing (which I do) then it's no penalty. If you think he intentionally kept his arm there then it's a penalty. City didn't gain any advantage from Silvas handball, he'd lost possession.
On your scenario, yes they would give the penalty. I'm struggling to visualise that scenario happening though!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Giving City a pen would have been giving them possession/advantage directly from a handball. So therefore under the rules it's never a pen. Not in a million years. We can agree to disagree.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We can, I can't agree under the rules it's never a pen though as it simply doesn't say that, you posted the rules yourself.
City would have gained possession from TAA handling the ball. Now if you believe he didn't mean to handle it, then it's no penalty as I said. If he intentionally handled it, then it wasn't Silva handling the ball that causes it, it's TAAs own actions.
I'm in agreement it's not a penalty, just not on the rationale you're using for it.
posted on 10/11/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
This year when I was checking in for a flight, I noticed a couple in the queue next to me we’re stuck behind someone who was having to wait for quite a while. Behind them was a family with a young boy and a newborn baby.
As I finished I said to the person checking people in that perhaps they could see that family next, as they were clearly having a hard time and were being forced to wait for quite a while.
The guy said no. Queues are queues and they’ll just have to wait their turn. YOU CANNOT SWITCH QUEUE, he said, in a stern voice.
TOOR, you don’t work in a Spanish airport by any chance, do you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you checked in and made sure you were ok before alerting attention to the family?
Why didn’t you give them your place?
posted on 10/11/19
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 54 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 5 minutes ago
I don't think it is a law change, as bear in mind the law has to account for everyone not using VAR too. I think it's just an implementation of VAR change in that even if they say they will always take it from the first frame after the ball has been hit, or left the foot, then that would be a start.
To me, if the naked eye can't tell if it's offside or not from a freeze frame then I don't think its enough to warrant being deemed a clear advantage. If they really do want to use the lines though, then factor in a certain amount of leeway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In that case you open it up to being subjective and one official might not see it as offside and another would. You then lose consistency. Which is very difficult to take when you have the option of getting the correct call, according to the law, instead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think it's that difficult, it just needs people to think more about whether there's been a clear advantage rather than worrying about milimetres, I.e. the original intent of the law.
Most replays, you can clearly tell straight away if the player is offside or not. The ones that aren't clear cut, I've never seen as something that needed to be fixed - as I said, it's the ones that are obviously wrong that should be eradicated first.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah I just don't like it. Offside is an easy one, with technology. Therefore we should just keep it simple.
posted on 10/11/19
comment by KLS - Harry Kane wears Mo Salah pyjamas (U1695)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
This year when I was checking in for a flight, I noticed a couple in the queue next to me we’re stuck behind someone who was having to wait for quite a while. Behind them was a family with a young boy and a newborn baby.
As I finished I said to the person checking people in that perhaps they could see that family next, as they were clearly having a hard time and were being forced to wait for quite a while.
The guy said no. Queues are queues and they’ll just have to wait their turn. YOU CANNOT SWITCH QUEUE, he said, in a stern voice.
TOOR, you don’t work in a Spanish airport by any chance, do you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you checked in and made sure you were ok before alerting attention to the family?
Why didn’t you give them your place?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because I had a 4 month old baby myself.
posted on 10/11/19
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 54 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 5 minutes ago
I don't think it is a law change, as bear in mind the law has to account for everyone not using VAR too. I think it's just an implementation of VAR change in that even if they say they will always take it from the first frame after the ball has been hit, or left the foot, then that would be a start.
To me, if the naked eye can't tell if it's offside or not from a freeze frame then I don't think its enough to warrant being deemed a clear advantage. If they really do want to use the lines though, then factor in a certain amount of leeway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In that case you open it up to being subjective and one official might not see it as offside and another would. You then lose consistency. Which is very difficult to take when you have the option of getting the correct call, according to the law, instead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think it's that difficult, it just needs people to think more about whether there's been a clear advantage rather than worrying about milimetres, I.e. the original intent of the law.
Most replays, you can clearly tell straight away if the player is offside or not. The ones that aren't clear cut, I've never seen as something that needed to be fixed - as I said, it's the ones that are obviously wrong that should be eradicated first.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah I just don't like it. Offside is an easy one, with technology. Therefore we should just keep it simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It will be, it isn't yet though as it isn't accurate enough for the reasons I mentioned.
posted on 10/11/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
This year when I was checking in for a flight, I noticed a couple in the queue next to me we’re stuck behind someone who was having to wait for quite a while. Behind them was a family with a young boy and a newborn baby.
As I finished I said to the person checking people in that perhaps they could see that family next, as they were clearly having a hard time and were being forced to wait for quite a while.
