Whitey Grandad

I think it has to be a 'deliberate kick' to be a backpass and penalised by an indirect free kick. I've seen these sort of incidents given so for once we were lucky.

The basic problem is that the referee is in the best place to decide if someone is interfering by, for example, blocking or distracting the goalkeeper, whereas the official on the line is in the best place to see if they are actually offside or not, especially when there is a crowd of attackers in the 6-yard box. According to FIFA, if you're offside and try to head the ball just in front of the keeper but miss it, that's ok so long as you don't actually touch the ball. Alternatively you could be goalhanging in the penalty area and if your colleague gets the jump on the defence you're not offside so long as by the time the ball is played to you, you are behind it. All this is lunacy. FIFA say that they want to encourage more goals but what is wrong with encouraging good defending?

Or it might be a 'better offer'. What was it 'arry said about Crouch going to Liverpool? "Treble the money and Champions' League football" ? If they offered me that, I might even go myself.

Thanks for that, every snippet of information is useful. I wonder if that was that pressure from the board or pressure from the job?

They are supposed to wait until the 'offending' player 'interferes' with play or an opponent. I would have thought that running for the ball would count as interfering but FIFA have a very liberal interpretation which I think is crazy: • “interfering with play” means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate • “interfering with an opponent” means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or movements or making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent • “gaining an advantage by being in that position” means playing a ball that rebounds to him off a goalpost or the crossbar having been in an offside position or playing a ball that rebounds to him off an opponent having been in an offside position

Resigned did he??? He had just moved into a new house and as he said to someone who spoke to him at the time he was having carpets fitted: "I think they're trying to get me out" That sounds different to me.

Not playing Skacel whilst he was at the club was madness.

We also saved a lot of goals. If we don't want him and don't want to play him then why did we buy him?

No, I'm Smartacass.

I'm reminded of the end of the film 'Spartacus'. If we can't be smartarses on here, then what hope is there left?

Apologies if I have misunderstood. Which of the several would that be? (no, I'm not trying to be clever)

I've seen better. :roll:

Correct, it was more like a morgue.

I did! Last Saturday from around 70 minutes he was back to his 'dropped shoulders' state. Did I read that according to Wotte his fitness isn't good enough for the midfield role? Read into that what you will. I have criticised hime before and I am the first to say that he has improved a lot lately, but only to the state that he should have been in to start with. Don't expect me to be too impressed. (Credit to the lad for the penalty though, that took real balls).

We were talking about Davis, Skacel, Euell and Saga. As for the rest give me last season over this any day. Real football with real footballers.

Exactly! and we're not 'doing well', by the way.

That was certainly not my opinion at the time, and it has not changed since.

This has been a constant theme throughout this season, and with good reason. But what is often understated is the link between income through the turnstiles and performances on the pitch. Perhaps by now the bank can be persuaded that the overdraft would be reduced sooner if the better players were retained and played rather than cutting costs whatever the outcome.

Yes, really! I remember many more good performances (and wins) from last season than from this. I have never seen such ponderous crabby football as I have witnessed in the first half of this season. But that's just my opinion...

I'm self-employed so I see these matters from a different perspective. Compensation is for loss of employment so if someone were re-employed within a short timescale then I would expect the new remuneration to take account of the previous pay-off.

We're not prejudiced. There are perfectly valid reasons why we don't think that he's a very good chairman.

Give me last season over this one any day.

And of the two, who scores more goals? What would be interesting is the figure for Lowe's compensation when was forced out.

Technically it is as someone pointed out on another thread (apologies, I can't remember who). If we get at least a point from the Watford game, match Norwich and Charlton then all we have to do is beat Forest.