Gets it spot on. The idea that it's optics or virtue signalling is nonsense. It's not being run as a serious media organisation.
Some of it it optics. Brand safety is optics, as in the linked screenshots. No company wants their brand appearing in people’s feeds next to hate content or pornography because it’s radioactively toxic to their carefully cultivated brand identity.
Twitter has (for the moment) sacked most of the staff responsible for keeping this stuff off Twitter. Sure, there might be some future wonderful world where AI solves the problem for brand advertising on Twitter, but right now that doesn’t exist & brands are rightly concerned about appearing to be associated with any of this stuff, no matter how tangentially.
The other element was the disappearance of any customer service at all. There was simply no one left to respond to their concerns.
VAR in principle is a good idea, but the implementation is a farce.
I thought referee's whim was a fundamental principle ?
Referee's whim, yes. VAR's whim, no.
But the referee gets to decide if he wants to review.
No, that's not true - VAR tells the referee what to review. In theory, the ref has the option to stick with his original decision after reviewing the TV footage, but it's very rare.
I am not an expert in these matters, as my interest in football is close to nil, but I turned this up.
Is it not correct ?
...The referee can initiate a ‘review’ for a potential ‘clear and obvious error’ or ‘serious missed incident’ when:
the VAR (or another match official) recommends a ‘review’
the referee suspects that something serious has been ‘missed’...
So not entirely referee's whim, but certainly still in there.
So the ref can ask for a review on his own, but if the VAR "recommends" a review, he's not going to say no, and he's almost certainly not going to stick with his decision.
Which is fine, as long as the VAR is "recommending" reviews consistently. Today that didn't happen.
I'm as happy to throw shade on England football as anyone, but are we really carping about a 6-1 England win in a World Cup?
Nah, of course not. Really happy with the win and gives us huge confidence going into the more difficult matches in the group.
Huge contrast with other tournaments (e.g. 2010 - booed off after a 0-0). Takes some of the pressure off - one more win or two draws should be enough to get through. Win your first game and life always looks better,
That 0-0 with Algeria was one of the worst games I've ever seen. If memory serves, didn't a bird build a nest on one of the goalposts?
I really don't get the Southgate criticism. He's by some margin the most successful England manager after Sir Alf. And (the question nobody ever seems to answer) who would do a better job?
There is a lingering disappointment about the 2018 WC semi and the Euro's final last year. Both times we took the lead, both times we failed to go for the jugular and both times we lost because of it. I think we were unlucky not to get a second against Croatia, but against Italy it looked like we thought we could do an Italy on them and keep it to 1-0 for the 90.
We can know what could have happened if we had been a bit more attacking, but Southgate has built his success on defending well and hitting on the break. And its worked better than anything else since Robson in 1990 or Venables in 1996.
There is a severe failure amongst England fans to appreciate how much better Italy played in the second half in the final last year than in the first. And, no, it wasn't just because "we let them".
Yes, they did play well, but when we were in the ascendent, we failed to capitalise.
VAR in principle is a good idea, but the implementation is a farce.
I thought referee's whim was a fundamental principle ?
Referee's whim, yes. VAR's whim, no.
But the referee gets to decide if he wants to review.
No, that's not true - VAR tells the referee what to review. In theory, the ref has the option to stick with his original decision after reviewing the TV footage, but it's very rare.
I am not an expert in these matters, as my interest in football is close to nil, but I turned this up.
Is it not correct ?
...The referee can initiate a ‘review’ for a potential ‘clear and obvious error’ or ‘serious missed incident’ when:
the VAR (or another match official) recommends a ‘review’
the referee suspects that something serious has been ‘missed’...
So not entirely referee's whim, but certainly still in there.
So the ref can ask for a review on his own, but if the VAR "recommends" a review, he's not going to say no, and he's almost certainly not going to stick with his decision.
Which is fine, as long as the VAR is "recommending" reviews consistently. Today that didn't happen.
VAR in principle is a good idea, but the implementation is a farce.
I thought referee's whim was a fundamental principle ?
Referee's whim, yes. VAR's whim, no.
But the referee gets to decide if he wants to review.
No, that's not true - VAR tells the referee what to review. In theory, the ref has the option to stick with his original decision after reviewing the TV footage, but it's very rare.
The baffling thing is that almost every other professional sport (rugby, cricket, athletics, tennis) includes some analog of VAR, and manages to do it in a way which is uncontroversial and which improves the overall quality of decision making. Very late in the day, football comes in, acts as if it's coming up with a new idea and implements singularly uselessly.
Indeed. FIFA never wanted it, and it shows.
And yet you sense PB could have a 30 minute meeting and make it work no problem. Cricket's umpires call is crucial. Umpires get some protection from it, and removes some of the false precision (needing to be hitting at least 50% of a stump means its pretty likely it would. The ridiculous off-side calls we see where a toe is offside (or whatever) are losing all credibility. VAR was brought in because of Thierry Henry and Frank Lampard - clear and obvious things that the ref and linesmen missed. It should never have been about marginal off sides.
The problem is, if you allow VAR to review offside then it has to be able to disallow goals that are marginally offside - it's a line call and you can't be half offside any more than you can be half pregnant.
Cricket's umpire's call doesn't exist on run outs and stumpings.
While there is probably zero value in any WC market, Senegal do feel slightly undervalued here to me.
Its interesting that unlike the past 3 WC nobody is really talking up African teams. Previous recent WC, one of the African nations has always been talked up & the its only a matter of time until one wins the WC. But that seems to have diminished, despite widespread participation of African players in the top leagues.
Yes, it is remarkable how, despite the spread of the game around the world, the World Cup (and Euros, to an extent) is still dominated by the traditional powers from Europe and S America. 20 years ago you expected this to change, but it hasn't, and looks like it never will
The only team that might break into the closed shop is perhaps the USA, but even there I'm not entirely sure
The closed shop feels right. Only 8 teams (I think!) have ever won it - though arguably Spain (yes, a European nation, but they'd been the classic underperformers hitherto) did break in.
USA, I'm not sure. In theory, Mexico have all the ingredients too and yet have never made it. Based on demographics alone, it ought to be one of Egypt or Nigeria that break out, but they've not even made it to this one.
If we're talking about a 9th nation to win, I'd guess Netherlands are probably the most consistently strong side not to win it so far.
Meanwhile in Russia: accused war criminal Zakhar Prilepin—who spends a lot of time on the frontlines and previously boasted of "killing many" in Ukraine—admits that Russia wants to negotiate merely to regroup and finish fighting later, any potential peace accords notwithstanding. https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1594408064337301504
VAR in principle is a good idea, but the implementation is a farce.
I thought referee's whim was a fundamental principle ?
Referee's whim, yes. VAR's whim, no.
But the referee gets to decide if he wants to review.
No, that's not true - VAR tells the referee what to review. In theory, the ref has the option to stick with his original decision after reviewing the TV footage, but it's very rare.
I am not an expert in these matters, as my interest in football is close to nil, but I turned this up.
Is it not correct ?
...The referee can initiate a ‘review’ for a potential ‘clear and obvious error’ or ‘serious missed incident’ when:
the VAR (or another match official) recommends a ‘review’
the referee suspects that something serious has been ‘missed’...
So not entirely referee's whim, but certainly still in there.
So the ref can ask for a review on his own, but if the VAR "recommends" a review, he's not going to say no, and he's almost certainly not going to stick with his decision.
Which is fine, as long as the VAR is "recommending" reviews consistently. Today that didn't happen.
Was today the VAR official, or the referee ?
If they let us hear the conversation between referee and VAR, as in cricket and rugby, then we would know that for sure. But I strongly suspect the VAR, because there seemed to be a lag betweeen the incident and the VAR/referee conversation.
VAR in principle is a good idea, but the implementation is a farce.
I thought referee's whim was a fundamental principle ?
Referee's whim, yes. VAR's whim, no.
But the referee gets to decide if he wants to review.
No, that's not true - VAR tells the referee what to review. In theory, the ref has the option to stick with his original decision after reviewing the TV footage, but it's very rare.
The baffling thing is that almost every other professional sport (rugby, cricket, athletics, tennis) includes some analog of VAR, and manages to do it in a way which is uncontroversial and which improves the overall quality of decision making. Very late in the day, football comes in, acts as if it's coming up with a new idea and implements singularly uselessly.
Indeed. FIFA never wanted it, and it shows.
And yet you sense PB could have a 30 minute meeting and make it work no problem. Cricket's umpires call is crucial. Umpires get some protection from it, and removes some of the false precision (needing to be hitting at least 50% of a stump means its pretty likely it would. The ridiculous off-side calls we see where a toe is offside (or whatever) are losing all credibility. VAR was brought in because of Thierry Henry and Frank Lampard - clear and obvious things that the ref and linesmen missed. It should never have been about marginal off sides.
The problem is, if you allow VAR to review offside then it has to be able to disallow goals that are marginally offside - it's a line call and you can't be half offside any more than you can be half pregnant.
Cricket's umpire's call doesn't exist on run outs and stumpings.
In run outs and stumpings there is a physical line marked on the pitch and the batsmen needs something grounded beyond the line. In off-side almost any body part seems to count, there is no physical line (the grass pitch stripes are no good) and there is no referee's call being applied. I suggest anything under 15 cm (6 inches) lies in referees/linesmans call.
Yes people would still complain, but it would take VAR back towards the obvious offsides and errors it was meant to fix.
VAR in principle is a good idea, but the implementation is a farce.
I thought referee's whim was a fundamental principle ?
Referee's whim, yes. VAR's whim, no.
But the referee gets to decide if he wants to review.
No, that's not true - VAR tells the referee what to review. In theory, the ref has the option to stick with his original decision after reviewing the TV footage, but it's very rare.
The baffling thing is that almost every other professional sport (rugby, cricket, athletics, tennis) includes some analog of VAR, and manages to do it in a way which is uncontroversial and which improves the overall quality of decision making. Very late in the day, football comes in, acts as if it's coming up with a new idea and implements singularly uselessly.
