Cheer me up

Generali

Further to my last post (and I'll have to watch for this one) my guess is that the officials have been half asleep when the 'keeper kicks the ball and so miss the attacker being offside when the ball was kicked.

Contrary to what Sir AF and co will have you believe, referees aren't meant to be infallible, they're just meant to officiate as best they can and impartially try to enforce the Laws of the game.

I don't know if you've seen this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9SQ_9UXE8Y

(note the match starts with an illegal kick off)

Conrad

Government backed RBS are getting back into 90% low cost lending, how about that for a pick me up!



We will have the following deals available via www.rbsip.com
New Deal
* 4.79% 2 Yr Tracker with £999 fee up to 90%
Reducing Rates

carolt

Explain to me again why that's cheering.

IveSeenTheLight

Generali wrote:

Interfering with play
Interfering with an opponent
Gaining an advantage by being in that position

Thanks generali, I rally do now understand the rule better.

I thought in all offside decisions the attacker had to be gaining an advantage from being in the offside position and now I understand this is only one of the three factors.

In my example, the attacker is simply interfearing with play when he was offside at the time the ball was played, regardless of when he interefeared he was back in an onside position

Generali wrote: »

Contrary to what Sir AF and co will have you believe, referees aren't meant to be infallible, they're just meant to officiate as best they can and impartially try to enforce the Laws of the game.

Fully agree with this.
I once (without qualification) agreed to help out by refereeing a very young team (I think they were under 7's). It was really hard to make some simple decisions at the split moment, so I do have simpathy for ref's.

Remember the Mun Utd v City extra time debate, where Owen scored the winner and Hughes was questioning how much time was added on. that was just nonsense.

Referee's are there as you say to officitae as best they can the rules of the game.
Their decision should be final.
I'd be far more happier clamping down on cheats (divers etc) such that the game can be officiated easier.
If the officials reviewed footage (where available) and hit these people with subsequent red cards leading to missing games, then the clubs and managers would be forced to make the cheaters play fairly.

IveSeenTheLight

carolt wrote: »

Explain to me again why that's cheering.

Because the option of purchasing will be made available to a higher percentage of people.

It's just an option, they would not be forced.
They could choose to wait longer and save more for a lower LTV if they wanted

Increasing options has to be good for people

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

carolt wrote: »

Nope, wrong poster.

Definitely not me.

Oh definitely was..... 'cos I wrote it down....... and all those who thanked it - chrisandanne, davesnave,dopester,fedupfreda,martinman3, Miss moneypenny, Mt DT, NDG, Norty Rascal, !!!!!!?

You should be careful what you wish for as it will come back and bite you in the A**

lostinrates

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

Carolt I wish I could find the link but I do remember you making a post about how you "thought it was about time we had a recession". Well you've got the recession you wanted and you're still not happy. Go figure?

Was it a conversation about cyclical nature of economy? Because I don't necessarily read that, in that situation, as how its portrayed here.

carolt

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

Oh definitely was..... 'cos I wrote it down....... and all those who thanked it - chrisandanne, davesnave,dopester,fedupfreda,martinman3, Miss moneypenny, Mt DT, NDG, Norty Rascal, !!!!!!?

You should be careful what you wish for as it will come back and bite you in the A**

You wrote it down?!!!!! :eek:

You're scary.

And wrong.

I don't wish for a recession. Why would anyone wish for a recession?

To give you the benefit of the doubt, maybe you misunderstood a post of mine. Please find the post you're referring to, so we can work out what you're talking about.

Oh, and do make sure you have a really lovely day.

carolt

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Because the option of purchasing will be made available to a higher percentage of people.

It's just an option, they would not be forced.
They could choose to wait longer and save more for a lower LTV if they wanted

Increasing options has to be good for people

So 100% mortgages are presumably an even better thing, right?

And 125% mortgages? Wow, they must be sooo good.

Do you think there could possibly be anything missing from this happy scenario of endless options available to happy consumers?

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

carolt wrote: »

I don't wish for a recession. Why would anyone wish for a recession?.

That's why I wrote it down because I couldn't believe that anyone would write such a thing. Nor that anyone would thank such a post.

Toodle pip