og1874

1 minute ago, Xela said:

Roughly £1.65, with premium (99 RON) at about £1.78

Ouch. I thought it'd be close enough to here. That said, we have a max octane of 91 which is about $2/l (~£1.22). Regular, 87 octane, is $1.65/l right now (~£1) - this time 2 years ago it was 72c/l (~44p)

How much is a litre of unleaded in the uk these days?

1 minute ago, Stevo985 said:

the 6 second rule for keepers

Literally might as well not exist. Make it 12 seconds, and strictly enforce it

13 minutes ago, GarethRDR said:

Same with my wife, funnily enough, but I sold her on the strength/spectacle of their live show (and their cover of Maniac) and she ended up loving it.  Didn't kickstart any nascent love of synthwave in her (she won't accompany me to Perturbator) but she'd happily see Carpenter Brut again given the chance.

I've used the "spectacle" thing twice and gotten away with it (Kraftwerk and Rammstein), not sure it'll work again unfortunately 

On 02/04/2022 at 05:01, GarethRDR said:

This behemoth dropped yesterday.

Playing my neck of the woods this summer. Struggling to convince the missus though... not really her thing

1 minute ago, Lichfield Dean said:

So I'd guess that we're probably only looking at ten or so minutes of uncertainty in total game lenght then, which seems reasonable.

To add to those numbers, there are an average of 108 stoppages per game (throws, frees, goal kicks, corners, subs, and kick offs)

So, if I was creating this 60 minute game regulation, I would probably have something like the clock continues for 10 seconds after the ball goes dead, then stops until play resumes. Given that 10 seconds is probably a reasonable time for a ball to get back into play after it goes out for a throw, for example. That'd cut the length probably by a few minutes per game so instead of a 10 minute swing you might be looking at 6-7 on average

3 minutes ago, Lichfield Dean said:

So, apparently the average time the ball is in play is 55 minutes. What is the statistical spread here? 50-60 minutes? 40-70 minutes? Just because it averages out at 55 minutes doesn't mean that all games are like that. So this means that some games might end up wildly over 90 minutes when all is said and done, and some wildly under. I'm curious how unpredictable overall match length could end up being. Right now we pretty much know to within a couple of minutes how long 95% of matches will last in total.

This season high: 65 mins

This season low: 42 mins

Villa average this season: 49 mins 23 secs

44 minutes ago, BleedClaretAndBlue said:

Crazy how they went from this guy to Trump.

Murca being Murca, they were absolutely never going to go from a black guy to a woman. Sounds really stupid, and shouldn't be the case, but if the Dems had run a man instead of Hilary they'd have won

4 minutes ago, bobzy said:

Entire game.  It has next to no impact, but reduces the randomness of stoppage time.

We currently have 90 minute matches where the play goes out of ball for random amounts of time (subs, throw ins, goal kicks, free kicks, corners, VAR reviews, time wasting etc etc etc etc) and the clock just keeps ticking.  The referee/fourth official/whoever then decides on an amount to be added on based on... well, who knows.  Something trying to encompass all of that.  If you just reduce the game to 60 minutes of actual playing time (which I think would probably give more actual playing time than currently) and stop the clock whenever the ball goes out of play, what's the downside?  Is it too accurate or something?

Average 55 mins of ball in play during the current setup. That takes 2 45 minute halves (plus an average of 3 mins added time per half) to get through, or 96 minutes. Assuming the play went the exact same way on average (in terms of ball in play versus ball out), we'd see games taking approximately 4 minutes longer in total

Apparently I tapped hide on that post my mistake. No spoilers there

1 hour ago, DJ_Villain said:

Not enough…

Anyone who has ever purchased or worn a Man City shirt needs to be rounded up, put on a boat, taken to the middle of the Channel and made to walk the plank!

Is the plank suitable to hold all 6 of them at once?

Somehow made a balls of my estimates for my tax this year and underestimated by five grand 

tears of a clown

On 06/04/2022 at 19:28, Only2McInallys said:

Just been to see the Psychedelic Furs.Such a brilliant group.I don’t think they get the kind of recognition they deserve,obviously their greatest stuff was 40 years ago but they have a new album which is pretty good.