Indeed. FIFA never wanted it, and it shows.
And yet you sense PB could have a 30 minute meeting and make it work no problem. Cricket's umpires call is crucial. Umpires get some protection from it, and removes some of the false precision (needing to be hitting at least 50% of a stump means its pretty likely it would. The ridiculous off-side calls we see where a toe is offside (or whatever) are losing all credibility. VAR was brought in because of Thierry Henry and Frank Lampard - clear and obvious things that the ref and linesmen missed. It should never have been about marginal off sides.
This is an excellent point, it should only be clear & obvious. Although they have made the line wider for offside, we are still seeing these decisions where its a bit ot a shoulder etc. For me it should be reserved for those decisions in which the ref / assistant has made a real howler.
Of course now we are moving to this semi-automatic system offside system.
While there is probably zero value in any WC market, Senegal do feel slightly undervalued here to me.
Its interesting that unlike the past 3 WC nobody is really talking up African teams. Previous recent WC, one of the African nations has always been talked up & the its only a matter of time until one wins the WC. But that seems to have diminished, despite widespread participation of African players in the top leagues.
Yes, it is remarkable how, despite the spread of the game around the world, the World Cup (and Euros, to an extent) is still dominated by the traditional powers from Europe and S America. 20 years ago you expected this to change, but it hasn't, and looks like it never will
The only team that might break into the closed shop is perhaps the USA, but even there I'm not entirely sure
The US is just beginning to get a decent (non-retirement) soccer league. But it's hampered by the fact that there are team salary caps, which means that it's still very much a "top of the Championship" quality of play.
They recently signed a 10 year deal with Apple TV, that's going to roughly treble the amount of money that the teams get from TV, and will (hopefully) lead to a much, much higher salary cap. And therefore... one would hope... a better domestic soccer league and therefore the possibility of them breaking through.
2026 - when the World Cup is in the US, Canada and Mexico - might be a decent year. Home field advantage and all; maybe we see the US reach the Quarter or Semi finals.
I'm not convinced of the benefit either for fans or the national team of more television money. Certainly based on the experience of clubs and the national team in England and Scotland it isn't obvious that bags of television money have brought a new and better world.
VAR in principle is a good idea, but the implementation is a farce.
I thought referee's whim was a fundamental principle ?
Referee's whim, yes. VAR's whim, no.
But the referee gets to decide if he wants to review.
No, that's not true - VAR tells the referee what to review. In theory, the ref has the option to stick with his original decision after reviewing the TV footage, but it's very rare.
The baffling thing is that almost every other professional sport (rugby, cricket, athletics, tennis) includes some analog of VAR, and manages to do it in a way which is uncontroversial and which improves the overall quality of decision making. Very late in the day, football comes in, acts as if it's coming up with a new idea and implements singularly uselessly.
Indeed. FIFA never wanted it, and it shows.
And yet you sense PB could have a 30 minute meeting and make it work no problem. Cricket's umpires call is crucial. Umpires get some protection from it, and removes some of the false precision (needing to be hitting at least 50% of a stump means its pretty likely it would. The ridiculous off-side calls we see where a toe is offside (or whatever) are losing all credibility. VAR was brought in because of Thierry Henry and Frank Lampard - clear and obvious things that the ref and linesmen missed. It should never have been about marginal off sides.
The problem is, if you allow VAR to review offside then it has to be able to disallow goals that are marginally offside - it's a line call and you can't be half offside any more than you can be half pregnant.
Cricket's umpire's call doesn't exist on run outs and stumpings.
In run outs and stumpings there is a physical line marked on the pitch and the batsmen needs something grounded beyond the line. In off-side almost any body part seems to count, there is no physical line (the grass pitch stripes are no good) and there is no referee's call being applied. I suggest anything under 15 cm (6 inches) lies in referees/linesmans call.
Yes people would still complain, but it would take VAR back towards the obvious offsides and errors it was meant to fix.
Great.
What if the player turns out to be 15.1cm offside? Or 14.9cm? It's a line decision - allowing a margin for error simply moves the line. That the line is determined by a player's position on the pitch rather than a line on the grass is irrelevant.
You talk about "obvious offsides" but a player who is 1cm offside is obviously offside!
VAR in principle is a good idea, but the implementation is a farce.
I thought referee's whim was a fundamental principle ?
Referee's whim, yes. VAR's whim, no.
But the referee gets to decide if he wants to review.
No, that's not true - VAR tells the referee what to review. In theory, the ref has the option to stick with his original decision after reviewing the TV footage, but it's very rare.
The baffling thing is that almost every other professional sport (rugby, cricket, athletics, tennis) includes some analog of VAR, and manages to do it in a way which is uncontroversial and which improves the overall quality of decision making. Very late in the day, football comes in, acts as if it's coming up with a new idea and implements singularly uselessly.
Indeed. FIFA never wanted it, and it shows.
And yet you sense PB could have a 30 minute meeting and make it work no problem. Cricket's umpires call is crucial. Umpires get some protection from it, and removes some of the false precision (needing to be hitting at least 50% of a stump means its pretty likely it would. The ridiculous off-side calls we see where a toe is offside (or whatever) are losing all credibility. VAR was brought in because of Thierry Henry and Frank Lampard - clear and obvious things that the ref and linesmen missed. It should never have been about marginal off sides.
This is an excellent point, it should only be clear & obvious. Although they have made the line wider for offside, we are still seeing these decisions where its a bit ot a shoulder etc. For me it should be reserved for those decisions in which the ref / assistant has made a real howler.
Of course now we are moving to this semi-automatic system offside system.
Great, so you want to move the line where offside is determined from where the law says it is.
This is weird. Have just got my ticket for the match - at my local cinema. Anyone ever watched football in the cinema before? Hopefully it’s not me and 300 Iranians!
I watched England's World Cup 2018 matches in pubs in Scotland. The experience of England's progress in that tournament was enhanced for me by the crushing disappointment felt by other viewers in the pub.
There will undoubtedly be a small group of Scots dress in Iran shirts and waving Iran flags today.
I would say that they shouldn’t be cheering for a regime with no respect for women’s rights, which sets out to violently clamp down on protests, but I guess it’s now something they’re quite used to up there…
Would imagine it would be a few real nutters doing that unless they are Iranians. You haev a warped view of people.
Well it’s happened at every single England WC and Euros match for decades now, that groups of Scots go to the trouble of buying and wearing the kit of whoever’s playing England. I’ll be amazed if today is somehow an exception.
you have seen more than me then , I have not seen it in Scotland , many wish to see them beaten due to the constant bragging about how they are invincible and will win it , on every cup they ever play in.
Nah, never happens.
Bonus points for the year.
Did you knock the door and ask them if it was in relation to teh world cup and not to teh nationalities of their various family members
VAR in principle is a good idea, but the implementation is a farce.
I thought referee's whim was a fundamental principle ?
Referee's whim, yes. VAR's whim, no.
But the referee gets to decide if he wants to review.
No, that's not true - VAR tells the referee what to review. In theory, the ref has the option to stick with his original decision after reviewing the TV footage, but it's very rare.
The baffling thing is that almost every other professional sport (rugby, cricket, athletics, tennis) includes some analog of VAR, and manages to do it in a way which is uncontroversial and which improves the overall quality of decision making. Very late in the day, football comes in, acts as if it's coming up with a new idea and implements singularly uselessly.
Indeed. FIFA never wanted it, and it shows.
And yet you sense PB could have a 30 minute meeting and make it work no problem. Cricket's umpires call is crucial. Umpires get some protection from it, and removes some of the false precision (needing to be hitting at least 50% of a stump means its pretty likely it would. The ridiculous off-side calls we see where a toe is offside (or whatever) are losing all credibility. VAR was brought in because of Thierry Henry and Frank Lampard - clear and obvious things that the ref and linesmen missed. It should never have been about marginal off sides.
The problem is, if you allow VAR to review offside then it has to be able to disallow goals that are marginally offside - it's a line call and you can't be half offside any more than you can be half pregnant.
Cricket's umpire's call doesn't exist on run outs and stumpings.
In run outs and stumpings there is a physical line marked on the pitch and the batsmen needs something grounded beyond the line. In off-side almost any body part seems to count, there is no physical line (the grass pitch stripes are no good) and there is no referee's call being applied. I suggest anything under 15 cm (6 inches) lies in referees/linesmans call.
Yes people would still complain, but it would take VAR back towards the obvious offsides and errors it was meant to fix.
Great.
What if the player turns out to be 15.1cm offside? Or 14.9cm? It's a line decision - allowing a margin for error simply moves the line. That the line is determined by a player's position on the pitch rather than a line on the grass is irrelevant.
You talk about "obvious offsides" but a player who is 1cm offside is obviously offside!
15.1 cm is a clear and obvious error - its 6 inches. I get what you are saying, but .1 cm off (currently) vs 15.1cm (my proposal) would appear as level vs obviously wrong.
I might put a few quid on a 3-0 win for the Netherlands. I'm feeling lucky.
Janssen and Bergwijn in that front 3. Don't see where the goals come from.
Talking of teams who are what they used to be....used to be taken for granted that Dutch had amazing attacking talent of your Van Basterns, Gullit, van Nistelrooy, Van Persie, Kluivert, Bergkamp, Overmars, Robben....
Funnily, we had a similar experience. I wondered if the departure of advertisers, combined with an increase in the number of users on the platform, might make Twitter a great place to deploy some money efficiently. (Basically, a totally tactical deployment to take advantage of lower rates.)
But we couldn't even get it working. The ad serving experience was completely broken. At first we couldn't login. We spend hours tracking down someone to turn off 2FA, because 2FA was broken. And then we when finally got in, it wouldn't take our money.
VAR in principle is a good idea, but the implementation is a farce.
I thought referee's whim was a fundamental principle ?
Referee's whim, yes. VAR's whim, no.
But the referee gets to decide if he wants to review.
No, that's not true - VAR tells the referee what to review. In theory, the ref has the option to stick with his original decision after reviewing the TV footage, but it's very rare.
