The reason for the bigger screen on the iPhone 6 plus.

 

 

 

 

 

 

bbcsporf

Edited September 10, 201411 yr by CFCholland

I don't see the need for big stoppages and video replays like they do in rugby.

What is quite clear for all to see is that there are TV cameras beamed to millions around the world. Why dont a few extras refs just watch the game from a room and one of them communicate with the ref at pitch side if he has made a bad call or is thinking about something. Its really not that hard!

I think governing bodies need to be careful not to create delays that will be possible ad breaks. It might be the thin end of a wedge.

Man Utd's profits have fallen by 84% despite record revenues in year to 30 June.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29140959

 

Manchester United has reported a sharp fall in annual profits despite record revenues for the year.

The football club said net income plunged 84% for the year to 30 June to £23.8m, from £146m a year ago.

It comes a month after Manchester United announced a £750m 10-year shirt manufacturer sponsorship deal with Adidas.

The club said revenue increased 19% to £433.2m, compared with £363.2m a year earlier.

You missed out this vital part;

 

"Manchester United said that was due in part to last year's profit being boosted by a one-off tax credit, without which it would have made a loss."

 

Makes the whole article rather pointless really. 

As your name is Ashwin and you're from India, why do the BCCI continue to refuse to use DRS then?

How often do glaring and ridiculous mistakes happen in football? Not that often, most are decisions which could be argued either way i.e. the letter of the law vs common sense. It's not worth getting rid of that one rare, really bad mistake when managers will use their review every game so it doesn't go unused, causing the game to be disrupted.

For the record, I do not agree with the BCCI stance on DRS. However, I get where all of you are coming from. I think that in any case it is worth giving it a try and seeing how much stoppage can be minimized. Also glaring decisions related to offsides and red cards, or diving really aren't anywhere close to as uncommon as goal line confusion.

There can also be a quick overrule without referral when appropriate.

This international break has been so dull and boring that with my complete lack of interest in the friendlies and qualifiers i have become an expert on cricket, I've never watched so much cricket and tennis in my entire life than i have in this particular international break. Maybe it was the defeat to Stoke which just made me wish there was a game the following week to get the bad taste of my mouth. 

 

So on the subject of cricket, and since we have an Indian visitor on here, Ashwin what was your take on the booing of Moeen Ali? I know the ground was filled with Indians and they were trying to make it as rawkus of an atmosphere as possible but i would of thought there would have been a small amount of pride that a fellow Asian who is born in Birmingham, The area which the game was being played was representing England, I've had people say me in their defence that if a Scottish or Irish descendant played for Australia, Would you boo him? I said yeah i probably would but i wouldn't be booing him because i think he was a traitor which is the vibe i picked up from the booing. It was almost like they were booing him because in their minds he's a sell out, Which is as backward of a mindset as you can have. I don't buy this rubbish that they were booing him because of his religion because, Indian fans don't boo Hashim Amla nor they probably boo the entire Pakistan team when they play each other.

 

I promise to get back to talking football lads, Just can't pass up the opportunity to ask an Indian friend of ours a question that was bugging me. 

For the record, I do not agree with the BCCI stance on DRS. However, I get where all of you are coming from. I think that in any case it is worth giving it a try and seeing how much stoppage can be minimized. Also glaring decisions related to offsides and red cards, or diving really aren't anywhere close to as uncommon as goal line confusion.

There can also be a quick overrule without referral when appropriate.

 

But goal-line technology works because it requires no stoppage - either a goal is awarded or play goes on - because the correct call is sent to the ref's watch immediately. Other matters would require a stoppage and someone to review footage, until the technology arrives for virtual linesman where cameras can detect offsides etc, which you'd assume is a long way off. 'Till then, I'd rather more flowing football with the occasional mistake.

An occasional mistake?

Wouldn't it be more beneficial to stop the game for a minute and review a questionable call? More or less of these idiotic decisions by the refs had influenced games.