This is the first concert I have been to since the outbreak of the pandemic.What an incredibly uplifting experience live music can be.

Playing here very soon for a pittance - might go see them!

6 minutes ago, El Zen said:

Up here, they’re all you get between October and April, so I’ve played loads of sim golf over the years. It’s not the real deal, obviously, but I think they’re fairly accurate and I enjoy the casualness of it and sitting down with a cup of coffee between turns instead of hauling myself and a heavy bag up and down the slopes. 

The missus wants to take up golf - might ease her in with a sim

34 minutes ago, El Zen said:

While we’re on the subject of great comebacks: I haven’t played in five years or so, but played a round of indoor golf with my dad a couple of weeks ago. 

Shot a 71 (-1). Two birdies and a bogey. 

I know the simulator is more forgiving than the real deal, but still. Chuffed. 

Might try and play a bit again in the summer. 

Never played a sim. Loads of them around and always been curious, but for some reason I’ve never gotten round to it 

25 minutes ago, Mr_Dogg said:

Ya, I guess they had a meeting where decided not to end the world.

Not enough nukes in existence to make the slightest dent

On the nukes thing, I doubt they’ve got enough launch ready ICBs to be able to take out everyone else’s launch sites, never mind actually do damage to populated areas.

No good having 6000 warheads if you’ve only got enough launchers to get a fraction of them in the air before you’re blasted into oblivion 

7 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

Nuclear will always be just a deterrent. It's working for Russia as it should. Although I'm beginning to think if their Nuclear arsenal is actually even operational, if it is, I very much doubt they have the 6000+ which has previously been quoted. One thing this "special operation" has showed, is the Russians are mostly full of shit!!

Fine line between "FFS, we're a laughing stock" and "I'll teach them for laughing at me" though

Have Control but didn’t get into it after playing an hour or so. Lots of good reports about it so might add it to the list again

34 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

this is just another thing where they say let's completely change the game because the refs aren't good enough to stop it 

This is a great point. If the refs did their job properly, even if it meant 55 min halves with time added on, there would be no need for this.

as it stands, they can’t do it properly though

simple solution is if time is being wasted while the ball is dead, and the ref deems it time wasting, don’t book the player, let him take as long as he wants, then add the stoppage plus 50% on at the end. That’d stop it pretty quick coz you’re basically giving the other team bonus time by time wasting 

Liverpool will do the quadruple I fear

To the original 60 minute idea… the average football match has the ball in play for ~55 minutes.

Stopping the clock when the ball isn’t in play would actually yield slightly more football per game, and halves would still last approximately the same amount of real-world time.

There have been worse ideas put forward

1 hour ago, fightoffyour said:

No more goalkeepers constantly pushing the limits at goal kicks

In the interest of balance, we’ve got the worst keeper in the league for time wasting. I’ve seen Emi regularly hold onto the ball for 30-60 seconds, or take upwards of a minute on a goal kick.

Bloody hate seeing it too, to be honest.

15 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

No, it should not! No stopping the clock bollocks.

There is a reason there is a MINIMUM of (let's say) 4 minutes added time, 4 minutes should be played and additional time added for time wasting. So 4 minutes could become 6 or 7 if players are taking the piss with 30 second throw ins.

Why do most refs not adhere to the MINIMUM added time rule?

Players should also be punished for time wasting. A few yellow cards and the problem will miraculously fix itself.

Yeah the way added time is handled is absolutely nonsensical. Minimum time to be added, 3 minutes. 2 substitutions and 3 45 second goal kicks later, the ref blows up at 93:05. Every bloody time.

Let teams time waste, but add it all back on plus 50%

*EDIT*

Just to clarify, I'm not talking about legit, ball-in-play time wasting, that's part of the game and perfectly okay

3 minutes ago, tomav84 said:

time will tell. they had a terrible manager, terrible owner, and terrible squad. howe might be an upgrade on bruce but he wont take them to where they want to go

his transfer record is shocking. watch them spunk shedloads on utter dross

I genuinely wouldn’t be surprised if they sack him at the end of the season tbh