The baffling thing is that almost every other professional sport (rugby, cricket, athletics, tennis) includes some analog of VAR, and manages to do it in a way which is uncontroversial and which improves the overall quality of decision making. Very late in the day, football comes in, acts as if it's coming up with a new idea and implements singularly uselessly.
Indeed. FIFA never wanted it, and it shows.
And yet you sense PB could have a 30 minute meeting and make it work no problem. Cricket's umpires call is crucial. Umpires get some protection from it, and removes some of the false precision (needing to be hitting at least 50% of a stump means its pretty likely it would. The ridiculous off-side calls we see where a toe is offside (or whatever) are losing all credibility. VAR was brought in because of Thierry Henry and Frank Lampard - clear and obvious things that the ref and linesmen missed. It should never have been about marginal off sides.
The problem is, if you allow VAR to review offside then it has to be able to disallow goals that are marginally offside - it's a line call and you can't be half offside any more than you can be half pregnant.
Cricket's umpire's call doesn't exist on run outs and stumpings.
In run outs and stumpings there is a physical line marked on the pitch and the batsmen needs something grounded beyond the line. In off-side almost any body part seems to count, there is no physical line (the grass pitch stripes are no good) and there is no referee's call being applied. I suggest anything under 15 cm (6 inches) lies in referees/linesmans call.
Yes people would still complain, but it would take VAR back towards the obvious offsides and errors it was meant to fix.
Great.
What if the player turns out to be 15.1cm offside? Or 14.9cm? It's a line decision - allowing a margin for error simply moves the line. That the line is determined by a player's position on the pitch rather than a line on the grass is irrelevant.
You talk about "obvious offsides" but a player who is 1cm offside is obviously offside!
15.1 cm is a clear and obvious error - its 6 inches. I get what you are saying, but .1 cm off (currently) vs 15.1cm (my proposal) would appear as level vs obviously wrong.
1cm offside isn't level, it's offside. If the linesman missed it, it's a clear and obvious error.
VAR in principle is a good idea, but the implementation is a farce.
I thought referee's whim was a fundamental principle ?
Referee's whim, yes. VAR's whim, no.
But the referee gets to decide if he wants to review.
No, that's not true - VAR tells the referee what to review. In theory, the ref has the option to stick with his original decision after reviewing the TV footage, but it's very rare.
The baffling thing is that almost every other professional sport (rugby, cricket, athletics, tennis) includes some analog of VAR, and manages to do it in a way which is uncontroversial and which improves the overall quality of decision making. Very late in the day, football comes in, acts as if it's coming up with a new idea and implements singularly uselessly.
Indeed. FIFA never wanted it, and it shows.
And yet you sense PB could have a 30 minute meeting and make it work no problem. Cricket's umpires call is crucial. Umpires get some protection from it, and removes some of the false precision (needing to be hitting at least 50% of a stump means its pretty likely it would. The ridiculous off-side calls we see where a toe is offside (or whatever) are losing all credibility. VAR was brought in because of Thierry Henry and Frank Lampard - clear and obvious things that the ref and linesmen missed. It should never have been about marginal off sides.
This is an excellent point, it should only be clear & obvious. Although they have made the line wider for offside, we are still seeing these decisions where its a bit ot a shoulder etc. For me it should be reserved for those decisions in which the ref / assistant has made a real howler.
Of course now we are moving to this semi-automatic system offside system.
Great, so you want to move the line where offside is determined from where the law says it is.
Where do you want to move it to?
The law was written before we had cameras and computers able to gives us such data. The law has not changed - you are still off-side if you are 0.1 cm ahead, its just that the human limitations of line officials is accounted for.
VAR in principle is a good idea, but the implementation is a farce.
I thought referee's whim was a fundamental principle ?
Referee's whim, yes. VAR's whim, no.
But the referee gets to decide if he wants to review.
No, that's not true - VAR tells the referee what to review. In theory, the ref has the option to stick with his original decision after reviewing the TV footage, but it's very rare.
The baffling thing is that almost every other professional sport (rugby, cricket, athletics, tennis) includes some analog of VAR, and manages to do it in a way which is uncontroversial and which improves the overall quality of decision making. Very late in the day, football comes in, acts as if it's coming up with a new idea and implements singularly uselessly.
Indeed. FIFA never wanted it, and it shows.
And yet you sense PB could have a 30 minute meeting and make it work no problem. Cricket's umpires call is crucial. Umpires get some protection from it, and removes some of the false precision (needing to be hitting at least 50% of a stump means its pretty likely it would. The ridiculous off-side calls we see where a toe is offside (or whatever) are losing all credibility. VAR was brought in because of Thierry Henry and Frank Lampard - clear and obvious things that the ref and linesmen missed. It should never have been about marginal off sides.
This is an excellent point, it should only be clear & obvious. Although they have made the line wider for offside, we are still seeing these decisions where its a bit ot a shoulder etc. For me it should be reserved for those decisions in which the ref / assistant has made a real howler.
Of course now we are moving to this semi-automatic system offside system.
Great, so you want to move the line where offside is determined from where the law says it is.
Where do you want to move it to?
No, same as cricket....ref decision, you can appeal, over turned if clear and obvious. Works fine in cricket, lbw decisions get reviewed, sometimes they are shown as marginal, you stick with the umpire decision.
VAR in principle is a good idea, but the implementation is a farce.
I thought referee's whim was a fundamental principle ?
Referee's whim, yes. VAR's whim, no.
But the referee gets to decide if he wants to review.
No, that's not true - VAR tells the referee what to review. In theory, the ref has the option to stick with his original decision after reviewing the TV footage, but it's very rare.
The baffling thing is that almost every other professional sport (rugby, cricket, athletics, tennis) includes some analog of VAR, and manages to do it in a way which is uncontroversial and which improves the overall quality of decision making. Very late in the day, football comes in, acts as if it's coming up with a new idea and implements singularly uselessly.
Indeed. FIFA never wanted it, and it shows.
And yet you sense PB could have a 30 minute meeting and make it work no problem. Cricket's umpires call is crucial. Umpires get some protection from it, and removes some of the false precision (needing to be hitting at least 50% of a stump means its pretty likely it would. The ridiculous off-side calls we see where a toe is offside (or whatever) are losing all credibility. VAR was brought in because of Thierry Henry and Frank Lampard - clear and obvious things that the ref and linesmen missed. It should never have been about marginal off sides.
The problem is, if you allow VAR to review offside then it has to be able to disallow goals that are marginally offside - it's a line call and you can't be half offside any more than you can be half pregnant.
Cricket's umpire's call doesn't exist on run outs and stumpings.
In run outs and stumpings there is a physical line marked on the pitch and the batsmen needs something grounded beyond the line. In off-side almost any body part seems to count, there is no physical line (the grass pitch stripes are no good) and there is no referee's call being applied. I suggest anything under 15 cm (6 inches) lies in referees/linesmans call.
Yes people would still complain, but it would take VAR back towards the obvious offsides and errors it was meant to fix.
Great.
What if the player turns out to be 15.1cm offside? Or 14.9cm? It's a line decision - allowing a margin for error simply moves the line. That the line is determined by a player's position on the pitch rather than a line on the grass is irrelevant.
You talk about "obvious offsides" but a player who is 1cm offside is obviously offside!
No, they are not in real time and to the human eye.
the iplayer feed is about 90 seconds adrift of the TV or however you are watching this. Just so you know you are taking some of the excitement out of it.
Apols, but I don't think PB-ers are going to stop live-commenting the first England football match at a new World Cup
Maybe we should focus on Brexit or IndyRef2 instead 👍
England winning the world cup will be great for Scottish independence.
Well once the English court states we are really a colony , Sturgeon will have her good excuse to run out more carrots and delay referendum till next century since Westminster won't let her have one.
VAR in principle is a good idea, but the implementation is a farce.
I thought referee's whim was a fundamental principle ?
Referee's whim, yes. VAR's whim, no.
But the referee gets to decide if he wants to review.
No, that's not true - VAR tells the referee what to review. In theory, the ref has the option to stick with his original decision after reviewing the TV footage, but it's very rare.
The baffling thing is that almost every other professional sport (rugby, cricket, athletics, tennis) includes some analog of VAR, and manages to do it in a way which is uncontroversial and which improves the overall quality of decision making. Very late in the day, football comes in, acts as if it's coming up with a new idea and implements singularly uselessly.
The obvious improvement for VAR in football should be teams appeal & they only get x challenges, like cricket, like tennis...
Inconsistency, injustice, uneven application of rules, cheating and intimidation are of the essence of football. It is a feature of the game and has been for decades. It supplies the basis of endless worthless but money spinning commentary and discussion for the media.
BTW that was the dullest 8 goal thriller I have seen for ages, and it felt like the agony would be never ending.
VAR in principle is a good idea, but the implementation is a farce.
I thought referee's whim was a fundamental principle ?
Referee's whim, yes. VAR's whim, no.
But the referee gets to decide if he wants to review.
No, that's not true - VAR tells the referee what to review. In theory, the ref has the option to stick with his original decision after reviewing the TV footage, but it's very rare.
The baffling thing is that almost every other professional sport (rugby, cricket, athletics, tennis) includes some analog of VAR, and manages to do it in a way which is uncontroversial and which improves the overall quality of decision making. Very late in the day, football comes in, acts as if it's coming up with a new idea and implements singularly uselessly.
Indeed. FIFA never wanted it, and it shows.
And yet you sense PB could have a 30 minute meeting and make it work no problem. Cricket's umpires call is crucial. Umpires get some protection from it, and removes some of the false precision (needing to be hitting at least 50% of a stump means its pretty likely it would. The ridiculous off-side calls we see where a toe is offside (or whatever) are losing all credibility. VAR was brought in because of Thierry Henry and Frank Lampard - clear and obvious things that the ref and linesmen missed. It should never have been about marginal off sides.
This is an excellent point, it should only be clear & obvious. Although they have made the line wider for offside, we are still seeing these decisions where its a bit ot a shoulder etc. For me it should be reserved for those decisions in which the ref / assistant has made a real howler.
