Rival watch

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
gent said:
The thing is even without weighing in on whether sacking him was right, what Hoddle did was express his views very "qualitatively", something an insult never does.

The point is insults work that way, they are meant to be insensitive. And just because someone uses an insult it doesn't necessarily say anything about their world view, or views on race, or a particular group of people. There are plenty of insults which are based on ethnicity and other non-racial qualities which can be more insensitive and have a deeper connotation than "black ****", which don't cause as much hysteria as anything race-based.
Click to expand...

The Hoddle comparison started and ended with my point about you oversimplifying Terry's insult.

I know it doesn't mean he's an out and out racist but he referenced the colour of Anton's skin when insulting him, that's widely regarded as a racist insult. Anyone high profile would struggle to keep their job after that, they'd be groveling to cling on for it and there's good reason for it. Letting some like Terry back into the fold is counterproductive and sends the wrong message. If Anton or Rio were in the England team they wouldn't even think about it and it shouldn't matter that they aren't.
 
Spurf said:
Great post! who said Americans don't understand football!
Click to expand...

I'm learning from the best.<cheers>

Seriously, I found a good boxing forum once, read what the better posters had to say and now seem to be able to predict the outcome of fights reliably. Learning is at least a theoretical possiblity. No system of education is so perfect that it always prevents everyone from learning anything.

Though I wonder why I'm not putting my money where my mouth is as far as boxing goes...
 
Vidic has announced he's leaving united at the end of the season.

First of many?
 
Surprised to find no discussion on here about Wet Spam going to arbitration (possibly legal) after their red card appeal was turned down. Now I'm no fan of that club and particularly the owners, but I can't help thinking that if we had been in that situation we would also feel very aggreived if our appeal had failed, particularly when the decision appears to support Flores who seemed to be cheating (trying to get the player sent off). The tribal nature of this game means that when unfortunate things happen to other teams we tend to laugh rather than look at the bigger picture. The bigger picture here is that the blinkered view about refs being infallable has to change, and they need to take a firmer stance (well some kind of stance whatsoever would be good) against cheating. Where the video evidence is available, not only should cards be rescinded but retrospective punishment should be taken against those who tried to get someone sent off, by giving them the same or greater ban. At the moment there appears to be no downside to cheating.
 
The refs need assistance, it's too easy to blame a ref as im 99.9% sure if any of us where refs, we would make the same mistakes as I don't believe we appreciate how difficult the job is as instant replays and watching a game as a spectator give a unrealistic view of a referees job.

Once they start using video evidence and referee's are given the chance to stop a game and discuss an incident with another ref watching the game, we will see less mistakes.
 
Boss said:
The refs need assistance, it's too easy to blame a ref as im 99.9% sure if any of us where refs, we would make the same mistakes as I don't believe we appreciate how difficult the job is as instant replays and watching a game as a spectator give a unrealistic view of a referees job.

Once they start using video evidence and referee's are given the chance to stop a game and discuss an incident with another ref watching the game, we will see less mistakes.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. The argument about it causing too many stoppages is also scare tactics because the game already stops for all sorts of reasons and also we're talking about stopping a game in order to get the right result, so what's wrong with that? I also think that as the bigger decisions often go with bigger clubs, then this might help balance the situation.
 
vimhawk said:
Surprised to find no discussion on here about Wet Spam going to arbitration (possibly legal) after their red card appeal was turned down. Now I'm no fan of that club and particularly the owners, but I can't help thinking that if we had been in that situation we would also feel very aggreived if our appeal had failed, particularly when the decision appears to support Flores who seemed to be cheating (trying to get the player sent off). The tribal nature of this game means that when unfortunate things happen to other teams we tend to laugh rather than look at the bigger picture. The bigger picture here is that the blinkered view about refs being infallable has to change, and they need to take a firmer stance (well some kind of stance whatsoever would be good) against cheating. Where the video evidence is available, not only should cards be rescinded but retrospective punishment should be taken against those who tried to get someone sent off, by giving them the same or greater ban. At the moment there appears to be no downside to cheating.
Click to expand...

For once it wasn't the FA's fault, it was entirely Howard Webb's fault for being such a **** and spineless ref. If he'd included it in his match report as a mistake then it would've been fine but as he stood by his decision the FA had to find that it was a clear mistake which was never going to happen when Carroll hit Flores in the face, even if it was by accident.

Webb's the biggest **** in the league. In case anyone's in doubt this is the difference between a straight red for an elbow that he defends in his match reports and a nothing challenge that he also defends in this match report:

[video=youtube;43EZsEWdlNQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43EZsEWdlNQ[/video]

You must log in or register to see images




I do believe the FA have gone wrong here though, they shouldn't be reviewing something just because of the threat of legal action, it's their rules and they have to be fair to everyone and not everyone would get this kind of treatment.
 
vimhawk said:
Completely agree. The argument about it causing too many stoppages is also scare tactics because the game already stops for all sorts of reasons and also we're talking about stopping a game in order to get the right result, so what's wrong with that? I also think that as the bigger decisions often go with bigger clubs, then this might help balance the situation.
Click to expand...

I think you've just killed off any prospect there ever was of techonlogy being introduced!
 
The problem is that the FA refuses to review red-card decisions that are clearly either wrong or, at best, extremely harsh, unless the decision falls within a very narrow set of rules. No one looking at the Andy Carroll incident can raise any credible argument that it should have been the other player who should have been booked (for simulation) and not Carroll. I don't think Carroll should even have received a yellow card. The rules say that a player should not raise his arm to another player, but it is clear that Carroll's arm was already raised. And as regards "intent" he even had his back to the player!

The decision to send Carroll off was wrong within the rules of the game, and it is only the FA's own stupid, archaic and stubborn rules of review that are preventing them from over-turning what is clearly a very bad decision.

The courts, contrary to what some have said, do have the power to review the FA's decision, but their ability to substitute their decision for that of the FA's are, themselves, extremely limited. Basically, the Spanners will have to show that the FA's decision was not within the ambit of what a sane and rational person would have made. In other words, the FA will be given a very wide lee-way.
 
Roo said:
Vidic has announced he's leaving united at the end of the season.

First of many?
Click to expand...

Poor Moyes has clearly been left with a wholesale rebuilding of the team, which is something that never happened under SAF. He would bring in 2-3 new players each season and phase out ones ending their careers or deemed surplus to requirements gradually. But it is surprisingly that SAF neglected central midfield. He never adequately dealt with Scholes getting older (he reached 35 back in 2009) and "retiring" and Fletcher's illness. It left Carrick to be both a holding midfielder and playmaker; he performed both roles admirably last season, but is a veteran himself now and needs younger legs around him.

Vidic, Rio and Evra have all been allowed to get old together. They were superb together from 2007-11, but their powers have waned since and although young players have been recruited to gradually replace them, none have so far looked to be anywhere near the same standard.

Moyes has also inherited a lot of Curate's eggs too - players like Kagawa, Nani, Young, Rafael, Welbeck & Hernandez- who can be very good and very bad, but are consistently neither. He would probably have only chosen Welbeck of these players - he's never gone for flair players who blow hot and cold. I'm not sure he'll keep many.

Utd have to be prepared to spend big this summer - we need to invest £150M in 5 top class players to buy our way out of trouble. City, Chelsea, Real Madrid, Barcelona and Bayern Munich aren't afraid of spending big iof they need to; the Glazers have to follow suit. The most cash rich club should be able to do this within FFP rules.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back