pedg

The best thing that could be sent to each of the 20,000 schools in the UK is 1/20,000th of Mr Gove, pickled in vinegar.

When talking about pompey I think the only way you can use the term "Breaking even" is when it is immediately followed by "more rules"

He's already bought a pig a poke when he was sold a pup, does that count?

That's the area that we need to know about now. We know out chums are going to pay many a happy visit to police stations for the next few weeks but what is going to happen to the various companies in that time? I assume the Lithuanian government are not going to wait for the extradition date to try to stop as much money as possible disappearing. Does anyone know what sort of international agreements we have on the financial front akin to the European arrest warrants?

Are their any real pompey supporters posting or is it all us?

okay this one is mine.. . Skrebutis according to google translate is Lithuanian for Toast. edit.. Ooo.. I even got a reply

Someone getting a bit too obvious??

Suspect any anti pompey comments are being filtered out.

well fairly sure whoever posted as TCWTB is from here... (no not me..)

to many http:'s in the quoted link I fear, try: http://www.pompeytillidie.com/ Which gives this when you try and enter their forum

Very good. Someone should suggest to the Guardian that they run one of their Gallery public supplied picture sections on Antonov and Pompey.

Problem is your ourgoings are currently more than your income so unless you can balance those you need someone with more money than sense to take over till they at least do. Not to mention the CVA payments as the elephant in the room.

Probably have to be Andy Serkis on a motion capture suit and then computer animated as he did for Gollum.

As its a magistrate I would assume not as I believe they have courts separate to the crown courts?

Up before a magistrate today http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/east-hampshire/pompey_owner_in_court_today_1_3280778 One assumes it something that has to happen after the arrest and assume it will only be a 5 minute thing with no extra info coming out (unless he tries to make a dramatic escape....).

Fozzie Bear as Fred Dineage

It appears they had it in for her because she refused to play their games. The longer this inquiry goes on the more the papers come out as being playground bullies. The fact that the NOTW chief reporter could blatantly try and blackmail people and that his editor appears to have thought nothing of it shows the complete lack of a moral compass in certain sections of the press.

bbc website has no problem naming him http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-15882620

Corp Ho and Westwood to be played by Dineage?

http://www.baltic-course.com/eng/legislation/?doc=49188

Firstly the highly disputed "did it/didn't it" situations are very rare, secondly the cases where it has happened and someone has gone on to score without a break in play are even rarer. On the case of video replays it appears the recently the TV companies have been putting in camera's that look directly down the line making it a lot easier to decide if the ball had crossed the line. In cases where this happens what I would expect would happen is that the referee would be informed by his linesman either that a) the linesman was fairly sure the ball had crossed the line, if so goal, b) the lino was fairly sure the ball had not crossed the line, so no goal play continues or c) The lino feels unable to give a definitive answer, in which case the ref blows his whistle, stops play and the video in consulted. If it was a goal, goal given, if it was not then an uncontested drop ball as we see after the ball in knocked out of play. Now it all comes down to how quickly the ref can make the decision to go to a video replay but it should be within a few seconds (especially with the ref, linos and 4th official being miked up) so the chances that the other team would have scored in that time is minimal. Personally I would prefer the right decision on the initial 'goal/no goal' is determined correctly over the very slight risk that by stopping play immediately afterwards you might stop a goal scoring attack. To argue against it is like the Indian Cricket Board arguing against using hawkeye for decisions. They claim its because it is not 100% correct but overlook that it is a lot more accurate than the naked eye of even the best umpire. You are refusing to go from say 95% accurate to 99% accurate because 99 does not equal 100.

Indeed. I can't see why in these few incidents where it is not sure what has happened that the ref cannot stop the play (as with a head injury) and get the 4th official to look at replays. It's not going to break up play if it only happens once in a blue moon.

One interesting question is if the technology gets (or is) to the state where it can track and predict the path of a ball after only a short distance is there a risk that it could be used to gain an unfair advantage as well as for goal line decisions? Say you were Man U, you had the a system installed that could track the immediate path of a ball after a penalty or free kick and were able to pass that information, say via some otherwise inconspicuous lights, to the goal keeper, would they be against the current rules? (Penalties probably not enough reaction time but being able to know which side of the goal to move towards for a free kick would probably help the goalie. I assume their must be a general catch all rule that this would fall foul of?