Of course now we are moving to this semi-automatic system offside system.
Great, so you want to move the line where offside is determined from where the law says it is.
Where do you want to move it to?
No, same as cricket....ref decision, you can appeal, over turned if clear and obvious. Works fine in cricket, decisions get reviewed, sometimes they are shown as marginal, you stick with the umpire decision.
I already addressed this point - in cricket this doesn't apply to line decisions - run outs and stumpings.
If you're out of your ground by a millimetre, you're out of your ground and out.
VAR in principle is a good idea, but the implementation is a farce.
I thought referee's whim was a fundamental principle ?
Referee's whim, yes. VAR's whim, no.
But the referee gets to decide if he wants to review.
No, that's not true - VAR tells the referee what to review. In theory, the ref has the option to stick with his original decision after reviewing the TV footage, but it's very rare.
The baffling thing is that almost every other professional sport (rugby, cricket, athletics, tennis) includes some analog of VAR, and manages to do it in a way which is uncontroversial and which improves the overall quality of decision making. Very late in the day, football comes in, acts as if it's coming up with a new idea and implements singularly uselessly.
Indeed. FIFA never wanted it, and it shows.
And yet you sense PB could have a 30 minute meeting and make it work no problem. Cricket's umpires call is crucial. Umpires get some protection from it, and removes some of the false precision (needing to be hitting at least 50% of a stump means its pretty likely it would. The ridiculous off-side calls we see where a toe is offside (or whatever) are losing all credibility. VAR was brought in because of Thierry Henry and Frank Lampard - clear and obvious things that the ref and linesmen missed. It should never have been about marginal off sides.
The problem is, if you allow VAR to review offside then it has to be able to disallow goals that are marginally offside - it's a line call and you can't be half offside any more than you can be half pregnant.
Cricket's umpire's call doesn't exist on run outs and stumpings.
In run outs and stumpings there is a physical line marked on the pitch and the batsmen needs something grounded beyond the line. In off-side almost any body part seems to count, there is no physical line (the grass pitch stripes are no good) and there is no referee's call being applied. I suggest anything under 15 cm (6 inches) lies in referees/linesmans call.
Yes people would still complain, but it would take VAR back towards the obvious offsides and errors it was meant to fix.
Great.
What if the player turns out to be 15.1cm offside? Or 14.9cm? It's a line decision - allowing a margin for error simply moves the line. That the line is determined by a player's position on the pitch rather than a line on the grass is irrelevant.
You talk about "obvious offsides" but a player who is 1cm offside is obviously offside!
No, they are not in real time and to the human eye.
Right. But we have something better than the human eye in real time. Or do you want to apply the same thing to GLT? The ball now has to be six inches over the line to overturn the on-field decision?
VAR in principle is a good idea, but the implementation is a farce.
I thought referee's whim was a fundamental principle ?
Referee's whim, yes. VAR's whim, no.
But the referee gets to decide if he wants to review.
No, that's not true - VAR tells the referee what to review. In theory, the ref has the option to stick with his original decision after reviewing the TV footage, but it's very rare.
The baffling thing is that almost every other professional sport (rugby, cricket, athletics, tennis) includes some analog of VAR, and manages to do it in a way which is uncontroversial and which improves the overall quality of decision making. Very late in the day, football comes in, acts as if it's coming up with a new idea and implements singularly uselessly.
Indeed. FIFA never wanted it, and it shows.
And yet you sense PB could have a 30 minute meeting and make it work no problem. Cricket's umpires call is crucial. Umpires get some protection from it, and removes some of the false precision (needing to be hitting at least 50% of a stump means its pretty likely it would. The ridiculous off-side calls we see where a toe is offside (or whatever) are losing all credibility. VAR was brought in because of Thierry Henry and Frank Lampard - clear and obvious things that the ref and linesmen missed. It should never have been about marginal off sides.
This is an excellent point, it should only be clear & obvious. Although they have made the line wider for offside, we are still seeing these decisions where its a bit ot a shoulder etc. For me it should be reserved for those decisions in which the ref / assistant has made a real howler.
Of course now we are moving to this semi-automatic system offside system.
Great, so you want to move the line where offside is determined from where the law says it is.
Where do you want to move it to?
No, same as cricket....ref decision, you can appeal, over turned if clear and obvious. Works fine in cricket, decisions get reviewed, sometimes they are shown as marginal, you stick with the umpire decision.
I already addressed this point - in cricket this doesn't apply to line decisions - run outs and stumpings.
If you're out of your ground by a millimetre, you're out of your ground and out.
Catches in cricket....you also stick with umpire decison unless clear & obvious mistake.
VAR in principle is a good idea, but the implementation is a farce.
I thought referee's whim was a fundamental principle ?
Referee's whim, yes. VAR's whim, no.
But the referee gets to decide if he wants to review.
No, that's not true - VAR tells the referee what to review. In theory, the ref has the option to stick with his original decision after reviewing the TV footage, but it's very rare.
The baffling thing is that almost every other professional sport (rugby, cricket, athletics, tennis) includes some analog of VAR, and manages to do it in a way which is uncontroversial and which improves the overall quality of decision making. Very late in the day, football comes in, acts as if it's coming up with a new idea and implements singularly uselessly.
Indeed. FIFA never wanted it, and it shows.
And yet you sense PB could have a 30 minute meeting and make it work no problem. Cricket's umpires call is crucial. Umpires get some protection from it, and removes some of the false precision (needing to be hitting at least 50% of a stump means its pretty likely it would. The ridiculous off-side calls we see where a toe is offside (or whatever) are losing all credibility. VAR was brought in because of Thierry Henry and Frank Lampard - clear and obvious things that the ref and linesmen missed. It should never have been about marginal off sides.
This is an excellent point, it should only be clear & obvious. Although they have made the line wider for offside, we are still seeing these decisions where its a bit ot a shoulder etc. For me it should be reserved for those decisions in which the ref / assistant has made a real howler.
Of course now we are moving to this semi-automatic system offside system.
Great, so you want to move the line where offside is determined from where the law says it is.
Where do you want to move it to?
No, same as cricket....ref decision, you can appeal, over turned if clear and obvious. Works fine in cricket, decisions get reviewed, sometimes they are shown as marginal, you stick with the umpire decision.
I already addressed this point - in cricket this doesn't apply to line decisions - run outs and stumpings.
If you're out of your ground by a millimetre, you're out of your ground and out.
I think cricket should have stuck to line decisions only for the TV umpire. (Interestingly line decisions has always included hit wicket).
VAR in principle is a good idea, but the implementation is a farce.
I thought referee's whim was a fundamental principle ?
Referee's whim, yes. VAR's whim, no.
But the referee gets to decide if he wants to review.
No, that's not true - VAR tells the referee what to review. In theory, the ref has the option to stick with his original decision after reviewing the TV footage, but it's very rare.
The baffling thing is that almost every other professional sport (rugby, cricket, athletics, tennis) includes some analog of VAR, and manages to do it in a way which is uncontroversial and which improves the overall quality of decision making. Very late in the day, football comes in, acts as if it's coming up with a new idea and implements singularly uselessly.
Indeed. FIFA never wanted it, and it shows.
And yet you sense PB could have a 30 minute meeting and make it work no problem. Cricket's umpires call is crucial. Umpires get some protection from it, and removes some of the false precision (needing to be hitting at least 50% of a stump means its pretty likely it would. The ridiculous off-side calls we see where a toe is offside (or whatever) are losing all credibility. VAR was brought in because of Thierry Henry and Frank Lampard - clear and obvious things that the ref and linesmen missed. It should never have been about marginal off sides.
This is an excellent point, it should only be clear & obvious. Although they have made the line wider for offside, we are still seeing these decisions where its a bit ot a shoulder etc. For me it should be reserved for those decisions in which the ref / assistant has made a real howler.
Of course now we are moving to this semi-automatic system offside system.
Great, so you want to move the line where offside is determined from where the law says it is.
Where do you want to move it to?
No, same as cricket....ref decision, you can appeal, over turned if clear and obvious. Works fine in cricket, decisions get reviewed, sometimes they are shown as marginal, you stick with the umpire decision.
I already addressed this point - in cricket this doesn't apply to line decisions - run outs and stumpings.
If you're out of your ground by a millimetre, you're out of your ground and out.
That's because line decisions are not marginal once reliable recording is brought into play. LBWs are marginal because of the nature of the case as the judgements are about counterfactuals.
VAR in principle is a good idea, but the implementation is a farce.
I thought referee's whim was a fundamental principle ?
Referee's whim, yes. VAR's whim, no.
But the referee gets to decide if he wants to review.
No, that's not true - VAR tells the referee what to review. In theory, the ref has the option to stick with his original decision after reviewing the TV footage, but it's very rare.
The baffling thing is that almost every other professional sport (rugby, cricket, athletics, tennis) includes some analog of VAR, and manages to do it in a way which is uncontroversial and which improves the overall quality of decision making. Very late in the day, football comes in, acts as if it's coming up with a new idea and implements singularly uselessly.
Indeed. FIFA never wanted it, and it shows.
And yet you sense PB could have a 30 minute meeting and make it work no problem. Cricket's umpires call is crucial. Umpires get some protection from it, and removes some of the false precision (needing to be hitting at least 50% of a stump means its pretty likely it would. The ridiculous off-side calls we see where a toe is offside (or whatever) are losing all credibility. VAR was brought in because of Thierry Henry and Frank Lampard - clear and obvious things that the ref and linesmen missed. It should never have been about marginal off sides.
This is an excellent point, it should only be clear & obvious. Although they have made the line wider for offside, we are still seeing these decisions where its a bit ot a shoulder etc. For me it should be reserved for those decisions in which the ref / assistant has made a real howler.
Of course now we are moving to this semi-automatic system offside system.
Great, so you want to move the line where offside is determined from where the law says it is.
Where do you want to move it to?
