The9

Admittedly with a terrible pass which was behind Mane and 75% of the time would have been cleared easily by the defence.

You should really try watching some matches. Against QPR his role was to drop into midfield and win the ball early, lay it off and then get forward after Mane who by then was running into the space he'd vacated with their defence all over the place. He did that repeatedly, and very well. Static he wasn't.

If Alderweireld is fit, he plays, it's as simple as that (as a former manager used to say).

The reason I say it is because Yoshida hadn't played at left back this season for Koeman before, and did a very decent job. Admittedly he didn't get forward much, but nor has Targett when I've seen him.

He's going to have to go some to be ahead of Brooklyn Beckham in that age group... you'd think.

Just look at Portsmouth. No really, look: http://www.sportsdirect.com/sondico-portsmouth-home-shirt-2013-2014-junior-378070?colcode=37807050 "From £2.50" .

I like the Chivas Guadalajara and Chivas USA colourschemes which have a dark blue / navy short. That would be decent. Not so keen on red shorts, Lincoln's thing. Admittedly black shorts are Sunderland and Brentford's...

The bit of the "maybe" that "people don't understand" relates to the outcome of "own brand". If the thing you said happened happens, we might be own brand. Except we know there's a dea nowl. The "negotiations for next seasons kit had to be done by last October to be ready for the summer and they weren't" bit is only going to be wrong if somehow, despite announcing a kit deal in February, four and a half months before they even had to announce it, they don't manage to put things together by July. The club has announced that adidas are coming back, there's no "maybe" to be considering other than the likelihood of the kit supplier failing to supply. Of course, your source might still have made an honest mistake, or been misinformed, or been feeding you a duff rumour to see where it turned up. The bit I think is interesting is the timing of the announcement. Wouldn't mid-February have been about the time when the club found out the adidas deal had been cancelled last year? Cortese went late January/early Feb, there was some delay which prevented adidas delivering for this season, could this have been the anniversary of the failure of the club to agree to get adidas back on board post-Cortese last year, and maybe the signing of the one year interim kit deal for the own-brand stuff?

It's hardly unknown, I've mentioned it about 10 times on this thread. Mane wasn't moving towards goal.

Don't get me started on dangerous/reckless etc.

Yup. And that's what I've been moaning about. However... I've found the 2013/14 US Soccer Federation Advice to Referees document (here) and this is the equivalent document to the "missing piece" I've been mentioning, because it contains (or at least reflects) the information FIFA sends to national associations on how referees should interpret the Laws in practice... it is an official statement of US Soccer Federation interpretations of the Laws. and it says "12.D.6 Committing an Offense Punishable by a Free Kick or Penalty Kick Which Interferes with a Goal-Scoring Opportunity The send-off for interfering with a goal-scoring opportunity depends critically on the referee’s judgment regarding all four of the following factors: • Number of Defenders – no more than one defender (not counting the defender who committed the foul) between the foul and the goal being attacked. The judgment here involves determining if a defender, who may be closer to the goal line than the location of the foul, is nevertheless unable to provide any effective defense, and should therefore not be counted in this factor. • Distance to Goal – the closer the location of the foul is to the goal, the stronger is the opportunity to score a goal. There is no cut-off number of feet or yards, only the referee’s decision that the specific distance provides an obvious opportunity. • Distance to Ball – an attacker who is fouled at a moment when the ball has been played beyond what is, in the referee’s opinion, a reasonable playing distance will have been unlikely to effectively maintain the attack. • Direction of Play – the attacker must have been moving toward the goal at the time the foul occurs. A brief diversion to one side or another to avoid a defender does not change a decision that the main direction is still toward the goal." Which suggests that Mane not "moving toward the goal" is indeed the criteria for this not being a red card, as specified in a recent (2013/14) national association guidance to referees. The FA's more wishy-washy wording from 2014/15 (here) says: "Denying goal-scoring opportunities If a player who is moving towards the opposing team’s goal is denied an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by unlawful means, or, if in the same circumstances, the ball is deliberately handled by a player other than a goalkeeper in his/her own penalty area (i.e. an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick), thus denying the attacking player’s team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity, the offending player shall be sent off the field of play, in accordance with Law 12 (S4) (S5). In the event of unfair impeding without any body contact and an obvious goal-scoring opportunity is denied, the restart will be by an indirect free kick and the offending player must be sent from the field of play. These circumstances are most likely to arise when one of the teams, from a defensive position, sets up a favourable attacking position by quickly transferring the ball from one end of the field of play to the other. However, referees are reminded that obvious is the key word in this context. Therefore, factors to consider before making a judgement about such an offence are the distance from the goal, the direction that the attacking player is moving and the number of defenders that are in positions to make a challenge on the attacking player."

Oh, and this season's IFAB is in Belfast on 28 February. To reflect their role in creating the game, the 4 home nations get a vote each and FIFA gets 4 as well.

