RMweb Premium skipepsi Posted January 25, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 25, 2012 Did I just hear something go "BUNG" in the distance? Didn't it 'allegedly' go bung a bit since? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.A.C Martin Posted January 25, 2012 Author Share Posted January 25, 2012 Let's not get into an argument over preferential treatment and supposed bungs chaps, this topic has done quite well not to get locked thus far...! Watching a fantastic match with Liverpool - City right now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Devil Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Watching a fantastic match with Liverpool - City right now. Yeah, superb, nothing a nuclear warhead wouldn't sort out B) :D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium skipepsi Posted January 25, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 25, 2012 Yeah, superb, nothing a nuclear warhead wouldn't sort out B) :D As long as the mess stops on that side of the pennines. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Let's not get into an argument over preferential treatment and supposed bungs .... When I was in school, a bung was something that you put in a test tube. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium skipepsi Posted January 26, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 26, 2012 When I was in school, a bung was something that you put in a test tube. Didn't you ever put one in your pocket and see how far it would bounce later? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Didn't you ever put one in your pocket and see how far it would bounce later? No, but what I did have was one of those small rubber balls (about half the size of a squash ball). If you bounced it, its path and height of bounce would be completely unpredictable! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ron Ron Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 "SuperBall" The memories came back when my kids got a couple a few years ago. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Claude_Dreyfus Posted January 26, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 26, 2012 I have enjoyed some of the media coverage regarding Milan and 'Arry... Apparently he is in trouble for not paying tax on a bung... Hang on, does this mean that HMRC spreading their net a little wider? Are fraudsters going to be hit with Capital Gains tax, or bank robbers expected to declare their annual 'earnings' by Jan 31st? Gangsters are fine, just so long as the stamp duty is paid on their safe house, their get-away car has a valid road fund licence and they pay the 40% income tax on their drug deals...plus NI. Maybe bungs are okay if you put them on your P11D? Maybe we should replace the police on front line duties with tax offiers! Meanwhile, and on a slightly related note, more fun and games on the south coast. Listening to moanings from Manchester the other month re. Europe (not aimed at anyone on here!) amused me slightly, as there is a very real chance my team won't exist in the near future. Liverpool lost to Bolton, yeah bad result, but not terminal...get a sense of perspective guys! Welcome to the word inhabited by Portsmouth, Darlington, and Plymouth Argyle...all of whom if they stay in business will no doubt be in the same division before long...and I don't envisage promotions! Part of the problem appears to be the previous owners. So much so that our latest owner pulled out because of arguments with the previous owners bankers. Now he has announced he is coming back into the fray, so you never know. What this lot seem to forget is that it is not just a football team...it is a source of employment for many people, people who will not be able to go to another football club to balance the books; not sure what the transfer fee is for a cleaner or secretary. You could also argue that selling our best players is not in the best interests of the creditors. Selling players will lead to us dropping down the table, falling out of the division and dropping like a stone. Then the club will be worth half, if not less, than what is worth presently...which ain't a lot. I, for one, am praying for the window to shut. I fear the fire-sale of players at a fraction fo their value to our immediate rivals. Let's hope our latest knight in shining armour - an Italian banker(!) - can come to our rescue... Sums it up really! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobby Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 (edited) Spot the City fan! Lets just put this one to bed about Utd getting favourable treatment from the FA, it just doesn't happen. Yeh, ok... Just look at your history, and its not just us City fans who point it out either... Lets face it they're scared stiff of Fergie, I'm waiting to see how long before he really starts the mind games on Mancini, he's been too nice so far!! Oggy, we'll have to agree to differ, I've always backed the ref on the basis its normally swings and roundabouts, but I do feel in this case there was a huge element of doubt, even the neutrals can't agree and that's unusual... But the point I was making is that the technology is gradually creeping out beyond sport into everyday life and I have severe doubts about that... Especially as digital video footage can be rigged too easily these days... It has its good uses, but i tend to feel that it should only be in the hands of the professionals such as the Police, or if it is used from other sources they are tamper proof which mobile phone footage certainly isn't! Edited January 26, 2012 by Hobby 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve K Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Yeah, superb, nothing a nuclear warhead wouldn't sort out B) :D What was that about not wanting to get the thread locked? It's a game of football for goodness' sake - why do we have to take it to this level? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oggy1953 Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 What was that about not wanting to get the thread locked? It's a game of football for goodness' sake - why do we have to take it to this level? Reminded me of that famous Bill Shankly quote ' Football isn't a matter of life and death, its far more important than that ' 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 What was that about not wanting to get the thread locked? It's a game of football for goodness' sake - why do we have to take it to this level? I think he was having a go at Scousers / Mancs in general, as opposed to football. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.A.C Martin Posted January 26, 2012 Author Share Posted January 26, 2012 (edited) I allowed myself a wry smile to be honest. That seemed more in jest. I have been known to say a similar thing to my Crystal Palace supporting friends. Edited January 26, 2012 by S.A.C Martin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Devil Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 (edited) What was that about not wanting to get the thread locked? It's a game of football for goodness' sake - why do we have to take it to this level? Can you see the smileys? Do you seriously think that it was said in anything other than jest? Our two biggest rivals, playing in a semi final, who do I want to win? Neither! Sense of humour required. If I really wanted to get the tread locked there would have been considerably more robust replies to various comments as I don't try to bite too often, but sorry it's patently obvious it was a joke Edited January 27, 2012 by Red Devil 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Re6/6 Posted January 28, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 28, 2012 Some common sense from a journo...... .... http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/jim-white/time-indirect-action-104138475.html Discuss. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve K Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 Fair enough, guys - if I over-reacted and spoiled the joke, I'm sorry. However, I've too often (on other forums, mainly) seen unpleasant comments hiding behind smileys, that I've become a bit antagonistic towards their over-use. The juxtaposition of that post and the "let's not get the thread locked one" probably set me off more than it should. Once again, apologies for appearing not to have a sense of humour - I do, really I do!* Let's just hope that the back-page headlines on Monday are mainly to do with a fabulous weekend of FA Cup football. *Which I may, however, briefly lose again if Hilarious plays in goal against QPR. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oggy1953 Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 (edited) Some common sense from a journo...... .... http://uk.eurosport....-104138475.html Discuss. Yes, i would go along with that, Why was the in-direct kick got rid of anyway ? Too many penalties are given for handball when its obvious it wasn't intentional. Still good to see things even out for City after last weekends episode ( from a biased Spurs fan ).Looks like we got a bit of luck back last night at Watford. Edited January 28, 2012 by oggy1953 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.A.C Martin Posted January 28, 2012 Author Share Posted January 28, 2012 Some common sense from a journo...... .... http://uk.eurosport....-104138475.html Discuss. He's pretty much spot on with everything he says there. Particularly regarding the referee's association...who I feel have lost the plot over the last five years in terms of making more grey areas in the laws of the game than anything else. Offside, handball, fouls, they are all falling foul of continued and wearying discussion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve K Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 I didn't even realise that the indirect free-kick had been lost to the game. That explains why now, racking my brains, I can't think when I last saw one! As you both say, a very good article, which gives a sense of perspective to some of the recent silliness in the game. No major cup surprises yet, I don't think. OK, a couple of eyebrow-raisers (Birmingham scoring more than 2 in the same game!), but apart from Crawley, have there been any real shocks that I've missed? Even with Crawley, surely the Man City of the lower leagues, beating Hull, it wasn't what you'd call a massive upset, I don't think. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oggy1953 Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 I didn't even realise that the indirect free-kick had been lost to the game. That explains why now, racking my brains, I can't think when I last saw one! As you both say, a very good article, which gives a sense of perspective to some of the recent silliness in the game. No major cup surprises yet, I don't think. OK, a couple of eyebrow-raisers (Birmingham scoring more than 2 in the same game!), but apart from Crawley, have there been any real shocks that I've missed? Even with Crawley, surely the Man City of the lower leagues, beating Hull, it wasn't what you'd call a massive upset, I don't think. Should have hung on a while,,,Brighton 1 Newcastle 0. Now thats a shock considering Brighton struggled to beat Wrexham last round. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pH Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 (edited) Some common sense from a journo...... .... http://uk.eurosport....-104138475.html Discuss. I was always told that handball inside the penalty area was a penalty - no other decision possible. 'Handball' is defined as deliberate use of the hand to play the ball. Uninentional contact between the hand and ball i.e. 'ball playing the man' is not handball, and is therefore not a foul. So the referee decides if the contact between hand and ball is intentional or not, then either awards a penalty or waves play on. There's no need to consider the possibility of an indirect free kick for unintentional ball to hand contact, because no foul has been committed. Edited January 29, 2012 by pH Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobby Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 That makes sense, so who's right?! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pH Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 I didn't even realise that the indirect free-kick had been lost to the game. That explains why now, racking my brains, I can't think when I last saw one! You last saw one the last time you saw a referee give an offside decision. The penalty for an offside offence is an indirect free kick. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold BoD Posted January 29, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 29, 2012 That makes sense, so who's right?! I think that it is now a matter of interpretation. It 'looks like' hands down by the sides - unintentional, hands away from the body or raised - intentional. Thats only the impression I get from the indications the refs are giving now. Trouble is even that seems to applied inconsistently at times. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now