No, same as cricket....ref decision, you can appeal, over turned if clear and obvious. Works fine in cricket, decisions get reviewed, sometimes they are shown as marginal, you stick with the umpire decision.
I already addressed this point - in cricket this doesn't apply to line decisions - run outs and stumpings.
If you're out of your ground by a millimetre, you're out of your ground and out.
Catches in cricket....you also stick with umpire decison unless clear & obvious mistake.
Yes, but that's not a line decision and not comparable...
VAR in principle is a good idea, but the implementation is a farce.
I thought referee's whim was a fundamental principle ?
Referee's whim, yes. VAR's whim, no.
But the referee gets to decide if he wants to review.
No, that's not true - VAR tells the referee what to review. In theory, the ref has the option to stick with his original decision after reviewing the TV footage, but it's very rare.
The baffling thing is that almost every other professional sport (rugby, cricket, athletics, tennis) includes some analog of VAR, and manages to do it in a way which is uncontroversial and which improves the overall quality of decision making. Very late in the day, football comes in, acts as if it's coming up with a new idea and implements singularly uselessly.
Indeed. FIFA never wanted it, and it shows.
And yet you sense PB could have a 30 minute meeting and make it work no problem. Cricket's umpires call is crucial. Umpires get some protection from it, and removes some of the false precision (needing to be hitting at least 50% of a stump means its pretty likely it would. The ridiculous off-side calls we see where a toe is offside (or whatever) are losing all credibility. VAR was brought in because of Thierry Henry and Frank Lampard - clear and obvious things that the ref and linesmen missed. It should never have been about marginal off sides.
The problem is, if you allow VAR to review offside then it has to be able to disallow goals that are marginally offside - it's a line call and you can't be half offside any more than you can be half pregnant.
Cricket's umpire's call doesn't exist on run outs and stumpings.
In run outs and stumpings there is a physical line marked on the pitch and the batsmen needs something grounded beyond the line. In off-side almost any body part seems to count, there is no physical line (the grass pitch stripes are no good) and there is no referee's call being applied. I suggest anything under 15 cm (6 inches) lies in referees/linesmans call.
Yes people would still complain, but it would take VAR back towards the obvious offsides and errors it was meant to fix.
Great.
What if the player turns out to be 15.1cm offside? Or 14.9cm? It's a line decision - allowing a margin for error simply moves the line. That the line is determined by a player's position on the pitch rather than a line on the grass is irrelevant.
You talk about "obvious offsides" but a player who is 1cm offside is obviously offside!
No, they are not in real time and to the human eye.
Right. But we have something better than the human eye in real time. Or do you want to apply the same thing to GLT? The ball now has to be six inches over the line to overturn the on-field decision?
VAR in principle is a good idea, but the implementation is a farce.
I thought referee's whim was a fundamental principle ?
Referee's whim, yes. VAR's whim, no.
But the referee gets to decide if he wants to review.
No, that's not true - VAR tells the referee what to review. In theory, the ref has the option to stick with his original decision after reviewing the TV footage, but it's very rare.
The baffling thing is that almost every other professional sport (rugby, cricket, athletics, tennis) includes some analog of VAR, and manages to do it in a way which is uncontroversial and which improves the overall quality of decision making. Very late in the day, football comes in, acts as if it's coming up with a new idea and implements singularly uselessly.
Indeed. FIFA never wanted it, and it shows.
And yet you sense PB could have a 30 minute meeting and make it work no problem. Cricket's umpires call is crucial. Umpires get some protection from it, and removes some of the false precision (needing to be hitting at least 50% of a stump means its pretty likely it would. The ridiculous off-side calls we see where a toe is offside (or whatever) are losing all credibility. VAR was brought in because of Thierry Henry and Frank Lampard - clear and obvious things that the ref and linesmen missed. It should never have been about marginal off sides.
This is an excellent point, it should only be clear & obvious. Although they have made the line wider for offside, we are still seeing these decisions where its a bit ot a shoulder etc. For me it should be reserved for those decisions in which the ref / assistant has made a real howler.
Of course now we are moving to this semi-automatic system offside system.
Great, so you want to move the line where offside is determined from where the law says it is.
Where do you want to move it to?
No, same as cricket....ref decision, you can appeal, over turned if clear and obvious. Works fine in cricket, decisions get reviewed, sometimes they are shown as marginal, you stick with the umpire decision.
I already addressed this point - in cricket this doesn't apply to line decisions - run outs and stumpings.
If you're out of your ground by a millimetre, you're out of your ground and out.
Catches in cricket....you also stick with umpire decison unless clear & obvious mistake.
Yes, but that's not a line decision and not comparable...
Its very comparable to lots of VAR decisions e.g the penalty today. And its also comparable because offside you are trying to assess something without exact line markings from a camera angle that isn't exactly sqaure on with moving players...same as catches, you trying to judge if a ball hit the ground or not from an imperect view.
This is weird. Have just got my ticket for the match - at my local cinema. Anyone ever watched football in the cinema before? Hopefully it’s not me and 300 Iranians!
I watched England's World Cup 2018 matches in pubs in Scotland. The experience of England's progress in that tournament was enhanced for me by the crushing disappointment felt by other viewers in the pub.
There will undoubtedly be a small group of Scots dress in Iran shirts and waving Iran flags today.
I would say that they shouldn’t be cheering for a regime with no respect for women’s rights, which sets out to violently clamp down on protests, but I guess it’s now something they’re quite used to up there…
Would imagine it would be a few real nutters doing that unless they are Iranians. You haev a warped view of people.
Well it’s happened at every single England WC and Euros match for decades now, that groups of Scots go to the trouble of buying and wearing the kit of whoever’s playing England. I’ll be amazed if today is somehow an exception.
you have seen more than me then , I have not seen it in Scotland , many wish to see them beaten due to the constant bragging about how they are invincible and will win it , on every cup they ever play in.
The idea that England fans think ther team is invincible is quite bizarre. I go into every tournament with deep and justified pessimism
What REALLY annoys Scotland fans is the fact that England, nonetheless, really do have a chance at winning major tournaments. Scotland will never have that
They qualify due to the easy draws they get from seeding but realistically they have never ever looked like winning one. They flatter to deceive and are never ever close to teh expectations attributed to them. The annoying thing is that when games are on the London TV stations only show England games, another of our union benefits.
Er, they were in the World Cup semis in 2018 and reached the final of the euros in 2020 and only lost due to penalties (in a game they should have won)
The idea they cannot win a tournament is nonsense. Their FIFA ranking is
Of course, it's entirely possible that post-Columbian emigrants took a very old coin with them.
Surely old news? Viking settlement is long established. There is a great book - "A voyage long and strange" on this subject.
But it can't be Vikings with a 1427 coin! The implication in the article is that there was contact and trade with the eastern seaboard of America - especially Northumberland - half a century and more before Columbus. I don't think it's inconceivable - if you had discovered a new land whose seas teemed with fish, you wouldn't necessarily tell all and sundry about it.
I've just been reading about this
Viking settlement in America is now accepted
L'Anse aux Meadows is the only undisputed site of pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact of Europeans with the Americas outside of Greenland.[4] I
There are many speculations that traders from the British Isles might also have gone there before Columbus, because the knowledge of the American coast would have been handed down from Norse settlers in the UK
The question regarding the Vikings is how far did they get? Did they reach the Yucatan, for example.
Only in the wonderful novel "Civilizations" by Laurent Binet.
VAR in principle is a good idea, but the implementation is a farce.
I thought referee's whim was a fundamental principle ?
Referee's whim, yes. VAR's whim, no.
But the referee gets to decide if he wants to review.
No, that's not true - VAR tells the referee what to review. In theory, the ref has the option to stick with his original decision after reviewing the TV footage, but it's very rare.
The baffling thing is that almost every other professional sport (rugby, cricket, athletics, tennis) includes some analog of VAR, and manages to do it in a way which is uncontroversial and which improves the overall quality of decision making. Very late in the day, football comes in, acts as if it's coming up with a new idea and implements singularly uselessly.
Indeed. FIFA never wanted it, and it shows.
And yet you sense PB could have a 30 minute meeting and make it work no problem. Cricket's umpires call is crucial. Umpires get some protection from it, and removes some of the false precision (needing to be hitting at least 50% of a stump means its pretty likely it would. The ridiculous off-side calls we see where a toe is offside (or whatever) are losing all credibility. VAR was brought in because of Thierry Henry and Frank Lampard - clear and obvious things that the ref and linesmen missed. It should never have been about marginal off sides.
This is an excellent point, it should only be clear & obvious. Although they have made the line wider for offside, we are still seeing these decisions where its a bit ot a shoulder etc. For me it should be reserved for those decisions in which the ref / assistant has made a real howler.
Of course now we are moving to this semi-automatic system offside system.
Great, so you want to move the line where offside is determined from where the law says it is.
Where do you want to move it to?
No, same as cricket....ref decision, you can appeal, over turned if clear and obvious. Works fine in cricket, decisions get reviewed, sometimes they are shown as marginal, you stick with the umpire decision.
I already addressed this point - in cricket this doesn't apply to line decisions - run outs and stumpings.
If you're out of your ground by a millimetre, you're out of your ground and out.
Catches in cricket....you also stick with umpire decison unless clear & obvious mistake.
Yes, but that's not a line decision and not comparable...
Its very comparable to lots of VAR decisions e.g the penalty today.
Yes. But that's not offside!
There are two classes of decision:
(1) Line decisions. Objective. Either you are or you aren't. Offside in football, run out in cricket. No "umpire's call", no "clear and obvious" test. (2) Other decisions. Subjective. Ref/umpire's opinion. "Clear and obvious" test.
Funnily, we had a similar experience. I wondered if the departure of advertisers, combined with an increase in the number of users on the platform, might make Twitter a great place to deploy some money efficiently. (Basically, a totally tactical deployment to take advantage of lower rates.)
But we couldn't even get it working. The ad serving experience was completely broken. At first we couldn't login. We spend hours tracking down someone to turn off 2FA, because 2FA was broken. And then we when finally got in, it wouldn't take our money.
