Couldn’t think.... part three

12830323334

Comments

  • How did he get convicted?
  • Get in the Burnley!
  • Said all along villa were in a false position, grealish be gone in summer
  • So I've just realised that I sent an email to a colleague called Lukasz earlier in which I called him Lukerz.

    And people say I spend too much time on this forum.
  • Lukaszerz 🤔
  • So I've just realised that I sent an email to a colleague called Lukasz earlier in which I called him Lukerz.

    And people say I spend too much time on this forum.

    I’m amazed you’ve got time for emails rbh
  • I don't know if anyone will find this funny, or if it's just for me, but oh well.

    I saw a West Ham fan account on Instagram the other day saying "And people laughed at me when I said Soucek will be our club record scorer one day", and then a lot of people in the comments agreeing that it would, one day, happen. I was sceptical, because, yknow, logic, but it turns out I AM THE FOOL.

    Vic Watson is our record scorer with 326 goals, which means Soucek needs to score another 317 goals to best him. If he keeps up his scoring record of one goal every 3.4 games, he will only need to play another 1,078 games for West Ham.

    It seems entirely plausible that we will be in the latter stages of European competitions for the foreseeable future, so let's say Soucek plays 50 games per season. That means he only needs to play for another 21 and a half seasons to smash the record. He wouldn't even have turned 50.

    What a fool I am.
  • You must be doing very well to fit in your work in and around your whu606 commitments, OCS
  • https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55852620

    Premier League to trial concussion subs 👏 from 6th Feb 🤔

    Great that it's finally happening, but why wait for another round of fixtures to go by?
  • Sorry

    When are concussion subs?

    Can't remember....
  • And now I've the detail, it seems like a crazy rule?!

    1. Why would they limit it to two? Unlikely, but the third person just has to deal with it?

    2. Why are they permanent substitutions? If a key player gets a head knock they need to look at a team aren't going to want to take them off permanently if they can avoid it. I'm surprised this isn't for temporary subs

    3. What is that part about the other team getting to make a change too? So if both teams have made their sub, and one teams star centre back has to get subbed off, the opposition can suddenly sub in a target man to bully the 12 year old replacement?!
  • Not sure from the wording on the BBC exactly how this is meant to work. Quite often it happens where a team has used all three subs but get another injury. At the moment that is just tough luck but I can see a player going down holding his head and going off as a concussion substitution. I know the opposition can make an additional substitution but I doubt that will be always used. I can think of several clubs who would possibly be unscrupulous.
    Maybe someone substituted for concussion can’t play for two weeks.
  • In rugby the substitution is temporary but for a 10 minute time limit, after that it becomes permanent - which I think is a good approach as it gives time for a proper evaluation, which is carried out even if the player “appears” OK.

    The other thing rugby does is allows someone who has been tactically substituted (I.e. not forced through injury), to return as the substitute for the head injury victim. This is also a good approach as there are more specialised positions in rugby, but could also be applied as an option in football.
  • Football could learn a lot from Rugby.
  • Not least the respect paid to officials.
  • And the advantage rule. It can go on for a minute or so before they bring play back.
  • Yeah, they've basically had to tweak the common sense rules because they know footballers/managers may well use it to cheat.

    Which says a lot about football in comparison to other sports.
  • So they don't take drugs in cycling and athletics or fail to walk in cricket and so on and so on. Footballers cheat but no more than most sports, its just that it has the biggest coverage and so gets the exposure.
  • Herb, "fail to walk in cricket".
    I think you need to refresh your knowledge of the laws. There is no obligation to walk. It's why the fielding team has to appeal to the umpire for a decision. Very surprised you didn't know that, but on second thoughts, of course you did. =)
  • 33.1 Out Caught

    The striker is out Caught if a ball delivered by the bowler, not being a No ball, touches his/her bat without having previously been in contact with any fielder, and is subsequently held by a fielder as a fair catch, as described in 33.2 and 33.3, before it touches the ground.

    31.1 Umpire not to give batsman out without an appeal

    Neither umpire shall give a batsman out, even though he/she may be out under the Laws, unless appealed to by a fielder. This shall not debar a batsman who is out under any of the Laws from leaving the wicket without an appeal having been made. Note, however, the provisions of 31.7.
  • Where would we be without Google =) =) =)
  • edited January 2021
    I am a qualified umpire and to give a real example of what IronHerb posted, I often umpire Visually Impaired (VICC) matches (at least 3 of each team must be totally blind) but once umpired an England Deaf XI against Northants U19. When standing at square leg, the Northants batsman’s nicked a ball to the wicketkeeper, but the Deaf side being deaf did not hear the snick and did not appeal. The Northants batsman stood his ground, until I walked in and advised him today would be a good day to walk, which he did.

    In Premier League cricket, batsmen very rarely walk, but if given out walk off with no fuss - although they may collar you after the match has finished to express disagreement!

    In VICC. cricket, the blind guys often appeal so exuberantly you almost doubt the evidence of your own eyes. But after you have umpired a few games you soon realise they can tell the difference in sound between the ball coming off the bat or body of the batsman. They are very competitive and will try it on with less experienced umpires!
  • Where would we be without Google =) =) =)

    I know the laws, well some of them, but not the precise wording hence google.
    If you hit the ball and it is caught then you are out. Doesn't need to be an appeal, you're out. Now if you stand there you are cheating because you were out, The umpire can only give you out if there is an appeal.

    The discussion was about cheating and failing to walk is cheating.
  • Ironherb, the David Lloyd of whu606 hahaha
  • I'm not that old Preston.  👨🏻‍🦳
  • edited January 2021

    I’m not sure of the exact rule, but it is to do with lack of respect. I played a game in the early 80s when someone got sent off for SWEARING at the ref!
    It’s probably been watered down now (probably wisely) but does anyone know if something similar still exists?

    Not least the respect paid to officials.

  • ScotHammer, IF you are lucky to get a referee appointed they just get abused and don't clamp down on swearing due to the threat of any consequences if they do. I run an Under 15's team and we very rarely get a ref as most of them are now either shielding due to covid or don't want all the aggro that goes with officiating. I have even been threaten twice by an opposition player (14 year old). Respect seems to be lost as the players get older.
  • IronHerb said:

    Where would we be without Google =) =) =)

    The discussion was about cheating and failing to walk is cheating.
    There have been numerous examples where a batsman has walked, mistakenly believing that he has got a faint nick, is the fielding team cheating by not calling him back?
    There are not that many instances I can think of that you could justifiably call it cheating, (and now I'm talking about Test cricket as I don't have as much time to watch all the county cricket games as you may be able to) and the only one that comes to mind is Stuart Broad's in the 2013 Ashes.

    Your comment: "So they don't take drugs in cycling and athletics or fail to walk in cricket and so on and so on. Footballers cheat but no more than most sports, its just that it has the biggest coverage and so gets the exposure."

    The drug taking aspect is not being debated here, rather it's the cheating by deceiving the officials in order to get a freekick/penalty/opposition yellow or red card.
  • Tbh, in cricket the players have to accept the umpire's decision (pre-DRS, or if they have no reviews left), so I've no issue with batsmen not walking. A batsman in those circumstances has to accept being out even if he's not nicked the ball, or if he's nicked it and is given out LBW, or any of the other ways he can wrongly be given out by an umpire, so I feel you take the rough with the smooth. The Aussies, being Aussies, made a big deal out of the Broad incident, but very few of their batsmen walked at the time.
This discussion has been closed.