The Kraken

Gotcha; Ray Wilkins in style but built like Terry Butcher.

Its also akin to Wes and his other mongy counterparts who disagree with "what other more sensible people think....". Wes is bottom half at best amongst people who talk any sense on here, he must also be hugely lacking in self-awareness. Mongboards, eh??!! Anyway, that's got nothing to do with being ignore, so I digress. As you were.

Where does the midfield centre-back play in that formation? #confused

Wes Tender and Sue Whistle are vying at the top of the leaderboard in the "I've got him on ignore" announcement stakes.

I wouldn't be surprised if he did it. QPR aren't as bad as their haul of 4 points suggests; they've got some decent players with Premier League pedigree. They're an aboslute shambles at the moment, but they spent big in the summer and will spend big in January. Home against Villa on Saturday is absolutely perfect for them. Its a tough ask, but we're only a third of the way through the season and i think they've still got every chance (though it will be an epic effort to turn them around).

:lol:

To be fair, he was a c*nt to us and I wouldn't be at all upset to see him go down in style at QPR. Good manager; just never gave a sh*t while he was here and only took the job to p*ss off mad Mandy. He's a rare breed; someone who is despised at either ends of the M27.

He's quoted on POL that's there's at least 7 or 8 staff in on it, probably many more. All the main reporters are in on it; the generous souls. But then "writing" for that festering sh*t pit of a newspaper probably doesn't pay much, so we shouldn't be too critical.

You're a mean bully, Dig Dog.

Personally I think it shows that we've got to learn to grind out results when we haven't got our first choice line-up; we've got to find a slightly different way to play that still gets the best out of the players we do have available. I genuinely don't think we were doing that; our injuries were being compounded by questionable tactics, formations, selections and substiutions IMO.

Well hang on, apart from Cork we pretty much had our full squad (as it was at the time) available for the Wigan game. Its all well and good saying that because we've got no injuries we're now alright; does that mean if we get one or two more injuries that we'll be f*cked again?

I think having Yoshida there also led to a mistake from Adkins, in taking off Puncheon and bringing on Chaplow. Puncheon was playing well, and to be honest was about our only attacking outlet, and that dried up as soon as Chaplow came on. Saying that, neither goal from Fulham came down that side of play, so its not exactly a cut and dried argument. Yoshi was crap, but was he directly responsible for either goal? Probably not. But I don't think the substitutions helped the balance of play at all, and invited Fulham on to us.

Reckon you could keep up?

Really. So this isn't FIFA's own guidance? http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afde...w%2011_554.pdf If an AR [assistant ref] is not totally sure about an offside offence, the flag should not be raised.

It would be interesting to be able to hear from the linesman. And get an honest answer. Obviously after emotions had calmed down, and not straight after game; and not to have a witch-hunt of officials. i think they would actually do themselves a favour if they came out and discussed why they gave key decisions. If the came out and said something like "at the time I was sure it was offside, so I flagged. Having reviewed it on TV, its clearly debatable from those images and I don't think they confirm offside one way or the other. However I made an honest assessment of it at the time, believeing that it was definitely offside" then I'd honestly respect that. I don't think the veil of secrecy does referees and assistants any favours; there are many key decisions they make which are criticised at the time but the officials proved right by replay, and they could gain kudos by going through those. Plus, a little learning goes a long way, and players may get a better idea of why refs give particular decisions.

Does Steven Gerrard not know the rules of the game, when he said what he did (which you quoted)?

Good for you. But it doesn't show him offside, its debatable at best.

Quite frankly, from that image I can't tell either way whether its onside or offside. I don't believe the linesman can have been 100% sure it was offside himself either; in which case, play should have been allowed to continue. If he was 100% sure at the time it was offside, and is still 100% sure it was offside, I would really like to hear his justification for that.

Perhaps someone should tell Steven Gerrard that; he's labouring away under the interpretation that the benefit of the doubt should go with the attacking side. The fool.

What difference does that make?

Wow; thanks for clarifying that. Colour me shocked at such a revelation.

"Benefit of the doubt" is the direction that assistant referees and referees have been given when it comes to flagging for offences. This is absolutely daft. I'm fairly sure you know yourself that it wasnt a clear cut offside and therefore shouldn't have been given. even if you don't you're welcome to carry on with your silly charade. It wasn't offside, it was proved by replays, and the lino was incorrect to flag. Any denial of that is churlish.

If the linesman thought he was clearly offside, he was wrong. Replays proved this. The linesman may have thought he was right to flag; he wasn't. There is no situation you can say that Rodriguez was without doubt offside. Therefore the benefit of doubt should have gone to the attacking player. The linesman got it wrong, plain and simple. i admire your dedication to refuse to accept that though, its quite impressive.

The linesman has to believe that the player is clearly offside to give it; if he is in any doubt at all, then it is not offside and he should not flag. Would you agree with that?

We'll be one of those pretty soon, so I wouldn't worry too much about that.