Whitey Grandad

Agreed. They were some of the worst corners and crosses that I have ever seen. There must be someone who can put in a ball with pace?

If we apply the deduction pro-rata over the season that would be -3.26 so far for 15 games, giving us an effective total of 18.74 points placing us in 15th place, below Oldham and above Gilingham, with today's game in hand. That is about where we would finish if we averaged the same form over the next two-thirds of the season. In view of the poor start and improved squad I would expect us to finish a few places higher than 15th. I'm off to the game now, so let's see what another three points does to our position! :partyman:

But that means the Match at home to Oldham on the 27th is going to have to be re-arranged

Branfoot left him on the bench. I spent a miserable afternoon at Highbury watching Paul Moody run around like a headless chicken, and Branfoot was just about to replace Matt with Moody when he scored those two unforgettable goals against Newcastle. Where would Branfoot be now if he had got the best out of Matt?

What is surprising is that he very nearly scored!

I was always impressed with Dodd's technique. I know he didn't take many but what was his success rate?

I've never forgiven him for the shirt-tug against Derby.

I'm with you Brightey! As a fellow ref I support everything you say. After all is said and done, it all comes down to somebody having to make a decision, and just because you don't agree with that decision doesn't give you the right to call them all sorts of names. A lot of rulings are 'in the opinion of the referee' and you can't hold a referendum every time something happens out on the pitch. Pick some experienced, neutral judges and give them a whistle and a couple of flags. It works well almost all the time (except at Old trafford ).

You're right. She does look as though she has been touched up a lot.

Sometimes all is not quite what it seems.... http://www.maniacworld.com/optical-illusions.html This one is better: http://media.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/537747/637336.jpg

According to the 'Laws', the 'whole of the ball' has to cross the 'whole of the line' and it is possible for there to be a few inches of grass between the inside edge of the line and the bottom of the ball yet the edge of the ball is still not completely over the line. Try it next time you have a football and a spare couple of minutes and you'll be amazed how it looks from different angles. As for the ball being across the goal-line, the goalposts are the same width as the goal-line so if you are looking directly along the goal-line you need to be able to see the whole of the ball behind the posts for it to be inside the goal. TV cameras often give a wrong impression because they are looking at the goal from a strange angle. As for the spin of the ball, remember the 'goal' that Matty wasn't allowed down at the Dell once when the ball came down off the crossbar?

I was 16 at the time and we watched it on a 14" black-and-white 405-line television" It's not that long ago that if you went to a game of football then all you had were memories, no video recordings, no highlights just endless debates in the pub after the match. Match Of The Day would cover just the one match. (I preferred Brian Moore and The Big Match on ITV myself). There was a sports writer for a Sunday paper who used to cover the Arsenal and who spent the whole of the game in a pub outside the ground. He used to write his report based on what he heard from the fans after the game. There's nothing to beat being at a live game of footy in a real English football ground with all that goes with it. This premiership rubbish they show on Sky is a sanitised, sterile product that bears no relation to the real game - 'jumpers for goalposts' and all that stuff.

The more I look at that goal the less it looks like the ball was over the line. What convinced me at the time was that the other english forward (Martin Peters?) who was there did not even bother to stick the ball in the net and make sure, he turned starigt round and celebrated. (Anyway, it was 4-2 so it didn't matter in the end)

Video refs in rugby very often come to the wrong decision.

There must be one set of laws for the game that is universal throughout the world and at all levels. The example you quote is clearly poor judgment by the officials, but it was a clear-cut case. Television replays are notoriously inaccurate and I have lost count of the number of times I have heard so-called experts saying phrases like 'there was no contact so it wasn't a penalty' or 'that ball was clearly over the line' or 'he was the last man and should have been sent off' when they obviously know nothing about the details of the Laws of the Game. Let's be clear about this: technology is not 100% accurate and a blurred and distorted two-dimensional video image from 80 yards away is not the answer. Let's just stick an independent person down on the pitch-side and let them practise over 100's of games and let them use their best judgment.

There are many points here and they have all been debated to death before. Two-dimensional video evidence is often worse than the close-up eye-witness who is better able to judge momentum and movement. There must be one set of laws for football at all levels and in all countries so that rules out the video referee. There have been many false decisions in rugby where this has been used. The 'Hawkeye' that is used in cricket is presented as technical fact when it is only a mechanical prediction of where the ball is likely to go. Interpretation of 'Interfering with play' is the big problem. The referee is in the best position to judge whether a player is interfering but the assistant on the line can only judge whether the player is in an offside position. The definition of 'interfering' has changed several times in the past few seasons. As an ex-fullback, I would prefer that we went back to the old methods.

Is that a euphemism?

Footballers and other professionals (such as musicians) who earn a lot of money in a short period are allowed special dispensation for their pension payments. These are not allowed for the likes of us. Damned shame, though, that such a promising young professional should have his career cut short. Sadly he is not alone in that.

The insurance premiums are guite high so some clubs run their own 'insurance scheme', that is they save on the premiums and take a chance. I believe that Arsenal used to be one of them. Likewise Hampshire County Council reckon that they are big enough to handle the risks and got caught for about £18m a few years ago when the Sony building at Basingstoke went up in flames.

You could see that??? We couldn't see anything :-(.

We had two seats in row B too! We were just to the right of the left-hand goalpost as you looked upfield, so we had stand support & drainpipe, goalpost, goal net, goalkeeper between us and the action. That and the slope of the pitch meant we were looking at the game from about knee-height. And we were getting wet from all the drips. Had a good view of our three goals, though, which made up for the poor view but as to what was happening at the other end, it was all a bid of a blur. I had one senior and one full-price but £18.50 was a lot for a seat with no view.

It's ironic that I was dry-side but my view was blocked by a big drainpipe.

Yes, that did occur to me after I had hit 'submit'. :-( So... That'll be next year then!

That would be next season then

When is the final?