Stevo985

Well let's agree to disagree on that...

Click that link. They're on there loud and clear.

Hart didn't dive for a bullet shot he never even saw let alone stood a chance of saving because he thought the ball would hit Goufran? No, standing on the spot well-beyond diving reach of the goalie, who could not have dived to reach such a hard-struck shot anyway even if he had a big "S" on his chest, does not count as a distraction or deception. Only had the ball hit Goufran he would have been offside. The fact it didn't and he wasn't in any way interfering with the goalkeeper means he wasn't and a goal has been chalked off. Pelligrini should have done the sportsmanlike thing and told his players to give Newcastle a goal. I know all this. Again, I said I was agreeing with you. My point was that in certain situations (NOT this one) you don't need to touch the ball to be deemed interfering with play. If you're really expecting a manager to give a free goal after a decision like that then you're mental. Remember Pellegrini wouldn't have had the benefit of any replays. You're expecting him to be so 100% positive that the wrong decision had been made that he'd be willing to give the opposition a goal? It's absurd.

If you say so.

Maybe that's it then. That's the main reason I'm switching. I'l have to try the Chanel test someone a few hours later to see if they can still smell it.

Your points answered in bold. I don't think you are reading my posts, or at least not properly. You seem to be under the impression that I think it was the correct decision that it was offside. It wasn't. All I'm saying is I can see why the officials gave it, even though they ultimately wrong. It's not as much of an outrageously incomprehensible decision as people are making out.

Well there's certainly a lot of Effect being caused by Con's Posts in here. Funny that.

There's the conundrum. Do we teach children to be lateral thinkers or to learn what they need to pass exams? Big debate raging atm about it. Different subjects though. Surely maths is based on fact, if you like. You can't **** with numbers. They are what they are. Lateral thinking is something else. It's not one or the other.

Yeah but you'd look a right word removed if you got asked that boat question in a maths test and put something like "15 boats. I included 2 extra to allow for wheelchair users"

Well you could also have 8 pieces that are still 8 metres long

So was Gareth (and me) correct or not?

This is what I was getting at with the ambiguity of it

I'm assuming it's a trick question, but I'll bite anyway. 8 pieces, each a metre long (assuming by cutting "it" in half, you mean all the pieces of it?)

It was clear from the commentators that a lot of people don't know the offside law properly. The co commentator on sky was saying that Gouffran didn't touch the ball therefore it wasn't offside. Now whilst I do agree that it wasn't offside, that's not the reason for it.

Are you not reading my posts? I NEVER said he was offisde. I said he was in an offside position (which he was). That doesn't mean he was offside because he wasn't interfering with play. However, from the laws of the game: I've bolded the important bits. Again, I am not saying the decision was right. But from that law I can see why the ref and/or linesman at the time thought the player was offside. How you can say he was nowhere near the ball is beyond me. The ball passes within about a foot of him.

Hmmm, I don't know how that works. Certainly doesn't sound right to me

KHFC's youtube has his first. Not all three though http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9TqeevxA5M

it was incomprehensible. the player was not in an offside position Yes he was Yes he was it was a bad decision. I never said it wasn't. What I said was it isn't as ludicrous as people (evidently you) are making out. I can see why the officials thought it was a legitimate offside, although they were ultimately wrong. The rest of your post about giving up a free goal is quite frankly absurd, but I would assume that's exactly what you were going for.

2 weeks into my cut, lifts still going up. That's already better than last year

To mic up the refs though, they'd have to clamp down on swearing. As in, if you swear at the ref, you're booked. No excuses. Otherwise watching football matches would be like sitting through that Steve Martin rant in Planes Trains and Automobiles

Yeah I don't get that. Have you made the mistake of thinking that because you move up a tax bracket, ALL of your earnings get taxed at the higher rate? Because that's not how it works

Maybe. I still think it's better than the complete silence we get now.

Yep (or at least equal) vs Man City in September.

This is what I thought, and one of many reasons why I doubt we were ever interested in the first place. Wasnt talking to you but do carry on, amusing. Look at the times of our posts. It was you who assumed not me. Is this directed at me? I assumed your post was a reply to mine (because, you know, it didn't quote anyone else and was posted directly after mine) So sue me. I've acknowledged I was wrong.

pretty much Can't wait for the "We can't even beat Huddersfield to a signing!" posts when we don't sign Nakhi Wells They'd be nearly as bad as the "Wells would be a great signing" posts. Like with Dale Stevens, some are more than happy with the possibility of signing shit just to show that faith in the manager. Couldn't be any less relevant to the point I was making.