An occasional mistake?

Wouldn't it be more beneficial to stop the game for a minute and review a questionable call? More or less of these idiotic decisions by the refs had influenced games.

 

Yes, massive mistakes are occasional. If you wanted to review minor mistakes then it would be stoppages every other minute.

CFC,

According to what I have read, each team receives one or two chances to stop the game per half. That means 3 to 4 minutes of occlusion. I would say go for it.

The thing with football used to be that, as a player or a fan, you accepted that genuine reffing mistakes happened, you got on with the game and knew that it might be the case that you'd be on the positive end of a mistake at some point in the season. Now, with programmes like 606, people can go on about ref's decisions, and they do. The decisions that, for example, might see a side relegated are often viewed out of context as something like relegation happens because of consistent poor performance, not because of one poor reffing decision.

There's a real danger in breaking up the flow of a game of football. TV companies want that to happen as breaks = longer games (i.e. on the screen, inc. delays) and more advertising revenue.

Also, I want footballers and managers to be the personalities of football - not refs.

CFC,

According to what I have read, each team receives one or two chances to stop the game per half. That means 3 to 4 minutes of occlusion. I would say go for it.

 

Two times per half x 4 minutes is 16 minutes which is a big difference, to be honest. Baring in mind, managers would always be keen to use it so it didn't go wasted so minor 50/50 decisions would be constantly reviewed.

CFC,

OK one time? Hey I compromised.

Personally, I would rather delay the game by 8 minutes than face a defeat by screwed up call. Those 3 points might go a long way in the final standings.

Goal line technology is enough. Incidents makes the games exciting. Leave it alone

Incidents, clueless decisions have no position in whatever sport. Allow the best team win & there's no reason to rob anybody.

Incidents, clueless decisions have no position in whatever sport. Allow the best team win & there's no reason to rob anybody.

 

If only it were that easy.

CFC,

The latest proposal might certainly do well. I am certain, you would opt to stop the game for a few minutes if Manures scored a winning goal from an obvious offside.

We (England) won a World Cup with a dodgy linesman's decision - don't knock 'em all :-)

CFC,

The latest proposal might certainly do well. I am certain, you would opt to stop the game for a few minutes if Manures scored a winning goal from an obvious offside.

 

But I wouldn't want any marginal offsides appealed, which they would be, every game.

We (England) won a World Cup with a dodgy linesman's decision - don't knock 'em all :-)

We also went out because of one.

We also went out because of one.

That's my point: you win some, you lose some. That's life, sport, etc.

Has Brendan Rodgers said anything stupid today?

Has Brendan Rodgers said anything stupid today?

 

Yes, he claimed that Red Leicester is better than Brie, the fool. 

10574466_538946016239694_5059779078330617466_n.jpg

 

Haha. The decisions that Man Utd used to get seem to have gone to Liverpool.

Roman came, bought everything including supporters ( flags included ) and is still short changed.

If you consider yourself a big club, then why is it you cannot produce talented young players?

I dont mean buy them, i mean produce them. Take that young lad of the street and make him a world beater? The answer is simple.

You are a club that buys. Throw money at a problem. Every top club has a player that has a given player that has talent, for example, take Man Utd. Welbeck, sold for £16 million.

Chelsea cannot say they same. The youth players have little to no value to your club, Ryan Bertrand. How good was he? and how much did he go for?

Your club have a youth set up but I have to ask, why? I see many of you supporters willing the lads to succeed, but they have no chance.

The reporter is right in what in he says. Generally, if you have money, what else matters??

Blah blah blah, we've all heard it before. Tell me though Rutherford the genius, what clubs don't buy?

Here is a tip, Ya boring mate! Sound like that kookie cab driver from the movie Football Factory going on and on about how immigrants have destroyed the UK.

Do us a favor keep that shyte over at RAWK.

Edited September 10, 201411 yr by DoubleHelix