Whitey Grandad

That's what the £2 surcharge is about. http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/news/article/tickets-saints-vs-yeovil-fa-cup-1280740.aspx

I feel better now

Unless she travelled there from Westminster.

They are entitled to 15% of the available accommodation so if we close half the stadium there aren't so many seats available. It seems that the club will miss out on a chunk of revenue.

I would like to see it at least once before I die

His shin seems to have taken a battering over the years. It looks more like placement for Sky to me.

Rafael's should have been two reds. Vidic was unlucky, but I think it was the sheer pre-meditated nastiness of it that got him the red. He wasn't just late, he had no intention of ever being on time.

Yes, it's a tackle. Did you mean to ask 'is it a foul?'. Yes, it can be if the action is deemed excessive, or dangerous.

This is the point. There was no way that Brown could win that tackle without causing Gastón some sort of injury.

I covered this in post #194. The directive was back in 1998 but if anything the directive has now been extended: The wording was changed later (several times) . The wording of law 12 is now: 'A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play.' Note the word 'tackle' and not 'foul'.

I don't think we'll know for a couple of days, after the swelling subsides a little.

That's England, what about the rest if the world? Actually the sun is not cooling, it's just getting 'quiter'.

The point is, even if it was not judged a foul it was still 'serious foul play'.

'Warmest on record'? How far back do these 'records' go?

Yes, provided that the incident was not dealt with by the referee at the time. A yellow card, for example, cannot be upgraded to a red but an off-the-ball incident definitely can. Technically it wouldn't be a card but a suspension. It won't happen in Brown's case unless a complaint is made and Foy says that he didn't see it, but he won't say that.

It dates back to 1998: http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/footballdevelopment/news/newsid=70380/index.html The wording was changed later (several times) . The wording of law 12 is now: 'A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play.' Note the word 'tackle' and not 'foul'. I've found various later discussions: http://www.bettersoccercoaching.com/soccerforum/Topic26-4-1.aspx http://asktheref.com/Soccer%20Rules/Question/18391/

That's not the point really, is it? 'Could we do better?' Is the real question.

I quite agree. The problem I have is that none (not one) of the climate models takes into account the effect of solar high-energy activity. Not surprising really since there is no science to cover it, but it is there.

No it wasn't. The FIFA directive specifically covered this type of foul.

Quite a bit more than 5 yards.

It was a FIFA directive.

He's good but he's not top-notch. And I agree about Shaw, he should have done better with Johnson.

If he goes to West Ham then he won't be going to Brazil. Carroll is always going to be ahead of him.

It certainly used to be. It seems to have fallen by the wayside.

In my opinion there's no way that you could call that a clean tackle.