Eventually we gave up in frustration.
This is what happens when you sack all your SRE people & pieces of your backend start to break.
VAR in principle is a good idea, but the implementation is a farce.
I thought referee's whim was a fundamental principle ?
Referee's whim, yes. VAR's whim, no.
But the referee gets to decide if he wants to review.
No, that's not true - VAR tells the referee what to review. In theory, the ref has the option to stick with his original decision after reviewing the TV footage, but it's very rare.
The baffling thing is that almost every other professional sport (rugby, cricket, athletics, tennis) includes some analog of VAR, and manages to do it in a way which is uncontroversial and which improves the overall quality of decision making. Very late in the day, football comes in, acts as if it's coming up with a new idea and implements singularly uselessly.
Indeed. FIFA never wanted it, and it shows.
And yet you sense PB could have a 30 minute meeting and make it work no problem. Cricket's umpires call is crucial. Umpires get some protection from it, and removes some of the false precision (needing to be hitting at least 50% of a stump means its pretty likely it would. The ridiculous off-side calls we see where a toe is offside (or whatever) are losing all credibility. VAR was brought in because of Thierry Henry and Frank Lampard - clear and obvious things that the ref and linesmen missed. It should never have been about marginal off sides.
This is an excellent point, it should only be clear & obvious. Although they have made the line wider for offside, we are still seeing these decisions where its a bit ot a shoulder etc. For me it should be reserved for those decisions in which the ref / assistant has made a real howler.
Of course now we are moving to this semi-automatic system offside system.
Great, so you want to move the line where offside is determined from where the law says it is.
Where do you want to move it to?
No, same as cricket....ref decision, you can appeal, over turned if clear and obvious. Works fine in cricket, decisions get reviewed, sometimes they are shown as marginal, you stick with the umpire decision.
I already addressed this point - in cricket this doesn't apply to line decisions - run outs and stumpings.
If you're out of your ground by a millimetre, you're out of your ground and out.
Catches in cricket....you also stick with umpire decison unless clear & obvious mistake.
Yes, but that's not a line decision and not comparable...
Its very comparable to lots of VAR decisions e.g the penalty today.
Yes. But that's not offside!
There are two classes of decision:
(1) Line decisions. Objective. Either you are or you aren't. Offside in football, run out in cricket. No "umpire's call", no "clear and obvious" test. (2) Other decisions. Subjective. Ref/umpire's opinion. "Clear and obvious" test.
There is margin for error in the offside because of fixed fps of cameras, not being perfectly side on etc. Same as catches in cricket, can be an imperfect view.
Of course, it's entirely possible that post-Columbian emigrants took a very old coin with them.
Surely old news? Viking settlement is long established. There is a great book - "A voyage long and strange" on this subject.
But it can't be Vikings with a 1427 coin! The implication in the article is that there was contact and trade with the eastern seaboard of America - especially Northumberland - half a century and more before Columbus. I don't think it's inconceivable - if you had discovered a new land whose seas teemed with fish, you wouldn't necessarily tell all and sundry about it.
I think its all bound up with Greenland etc. I suspect trading had been going on for centuries before Columbus.
I've read that Basque and (maybe) British cod fishers may well have fished off the east coast of North America prior to Columbus - but kept their new-found (and fecund) hunting grounds a trade secret.
On the other side, some potential pre-Columbian contact between Polynesians and the Pacific coast of South America is plausible (the sweet potato question) but not proven.
Not as far, but going back much further there was supposedly a (pretty ropey) Phoenician find in the Azores. Not impossible given they almost certainly did circumnavigate Africa.
Time will tell, if he sticks to boring, competent governing then I think he will win enough back to prevent a 1997 style loss, it will be more like 2005. If the stars align he could pull off a 2010 victory.
You think he's governing, um, competently?
You can get a 5Y mortgage at under 5% and a 2Y mortgage at 5.1%, those rates were 5.79% and 6.39% under Liz Truss so yes, I think he is.
Our remortgage (and loan to finance an extension) finally completed on friday. Ten year fix at 2.87%. Already below the old rate we were paying on our variable rate previous mortgage.
I think that 2 year discounted variables may be the best option for many for the next period.
I am back up for renewal in September. Thank God the rates have come down a notch. Hopefully they will fall further.
On the other side of the ledger, I am hearing that rents are going up sharply due to falling supply. Is that your experience?
September 2023, presumably? My thoughts.
Asking rents have headed up quite substantially, here following locally 20% price increases in values over 2 years. Locally if I compare a 2 bed terrace I purchased in 2016-17 for 80k, when the asking rent for a long-term say 5+ year tenant (rather than a maximise rent and the tenant will leave fairly quickly tenant) was £450-475 per month. Floor price locally for such terraces is now ~100-110k.
An asking rent on that would now be £600-650 per month, and slightly less for a long-term and keep tenant. Those numbers are both up by about £100 in the last year.
I'm seeing in the press that alleged asking rates (eg Homelet survey) are jumping, with the usual extreme examples quoted, and the usual pretence that this is *all* rents, as opposed to asking rents for the ~1-2% of properties on the market. The Govt index of all rents for summer this year was more like +4%.
So yes - rents are increasing, but I suspect there is a London/SE effect as per usual.
My policy for years has been close to market for a new T, then follow CPI inflation as far as possible. During COVID I basically froze rents in cash terms as couples particularly found relationships under strain. This year (ie April 1 2023) I am looking at CPI increases, but I notice this morning that Govt have index linked Universal Credit and Pensions, but have frozen LHA in cash terms - a 10% effective cut.
On mortgage payments, my gearing is very low at under 20%, but for LLs with interest only mortgages payments may well have nearly doubled already, as they tend to work on Base + 3.5% ish, and base is now 3% headed for 4.5% in 2023.
On the basis of that last para, there will be a stretch in London, especially amongst high geared LLs. Plus if prices drift down banks may make 'margin calls' on the property values to shrink their books, and wrap up big portfolios. They did something similar before. Lower number of rentals may be possible, though the fastest shrinking place I know is Scotland where the PRS is 15% fewer properties over 6-8 years.
Potentially good times for cash buyers.
I am also hearing about the HMRC going after mid-size/bigger LLs who are dodging taxes. Heard one account of an LL with a ~100 property portfolio in the Midlands who was hit for nearly a million ukp. HMRC did some modestly creative linking of databases to get that one. "They weren't rented". "You own them, why was someone else paying Council Tax?". That case was of a 70s/80s immigrant who had built up a portfolio for usual "invest in property" security reasons in those circs, but I see no reason why it should be limited to that community where tax dodging exists.
In your circs, I'd keep an eye on it to see what offers arise; there are some decent ones around now. One point to note is that if you can get below 60% LTV, it should save a further 0.5%. Perhaps you will be made to switch from 'renting permission' to a BTL mortgage?
Thanks. I am an accidental landlord.
My issue with selling property in the UK is the tariff (ie stamp duty) on re-entering the market.
Both my family home and the flat are below 60% LTV at least. But I am going to have to do some homework.
The flat looked like it was coming vacant, but I’ve found a new tenant who volunteered to pay in six month instalments.
Unheard of, but it seemed to tally with a “News Agent” podcast on rapid rental price increases. A year ago, it seemed much harder to find tenants.
Accidental? Fell over and picked up a tenant? Or did the deliberate commercially based calculations including tax and making a conscious decision to become an (accidental) landlord.......
Moved overseas and didn’t want to dispose of the assets for tax reasons, just as you say.
I’ve complained on here before stamp duty, the capital locked in those properties would be better off re-allocated elsewhere.
I also regularly argue for property tax even though on paper I would lose out significantly.
But there is nothing accidental about any of it. You made rational decisions that financially you expected to be better off being a landlord than selling. Fine, but own the full responsibility of being a proper landlord rather than an accidental one, as well as the building.
Get over yourself.
I don’t deny being a landlord and I don’t think or suggest than being a landlord is in any way an issue. It’s just that my route to being one (and thereby the scale) is more contingent than some of the anecdotes @MattW was sharing.
(Back from blood tests.)
I agree on Stamp Duty - I support the Progressive Property Tax, which would replace Council Tax with an approx 0.5% capital levy on property and include abolition of Stamp Duty. Despite the liability transferring to LL, which will make it more difficult for Ts on certain benefits.
I would never take a "pay every six months" tenant without the full gamut of normal checks.
It was one who offered 6 months payment in advance who was the only time a member of my family has had their fingers burnt, against my advice. Never paid any more rent, and it was the only time we had to evict through the courts. T turned out to be what is known as a 'rogue tenant' who had done it before, and was a hoarder who left the French Window ajar 24-7 for the unauthorised cat, and when they left there were skips full of rubbish including a kitchen stacked high with rotting food.
Given that eviction now takes months and months and months due to legal process delays, and could always take up to 5-6 months if eg a Council were compelling T to exercise all their rights until the Bailiffs Arrived, safety is the basic rule.
The time to have dodged Stamp Duty was during the COVID suspension, as done by iirc George Osborne.
VAR in principle is a good idea, but the implementation is a farce.
I thought referee's whim was a fundamental principle ?
Referee's whim, yes. VAR's whim, no.
But the referee gets to decide if he wants to review.
No, that's not true - VAR tells the referee what to review. In theory, the ref has the option to stick with his original decision after reviewing the TV footage, but it's very rare.
The baffling thing is that almost every other professional sport (rugby, cricket, athletics, tennis) includes some analog of VAR, and manages to do it in a way which is uncontroversial and which improves the overall quality of decision making. Very late in the day, football comes in, acts as if it's coming up with a new idea and implements singularly uselessly.
Indeed. FIFA never wanted it, and it shows.
And yet you sense PB could have a 30 minute meeting and make it work no problem. Cricket's umpires call is crucial. Umpires get some protection from it, and removes some of the false precision (needing to be hitting at least 50% of a stump means its pretty likely it would. The ridiculous off-side calls we see where a toe is offside (or whatever) are losing all credibility. VAR was brought in because of Thierry Henry and Frank Lampard - clear and obvious things that the ref and linesmen missed. It should never have been about marginal off sides.