Not that I've been looking or anything, but even the 1997 complete rewrite of the Laws mentions a red card for serious foul play for "a player moving towards his opponent's goal with an obvious opportunity to score a goal" being "impeded by an opponent by unlawful means". P26 of the document that was scanned, p32 of the actual scan. http://ssbra.solidwebworks.com/lib/IFABarc/pdf/1997/1997min.pdf I'm pretty sure there's still a communication from FIFA to national associations clarifying the "moving towards goal" bit missing from this equation. 2006: "4. denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area) 5. denies an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick" Ok, 2007 is the first year using the current wording of "direction of play", though it's not even mentioned in the 2007 IFAB meeting. 2008's IFAB review mentions a significant revamp to include IFAB decisions as interpretations within the Laws themselves, but doesn't change any of it. There is still nothing since 2007 to suggest a change in the way refs consider Denying Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity, even though that has definitely happened between 2007 and 2014/15.

Mmmmm... I would say it's the only basis for overturning the decision, so it's the only pertinent factor here - though happy to accept that Mane being a bit off-balance might have contributed towards "likelihood of keeping... the ball" as well. I will also say it's actually in the Laws in this form, not just an interpretation. I've just been checking back through the laws online to see when this was introduced, and it's even in 2007/08 word for word - which is why I've been referring to it as an IFAB Interpretation, because I don't recall this being the case back then, even though it's been in the Laws since at least then - the IFAB also proffers "guidance" and I suspect somewhere along the line they've clarified it, thus bringing it to the attention of officials and, effectively, changing how the laws are implemented. Oh, and Sour Mash, there's a whole string of "IFAB sez" stuff in there. Technical Area specifications, Goal line technology post modifications, ball testing standards, if you can have adverts on your pants (NEW!), referee legal liability, tie-breakers in the event of a draw, penalty shootout procedures, the lot. You can find the entire Archive of Football Laws and IFAB decisions here. If you're a massive loser... like me.

Anyway, here's the law and the DOGSO interpretation bit (page 130, Law 12): http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/footballdevelopment/refereeing/02/36/01/11/27_06_2014_new--lawsofthegameweben_neutral.pdf WARNING, BIG FAT PDF! Denying a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity There are two sending-off offences that deal with denying an opponent an obvious opportunity to score a goal. It is not necessary for the offence to occur inside the penalty area. If the referee applies advantage during an obvious goalscoring opportunity and a goal is scored directly, despite the opponent’s handling the ball or fouling an opponent, the player cannot be sent off but he may still be cautioned. Referees should consider the following circumstances when deciding whether to send off a player for denying a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity: • the distance between the offence and the goal • the likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball • the direction of the play • the location and number of defenders • the offence which denies an opponent an obvious goalscoring opportunity may be an offence that incurs a direct free kick or an indirect free

One of the problems I have with this (useless) current interpretation, is that by the letter of the law (or of the interpretation of the law), a playing brought down whilst rounding the keeper is moving away from the goal and thus isn't denied a goalscoring opportunity when the ref considers the direction of travel of the player and the ball. As you said, this shouldn't be a debate about whether it was a red card (it wasn't, under the current interpretation), it should be a discussion about whether that interpretation is a bloody ridiculous load of nonsense (which I think it is, as you can probably tell). The keeper deliberately handling to prevent a player having the opportunity to put the ball past them in a position where they are unable to use their hands should be about as bolted on a red card as there is.

I'd rather we beat Liverpool based on their general scouseness, not really bothered about Spurs any more other than making sure we finish above them, but I'd really rather we beat both... ...hopefully they'll both stay in the Europa League for a good while yet, without actually winning anything.

It's my personal choice. If I'm going to wear a retro shirt, it has to actually BE the original shirt. And I REALLY hate the ones made by different companies, and using different materials, that don't have the design features right, or in the right place, etc. About the only decent remake retro kits I can think of at the moment are the Umbro England 1990 World Cup replicas they released (the #19 Gazza shirt) before one of the recent major tournaments, and that was because they were almost identical to the originals (apart from a couple of things designed to stop people re-selling them as such). I REALLY hate the baggy cotton Air Florida remake from the early 2000s. The shiny, more recent, one they released was better but still not made by Patrick (for obvious reasons) and not a patch on the real thing. Obviously I appreciate that some people don't want to have to track an original down, or just aren't THAT bothered and want to invoke 1983 without having to pay attention to the detail, but that's just not my thing.

Newport County fans sang it at them in December 2013, I know because I took a video of it.

You may as well start with "mush", though as an outsider I always thought it was a London thing as a kid. Squinnying/squinny for a whiny complain. Chud for chewing gum. I may recall some others as time passes. Though I'll try and keep them to innernets forums stuff.

I hate all the retro shirts. Original or why bother?

The ref should interpret it with "direction of travel" in mind. He didn't, but it should be a red card if the Laws actually reflected a DOGSO rather than this weird interpretation which if anything takes away from an accurate calculation of what a goalscoring opportunity is. As far as the other International Board rulings, a lot of the changes in offside (like getting rid of "daylight") and pretty much anything that needs more detail. They also consider and vote on the law changes.

We're not ready because we don't have enough players to challenge on both fronts. That's not the same as in 2012/13 when we just didn't have many players at the appropriate level full stop. This lot could probably have a decent run in Europe if they didn't have to play Prem matches too, but the cumulative effect of twice as many matches is the problem, not ability.

It is utterly cringeworthy.

It's the only logical explanation. Falls down a bit when we're sending loads of stuff by post and sizings are nonsense though, must cost loads in returns and fulfilment etc.