Morning all from a dull bandit country. Last day off to take all the decorations down and try and get back to some normality...thanks for the frothy AK.
Morning all, beautiful sunny crisp morning here after overnight frost. Hot coffee, thanks ak, then off to dinner and party with S-I-L for his birthday. Jelly and ice cream I expect.
Early afternoon all Grey but not actually raining. Might get to try my new wellies out this afternoon...
Taken the Christmas tree and decs down this morning - always glad to see the back of them; nice when they go up but I don't wait for 12th Night. One of my Christmas hints paid off - got Tales from the Vicarage - been dipping into it - very good
I can never understand why shepherding the ball out or back to the keeper is not regarded as obstruction as the motivation of the defender is to stop the attacker from getting the ball without touching it himself ( the defender ). In my opinion this is what Hogg was trying to do against Brighton. But given that mine is the wrong opinion, Lua-Lua gave Hogg an almighty two-handed push in the back so that he fell over Almunia and the ball squirmed free. Why was this mega push not given as a foul and a free kick to us before allowing play to continue to Hoban's mistake to give away the penalty?
Cornish - I can only assume that the ref did not see the push. Watching on TV I am not sure that the push was all that obvious either? Lenny - I brought Tales for Little Miss W_Y for Christmas and she is loving it and reading some of the stories puts some of my stories into a lot deeper context for her. She sent me a text last week saying "The 83/84 season must have been brilliant - Europe and a Cup Final" - I replied "Yes, it was crazy and also your eldest brother was born just after the Cup Final!" - her response was "The least significant event then!!"
My understanding* is that the player doing the 'shepherding' is actually in possession of the ball. He has it in his control, it is near enough for him to touch and to play how he wishes. He can be dispossessed of course, but this would have to be done legally. By putting his body between the opposition player and the ball he makes it very difficult for the opponent to take the ball off him. Players do this all the time whilst cleverly juggling the ball; in this instant he simply chooses to 'let the ball do the work' and roll into touch. It would be obstruction if the player attempting to shield the ball has never actually been near enough to it to properly have it in his possession. He is blocking he path of the opponent to get to it. I've deleted the highlights now so can't check, but if you're right about the push then, yes, it should have been our free kick. I don't recall being too upset by it when I watched it. Thought the actually penalty was soft though. (*Mind you, I haven't read the laws of the game for many a year since I used to referee school kids.)
w-y - I didn't watch it live, but I'm sure that the highlights on Watford Player show the action from the same angle as Sky. It was quite clear to me from the behind view that Hogg had been given an almighty push in the back - the ref was a few yards outside the penalty area at the time, square on, no more than 25 yards away & moving towards the area, and had an unobstructed view of the incident - very puzzling. The replay from a front-on angle (camera behind or next to the goal) made the push even more obvious. Thankfully we won the game - if we hadn't, I suspect that steam would still be coming out of Dan's ears.
that's for sure! i haven't seen the highlights of yesterday's game yet but i can imagine that steam will be pouring from his ears for a long time yet, after our second disallowed goal..as he was convinced it was onside. Afternoon all...that was tough, even though i worked between Christmas and New Year! Think i might go and wake Little Miss Hornette up...she's kinda missed today altogether! Thanks for the caramel latte Ak!
BB - I have not watched it again, but I did not see it as that obvious a push at the time, but I am not a great watcher of Watford on TV as I get easily distracted!
Steptoes leading Chelsea 1-0 What odds on Benitez being the next managerial casualty? Just hope he signed those Chalobah papers.......
i haven't watched it either, but i do remember thinking that there was more to it than just the penalty...it was an obvious push, but wouldn't have been to the ref...
Góðan daginn öll. Cappuccino, coffee, tea donuts and fruit are on the bar. Frothy cappuccinos for for al, HH, Leon and W_ Y Coffee and cramel frapachino for IB Coffees for COYH, Frenchie, Kev rob theo and vic-rijrode Strong coffee for Sandy Milky coffee for Yorkie Espresso for SuffolkHorn Strong black coffees for Bragi Norway and zen Black coffee half hot half cold and no sugar for Charlie Tea for BHD Cornish Mark jsybarry jerzeypie Lloydinio NZ and BCFCRed Hot chocolate with marshmallows for BBW Tea with skimmed milk and no sugar for GG Tea and cake for Minx Caramel latte for Hornette Una paloma for Mexican Hornet Starting at this time is too early. I looked at the teperature and we have 5C, much hotter than yesterday. The preview is for no rain. Skagafjördur has a warning for avalanches. We have flooding warnings as well because of blocked drains and hot weather.
A bit late but happy new 2013 everyone. Thanks for the coffee ak. See that Cristina Kirchner has been sounding off about the Falklands again, she must be in big trouble in Argentina if she has to resort to this sabre-rattling silliness again.
I wish someone would teach Argentinians some history. Our claim to the Falklands was established whilst what became Argentina was still a colony of Spain. If anyone should dispute ownership it is Spain not Argentina - would they like to claim sovereignty over the rest of what was Spanish South Anmerica
Hey, what's going on like, like, feel all left out like, yay, any chance of an orient to the bar to acclimate with a tea and one like or do I myface/twatter the secretee?