This is an excellent point, it should only be clear & obvious. Although they have made the line wider for offside, we are still seeing these decisions where its a bit ot a shoulder etc. For me it should be reserved for those decisions in which the ref / assistant has made a real howler.
Of course now we are moving to this semi-automatic system offside system.
Great, so you want to move the line where offside is determined from where the law says it is.
Where do you want to move it to?
No, same as cricket....ref decision, you can appeal, over turned if clear and obvious. Works fine in cricket, decisions get reviewed, sometimes they are shown as marginal, you stick with the umpire decision.
I already addressed this point - in cricket this doesn't apply to line decisions - run outs and stumpings.
If you're out of your ground by a millimetre, you're out of your ground and out.
Catches in cricket....you also stick with umpire decison unless clear & obvious mistake.
Yes, but that's not a line decision and not comparable...
Its very comparable to lots of VAR decisions e.g the penalty today.
Yes. But that's not offside!
There are two classes of decision:
(1) Line decisions. Objective. Either you are or you aren't. Offside in football, run out in cricket. No "umpire's call", no "clear and obvious" test. (2) Other decisions. Subjective. Ref/umpire's opinion. "Clear and obvious" test.
There is margin for error in the offside because of fixed fps of cameras, not being perfectly side on etc. Same as catches in cricket, can be an imperfect view.
Fixed frame rate doesn't seem to present a problem in cricket for run outs. Not being perfectly side on also shouldn't be a problem with proper calibration of the system. If it needs more cameras for greater precision they should add more cameras, certainly for major tournaments.
VAR in principle is a good idea, but the implementation is a farce.
I thought referee's whim was a fundamental principle ?
Referee's whim, yes. VAR's whim, no.
But the referee gets to decide if he wants to review.
No, that's not true - VAR tells the referee what to review. In theory, the ref has the option to stick with his original decision after reviewing the TV footage, but it's very rare.
The baffling thing is that almost every other professional sport (rugby, cricket, athletics, tennis) includes some analog of VAR, and manages to do it in a way which is uncontroversial and which improves the overall quality of decision making. Very late in the day, football comes in, acts as if it's coming up with a new idea and implements singularly uselessly.
The obvious improvement for VAR in football should be teams appeal & they only get x challenges, like cricket, like tennis...
Absolutely agreed. No idea why this obvious measure hasn’t been introduced. Captain’s Challenge, two per match, keep your review if it’s sustained.
This is a fucking world cup. Five billion people would love tickets for any game. Stupid greedy FIFA
Awarding the World Cup to Qatar should perhaps be seen as a farcical echo of the earlier tragedy of "spreading democracy" to the Middle East. We need to accept that there are limits to how far Western culture can be globalised.
Of course, it's entirely possible that post-Columbian emigrants took a very old coin with them.
Surely old news? Viking settlement is long established. There is a great book - "A voyage long and strange" on this subject.
But it can't be Vikings with a 1427 coin! The implication in the article is that there was contact and trade with the eastern seaboard of America - especially Northumberland - half a century and more before Columbus. I don't think it's inconceivable - if you had discovered a new land whose seas teemed with fish, you wouldn't necessarily tell all and sundry about it.
I think its all bound up with Greenland etc. I suspect trading had been going on for centuries before Columbus.
I've read that Basque and (maybe) British cod fishers may well have fished off the east coast of North America prior to Columbus - but kept their new-found (and fecund) hunting grounds a trade secret.
On the other side, some potential pre-Columbian contact between Polynesians and the Pacific coast of South America is plausible (the sweet potato question) but not proven.
Not as far, but going back much further there was supposedly a (pretty ropey) Phoenician find in the Azores. Not impossible given they almost certainly did circumnavigate Africa.
As well as possible contacts between Shan China and Mesoamerica based on archaeological finds.
VAR in principle is a good idea, but the implementation is a farce.
I thought referee's whim was a fundamental principle ?
Referee's whim, yes. VAR's whim, no.
But the referee gets to decide if he wants to review.
No, that's not true - VAR tells the referee what to review. In theory, the ref has the option to stick with his original decision after reviewing the TV footage, but it's very rare.
The baffling thing is that almost every other professional sport (rugby, cricket, athletics, tennis) includes some analog of VAR, and manages to do it in a way which is uncontroversial and which improves the overall quality of decision making. Very late in the day, football comes in, acts as if it's coming up with a new idea and implements singularly uselessly.
Indeed. FIFA never wanted it, and it shows.
And yet you sense PB could have a 30 minute meeting and make it work no problem. Cricket's umpires call is crucial. Umpires get some protection from it, and removes some of the false precision (needing to be hitting at least 50% of a stump means its pretty likely it would. The ridiculous off-side calls we see where a toe is offside (or whatever) are losing all credibility. VAR was brought in because of Thierry Henry and Frank Lampard - clear and obvious things that the ref and linesmen missed. It should never have been about marginal off sides.
This is an excellent point, it should only be clear & obvious. Although they have made the line wider for offside, we are still seeing these decisions where its a bit ot a shoulder etc. For me it should be reserved for those decisions in which the ref / assistant has made a real howler.
Of course now we are moving to this semi-automatic system offside system.
Great, so you want to move the line where offside is determined from where the law says it is.
Where do you want to move it to?
No, same as cricket....ref decision, you can appeal, over turned if clear and obvious. Works fine in cricket, decisions get reviewed, sometimes they are shown as marginal, you stick with the umpire decision.
I already addressed this point - in cricket this doesn't apply to line decisions - run outs and stumpings.
If you're out of your ground by a millimetre, you're out of your ground and out.
Catches in cricket....you also stick with umpire decison unless clear & obvious mistake.
Yes, but that's not a line decision and not comparable...
Its very comparable to lots of VAR decisions e.g the penalty today.
Yes. But that's not offside!
There are two classes of decision:
(1) Line decisions. Objective. Either you are or you aren't. Offside in football, run out in cricket. No "umpire's call", no "clear and obvious" test. (2) Other decisions. Subjective. Ref/umpire's opinion. "Clear and obvious" test.
There is margin for error in the offside because of fixed fps of cameras, not being perfectly side on etc. Same as catches in cricket, can be an imperfect view.
Fixed frame rate doesn't seem to present a problem in cricket for run outs. Not being perfectly side on also shouldn't be a problem with proper calibration of the system. If it needs more cameras for greater precision they should add more cameras, certainly for major tournaments.
Precise markerless pose estimation in the wild is far from a solved problem, even with multi-camera setups. Another difference to run out, where you are just trying to judge the bottom of a bat over a line, perfectly side on. Offside, you are trying ascertain exact pose estimation of a number of players from imperfect angles with occulsion. Much harder problem.
Reminds me of the way the cricket world cup in the West Indies was ruined by the organisers setting ticket prices way too high for the local population.
VAR in principle is a good idea, but the implementation is a farce.
I thought referee's whim was a fundamental principle ?
Referee's whim, yes. VAR's whim, no.
But the referee gets to decide if he wants to review.
No, that's not true - VAR tells the referee what to review. In theory, the ref has the option to stick with his original decision after reviewing the TV footage, but it's very rare.
The baffling thing is that almost every other professional sport (rugby, cricket, athletics, tennis) includes some analog of VAR, and manages to do it in a way which is uncontroversial and which improves the overall quality of decision making. Very late in the day, football comes in, acts as if it's coming up with a new idea and implements singularly uselessly.
Indeed. FIFA never wanted it, and it shows.
And yet you sense PB could have a 30 minute meeting and make it work no problem. Cricket's umpires call is crucial. Umpires get some protection from it, and removes some of the false precision (needing to be hitting at least 50% of a stump means its pretty likely it would. The ridiculous off-side calls we see where a toe is offside (or whatever) are losing all credibility. VAR was brought in because of Thierry Henry and Frank Lampard - clear and obvious things that the ref and linesmen missed. It should never have been about marginal off sides.
The problem is, if you allow VAR to review offside then it has to be able to disallow goals that are marginally offside - it's a line call and you can't be half offside any more than you can be half pregnant.
Cricket's umpire's call doesn't exist on run outs and stumpings.
In run outs and stumpings there is a physical line marked on the pitch and the batsmen needs something grounded beyond the line. In off-side almost any body part seems to count, there is no physical line (the grass pitch stripes are no good) and there is no referee's call being applied. I suggest anything under 15 cm (6 inches) lies in referees/linesmans call.
Yes people would still complain, but it would take VAR back towards the obvious offsides and errors it was meant to fix.
Great.
What if the player turns out to be 15.1cm offside? Or 14.9cm? It's a line decision - allowing a margin for error simply moves the line. That the line is determined by a player's position on the pitch rather than a line on the grass is irrelevant.
You talk about "obvious offsides" but a player who is 1cm offside is obviously offside!
No, they are not in real time and to the human eye.
Yes, its like the arm flex in cricket, where it turned out nearly everyone was a chucker under the rules when you slowed it right down. They had to adjust the rule.
If a linesman could not reasonably be expected to detect a 5cm knee or whatever over the line then refs call.
One ERG-er was blaming “complete failure SpAds” for the Swiss-style arrangements briefing over the weekend, which of course is no criticism of Will Dry, who’s just been appointed.
Of course, it's entirely possible that post-Columbian emigrants took a very old coin with them.
Surely old news? Viking settlement is long established. There is a great book - "A voyage long and strange" on this subject.
But it can't be Vikings with a 1427 coin! The implication in the article is that there was contact and trade with the eastern seaboard of America - especially Northumberland - half a century and more before Columbus. I don't think it's inconceivable - if you had discovered a new land whose seas teemed with fish, you wouldn't necessarily tell all and sundry about it.
I think its all bound up with Greenland etc. I suspect trading had been going on for centuries before Columbus.
I've read that Basque and (maybe) British cod fishers may well have fished off the east coast of North America prior to Columbus - but kept their new-found (and fecund) hunting grounds a trade secret.