The guy said no. Queues are queues and they’ll just have to wait their turn. YOU CANNOT SWITCH QUEUE, he said, in a stern voice.
TOOR, you don’t work in a Spanish airport by any chance, do you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Afraid not.
On the same note my street is often filled with cars parked up one side of the road, creating one free lane for both directions. My wife was driving up the road but as she was about to turn into the drive somebody was coming the other way and stopped just enough to stop her turning in. The waiting for a minute before he drove up the curb to go past her. She asked why he didn't move back. He said he had right if way as it was his side. She asked so you wanted me to reverse the whole way back for you to drive when all you had to do was reverse one metre and I'm turning into the drive way for you to drive on? He said rules are rules you stupid bltch.
Winston - you don't happen to drive a Silver Tuscon by any chance?
posted on 10/11/19
We’re you having a hard time with your 4 month old - akin to what you said about them having a hard time?
*completely misses the point as I suspect KLS has also 😂
posted on 10/11/19
By the way, I’m stuffed. Had an Indian takeaway. Still loads left as well.
posted on 10/11/19
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 54 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 5 minutes ago
I don't think it is a law change, as bear in mind the law has to account for everyone not using VAR too. I think it's just an implementation of VAR change in that even if they say they will always take it from the first frame after the ball has been hit, or left the foot, then that would be a start.
To me, if the naked eye can't tell if it's offside or not from a freeze frame then I don't think its enough to warrant being deemed a clear advantage. If they really do want to use the lines though, then factor in a certain amount of leeway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In that case you open it up to being subjective and one official might not see it as offside and another would. You then lose consistency. Which is very difficult to take when you have the option of getting the correct call, according to the law, instead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think it's that difficult, it just needs people to think more about whether there's been a clear advantage rather than worrying about milimetres, I.e. the original intent of the law.
Most replays, you can clearly tell straight away if the player is offside or not. The ones that aren't clear cut, I've never seen as something that needed to be fixed - as I said, it's the ones that are obviously wrong that should be eradicated first.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah I just don't like it. Offside is an easy one, with technology. Therefore we should just keep it simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It will be, it isn't yet though as it isn't accurate enough for the reasons I mentioned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But your preference makes it less accurate, surely?
posted on 10/11/19
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
This year when I was checking in for a flight, I noticed a couple in the queue next to me we’re stuck behind someone who was having to wait for quite a while. Behind them was a family with a young boy and a newborn baby.
As I finished I said to the person checking people in that perhaps they could see that family next, as they were clearly having a hard time and were being forced to wait for quite a while.
The guy said no. Queues are queues and they’ll just have to wait their turn. YOU CANNOT SWITCH QUEUE, he said, in a stern voice.
TOOR, you don’t work in a Spanish airport by any chance, do you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Afraid not.
On the same note my street is often filled with cars parked up one side of the road, creating one free lane for both directions. My wife was driving up the road but as she was about to turn into the drive somebody was coming the other way and stopped just enough to stop her turning in. The waiting for a minute before he drove up the curb to go past her. She asked why he didn't move back. He said he had right if way as it was his side. She asked so you wanted me to reverse the whole way back for you to drive when all you had to do was reverse one metre and I'm turning into the drive way for you to drive on? He said rules are rules you stupid bltch.
Winston - you don't happen to drive a Silver Tuscon by any chance?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Doesn’t make much sense does it, given you’re the one obsessed with rules being 100% stuck to and I’m more interested in keeping the spirit of the game in tact.
Jumped into that one a bit soon TOOR, must try harder.
posted on 10/11/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by KLS - Harry Kane wears Mo Salah pyjamas (U1695)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
This year when I was checking in for a flight, I noticed a couple in the queue next to me we’re stuck behind someone who was having to wait for quite a while. Behind them was a family with a young boy and a newborn baby.
As I finished I said to the person checking people in that perhaps they could see that family next, as they were clearly having a hard time and were being forced to wait for quite a while.
The guy said no. Queues are queues and they’ll just have to wait their turn. YOU CANNOT SWITCH QUEUE, he said, in a stern voice.
TOOR, you don’t work in a Spanish airport by any chance, do you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you checked in and made sure you were ok before alerting attention to the family?
Why didn’t you give them your place?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because I had a 4 month old baby myself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As long as you were ok!
posted on 10/11/19
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 3 minutes ago
We’re you having a hard time with your 4 month old - akin to what you said about them having a hard time?
*completely misses the point as I suspect KLS has also 😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We were. It also wasn’t apparent how long the delay at the adjacent desk was until we were next to them.
Page 5 of 7
6 | 7