tonyh29

36 minutes ago, HKP90 said:

How can the ref know about the yellow card peno rule (which it appears no-one else on earth did), but not that it is up to the opposition to stop the goalie hanging onto the ball when it's in play? 

I was thinking about this last night , I'd be amazed if that ref could find his way to bed at night , yet alone know the rules so , hypothetically , lets say he gave the second yellow and then  sent Martinez off  and we lost the shoot out , would the tie have to be replayed ? 

If I’m reading 52.04 correctly it doesn’t  seem to matter ? 

Watching back the replay two things seem to happen  

one Emi is clearly asking for a ball , as there wasn’t one on the field of play at the time , an appeal would succeed on that basis I should think , he wasn’t booked for the sush motion to the crowd so I don’t think they can factor that into the decision 

the other thing is the ref makes a motion like they often do after Var to suggest that he has nulled the yellow card … has the second yellow definitely been confirmed ? 

And I would nick six hundred grand  and I would nick 600 more, just to be the man who parked a camper van outside my mums front door.

Ah 

C_t=C_t_₁+I*F*(W-W_e)

how  I’ve missed you 

There should be an investigation into this referee

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a more inept display 

Wow 2 shots in a minute 

They’ve dominated us in both games , we can’t really complain if we go out 

Did Doug spend his league suspension on a Georg Best style bender , he’s well off this game 

Oh come on Emi it was a ball  in the face not a wrecking ball 

Being dominated again like we were in the first game 

if there is a plan , I’d like to see it soon 

1 minute ago, chrisp65 said:

If only there was some sort of official www.gov.uk type website that he could refer to that said something clear and unambiguous like

  Then there wouldn’t be this grey area between the law and what he’s wished for in an angry dream.

 

 

 

which was why I qualified my post with England and not Wales  .. if he crosses the border into the 21st century , then he would be correct 

46 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

When I did my speed awareness course it was very evident who had done a theory test and who hadn't 

The guy mentions street lights and speeds and some people in there absolutely lost their minds 

I got a gold star on mine for knowing this    ( i seemed to be the only one, but tbh most people just keep their heads down and don't engage , so they could have just been silent Tory types) 

I had it removed a bit later for arguing that speed limits of 30 are too low and should be raised to 40 , it's only cyclists or people too stupid to look before they cross the road that would suffer , so who cares 

3 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

Just the weird shit people are eager to believe because it suits their world view.

We were having a conversation in the office on cars, speeding, and the 20mph speed limit. One guy, a senior individual with excellent technical knowledge and experience and qualifications, informs us that the 20mph in Wales isn’t legal if the sign has been vandalised. I point out that isn’t true, the law is 20mph by default, higher if you see a sign saying its higher.

I’ve pointed out the government websites for Wales and UK state its 20mph by default, not just if you see an un vandalised sign. To which his response is ‘no, that’s not right’.

So he’s right, and the government and the police are wrong and that’s the end of the matter. As far as he’s concerned, if a sign has been vandalised he can then assess and decide what speed he feels is reasonable.

I reckon another 10 minutes and he’ll be telling me that under Magna Carta he’s a free man and not subject to vat.

 

I don't know about Wales law , but In English law he is kinda correct I believe

20 mph zones have to have zone entry and zone exit signs , I guess if the first sign was vandalised he would be able to argue that he did not know he had entered such a zone , but there also have to be signs placed every 100m , so someone would have to have vandalised every single sign or he is caught speeding before he passes the second sign  , i think there also has to be traffic calming zones as well , so someone would presumably have had to have dug those up as part of their epic vandalism spree 

but , that zone would automatically be a 30 mph  zone , so his speeding would be limited to 30 mph , any talk of 70 mph seems to be some trouble maker making a frivolous argument  

Such a one sided game it would seem almost inevitable that Madrid win now 

Age of this Madrid team I might go over to them  for a trial as a promising youngster 

Was flicking between the 2 games but for a student of Pep the Spanish Sherwood  clearly left his master a tad too early 

city just patiently stroke the ball around and around until their is an opening , Arsenal just seemed to have no idea 

One last ditch effort to save the game and you take a corner like that !!

40 minutes ago, duke313 said:

They could have signed those players anyway without CL, 

well I can't answer that , but say hypothetically  that Villa were interested in Barnes , he then has a choice of Newcastle in CL or Villa in conference league ... it could be a factor

the original post  seemed to be suggesting that they only signed one player , I was just pointing out they made other transfers , you'd have to assume the CL money was a factor in that spending  , same as it will / would be for us ?

49 minutes ago, PaulMcGrath_5 said:

Who did Newcastle sign as a result of qualifying last year? Tonali... Anyone else?

Tonali was about £60m wasn't he ?

Harvey Barnes was £44m

Livremento was £32m + £8m

and they now have to pay Chelsea something like £28m for Lewis Hall 

Gordon was £40m in the Jan window and could well have been bought with CL money in mind ? 

Ok , I must confess I was expecting it to be another woman under the blanket … WTF was the writer smoking !

1 hour ago, rodders0223 said:

I had some wireless headphones bought about 5 years ago, lasted me until now. Brilliant.

 

Bought some new ones, same brand. They're great but unlike the old ones , they don't shut themselves off after inactivity. You have to remember to click them off after you've used, which after 5 years with the previous pair and just taking them off my head has proven impossible.

 

5 years of technology advancement and they're worse than the old ones.

They're constantly dead.

my Jay buds died the other week  and the new version is £249  .. I only wear them in the gym so don't really need to chuck that level of money at them 

but likewise I used to finish my work out and forget to turn the poxy things off 

got some JBL ones instead ... rather cunningly the headphones power up when you move the over ear thingy's into place to wear them , and then when you take them off it clicks back into place and turns them off 

and as I'm not Shania Twain , I am pretty impressed by this 

On 12/02/2024 at 22:09, Marka Ragnos said:

Fun self-test time!

Been reading a bit of Adorno, etc. and ran into this:

I was rated a liberal airhead. I guess that's good. It's American-oriented, this rendering of the F Scale.

I got whining rotter .. I'm more of a leftie than the average rabid VT leftie  ...something must be wrong in the Matrix