On the other side, some potential pre-Columbian contact between Polynesians and the Pacific coast of South America is plausible (the sweet potato question) but not proven.
Not as far, but going back much further there was supposedly a (pretty ropey) Phoenician find in the Azores. Not impossible given they almost certainly did circumnavigate Africa.
As well as possible contacts between Shan China and Mesoamerica based on archaeological finds.
No doubt however that the Spanish 'discovery' was the most significant since the original migration over the Bering Strait.
When people criticise Southgate for sticking with certain players if they're a bit out of form, I wonder if it's because of the issue about national sides finding it difficult to work as a team and with various systems, because they're thrown together with minimal training time as a team in comparison to club sides.
The commentators were mentioning how comfortable England were as a team and playing their system, so Southgate could be loathe to break that when he has players that are used to it and have well slotted in.
This is weird. Have just got my ticket for the match - at my local cinema. Anyone ever watched football in the cinema before? Hopefully it’s not me and 300 Iranians!
I watched England's World Cup 2018 matches in pubs in Scotland. The experience of England's progress in that tournament was enhanced for me by the crushing disappointment felt by other viewers in the pub.
There will undoubtedly be a small group of Scots dress in Iran shirts and waving Iran flags today.
I would say that they shouldn’t be cheering for a regime with no respect for women’s rights, which sets out to violently clamp down on protests, but I guess it’s now something they’re quite used to up there…
Would imagine it would be a few real nutters doing that unless they are Iranians. You haev a warped view of people.
Well it’s happened at every single England WC and Euros match for decades now, that groups of Scots go to the trouble of buying and wearing the kit of whoever’s playing England. I’ll be amazed if today is somehow an exception.
you have seen more than me then , I have not seen it in Scotland , many wish to see them beaten due to the constant bragging about how they are invincible and will win it , on every cup they ever play in.
Nah, never happens.
Bonus points for the year.
Did you knock the door and ask them if it was in relation to teh world cup and not to teh nationalities of their various family members
Bit of a coincidence that they were all in England's group at the time, eh?
VAR in principle is a good idea, but the implementation is a farce.
I thought referee's whim was a fundamental principle ?
Referee's whim, yes. VAR's whim, no.
But the referee gets to decide if he wants to review.
No, that's not true - VAR tells the referee what to review. In theory, the ref has the option to stick with his original decision after reviewing the TV footage, but it's very rare.
The baffling thing is that almost every other professional sport (rugby, cricket, athletics, tennis) includes some analog of VAR, and manages to do it in a way which is uncontroversial and which improves the overall quality of decision making. Very late in the day, football comes in, acts as if it's coming up with a new idea and implements singularly uselessly.
Indeed. FIFA never wanted it, and it shows.
And yet you sense PB could have a 30 minute meeting and make it work no problem. Cricket's umpires call is crucial. Umpires get some protection from it, and removes some of the false precision (needing to be hitting at least 50% of a stump means its pretty likely it would. The ridiculous off-side calls we see where a toe is offside (or whatever) are losing all credibility. VAR was brought in because of Thierry Henry and Frank Lampard - clear and obvious things that the ref and linesmen missed. It should never have been about marginal off sides.
This is an excellent point, it should only be clear & obvious. Although they have made the line wider for offside, we are still seeing these decisions where its a bit ot a shoulder etc. For me it should be reserved for those decisions in which the ref / assistant has made a real howler.
Of course now we are moving to this semi-automatic system offside system.
Great, so you want to move the line where offside is determined from where the law says it is.
Where do you want to move it to?
No, same as cricket....ref decision, you can appeal, over turned if clear and obvious. Works fine in cricket, decisions get reviewed, sometimes they are shown as marginal, you stick with the umpire decision.
I already addressed this point - in cricket this doesn't apply to line decisions - run outs and stumpings.
If you're out of your ground by a millimetre, you're out of your ground and out.
Catches in cricket....you also stick with umpire decison unless clear & obvious mistake.
Yes, but that's not a line decision and not comparable...
They've mad many confusions over the line for offside, var officials getting it wrong, so for wont of a fingertip being over it seems beyond the purpose of the rule. They didn't design the rule for a high speed HD camera replay, and it's over harsh to retain it that way.
VAR in principle is a good idea, but the implementation is a farce.
I thought referee's whim was a fundamental principle ?
Referee's whim, yes. VAR's whim, no.
But the referee gets to decide if he wants to review.
No, that's not true - VAR tells the referee what to review. In theory, the ref has the option to stick with his original decision after reviewing the TV footage, but it's very rare.
The baffling thing is that almost every other professional sport (rugby, cricket, athletics, tennis) includes some analog of VAR, and manages to do it in a way which is uncontroversial and which improves the overall quality of decision making. Very late in the day, football comes in, acts as if it's coming up with a new idea and implements singularly uselessly.
Indeed. FIFA never wanted it, and it shows.
And yet you sense PB could have a 30 minute meeting and make it work no problem. Cricket's umpires call is crucial. Umpires get some protection from it, and removes some of the false precision (needing to be hitting at least 50% of a stump means its pretty likely it would. The ridiculous off-side calls we see where a toe is offside (or whatever) are losing all credibility. VAR was brought in because of Thierry Henry and Frank Lampard - clear and obvious things that the ref and linesmen missed. It should never have been about marginal off sides.
The problem is, if you allow VAR to review offside then it has to be able to disallow goals that are marginally offside - it's a line call and you can't be half offside any more than you can be half pregnant.
Cricket's umpire's call doesn't exist on run outs and stumpings.
In run outs and stumpings there is a physical line marked on the pitch and the batsmen needs something grounded beyond the line. In off-side almost any body part seems to count, there is no physical line (the grass pitch stripes are no good) and there is no referee's call being applied. I suggest anything under 15 cm (6 inches) lies in referees/linesmans call.
Yes people would still complain, but it would take VAR back towards the obvious offsides and errors it was meant to fix.
Great.
What if the player turns out to be 15.1cm offside? Or 14.9cm? It's a line decision - allowing a margin for error simply moves the line. That the line is determined by a player's position on the pitch rather than a line on the grass is irrelevant.
You talk about "obvious offsides" but a player who is 1cm offside is obviously offside!
No, they are not in real time and to the human eye.
Yes, its like the arm flex in cricket, where it turned out nearly everyone was a chucker under the rules when you slowed it right down. They had to adjust the rule.
If a linesman could not reasonably be expected to detect a 5cm knee or whatever over the line then refs call.
Not perfect, but better.
The doosra is basically non-exist delivery now, as you couldn't bowl it without chuking. Definitely some pace bowlers who still have plenty of arm "flex".
This is a fucking world cup. Five billion people would love tickets for any game. Stupid greedy FIFA
Awarding the World Cup to Qatar should perhaps be seen as a farcical echo of the earlier tragedy of "spreading democracy" to the Middle East. We need to accept that there are limits to how far Western culture can be globalised.
VAR in principle is a good idea, but the implementation is a farce.
I thought referee's whim was a fundamental principle ?
Referee's whim, yes. VAR's whim, no.
But the referee gets to decide if he wants to review.
No, that's not true - VAR tells the referee what to review. In theory, the ref has the option to stick with his original decision after reviewing the TV footage, but it's very rare.
The baffling thing is that almost every other professional sport (rugby, cricket, athletics, tennis) includes some analog of VAR, and manages to do it in a way which is uncontroversial and which improves the overall quality of decision making. Very late in the day, football comes in, acts as if it's coming up with a new idea and implements singularly uselessly.
Indeed. FIFA never wanted it, and it shows.
And yet you sense PB could have a 30 minute meeting and make it work no problem. Cricket's umpires call is crucial. Umpires get some protection from it, and removes some of the false precision (needing to be hitting at least 50% of a stump means its pretty likely it would. The ridiculous off-side calls we see where a toe is offside (or whatever) are losing all credibility. VAR was brought in because of Thierry Henry and Frank Lampard - clear and obvious things that the ref and linesmen missed. It should never have been about marginal off sides.
The problem is, if you allow VAR to review offside then it has to be able to disallow goals that are marginally offside - it's a line call and you can't be half offside any more than you can be half pregnant.
Cricket's umpire's call doesn't exist on run outs and stumpings.
In run outs and stumpings there is a physical line marked on the pitch and the batsmen needs something grounded beyond the line. In off-side almost any body part seems to count, there is no physical line (the grass pitch stripes are no good) and there is no referee's call being applied. I suggest anything under 15 cm (6 inches) lies in referees/linesmans call.
Yes people would still complain, but it would take VAR back towards the obvious offsides and errors it was meant to fix.
Great.
What if the player turns out to be 15.1cm offside? Or 14.9cm? It's a line decision - allowing a margin for error simply moves the line. That the line is determined by a player's position on the pitch rather than a line on the grass is irrelevant.
You talk about "obvious offsides" but a player who is 1cm offside is obviously offside!
15.1 cm is a clear and obvious error - its 6 inches. I get what you are saying, but .1 cm off (currently) vs 15.1cm (my proposal) would appear as level vs obviously wrong.
1cm offside isn't level, it's offside. If the linesman missed it, it's a clear and obvious error.
It's not clear and obvious if none of the players can tell.
This is a fucking world cup. Five billion people would love tickets for any game. Stupid greedy FIFA
Well they would, but not at any price. And having to go to a shitty desert theocracy where you can't drink or fornicate is quite a high price to pay.
Ha. To paraphrase Alan Partridge, "I'll accept one, but not both!"
In fact, I wonder if Qatar is the shittiest country in the world. I've had a hunt round on Google maps - it appears to be utterly lacking in any natural beauty whatsoever. Nothing evident to lift the spirit in any way. Actually, Bahrain looks even grimmer.
VAR in principle is a good idea, but the implementation is a farce.
I thought referee's whim was a fundamental principle ?
Referee's whim, yes. VAR's whim, no.
But the referee gets to decide if he wants to review.
No, that's not true - VAR tells the referee what to review. In theory, the ref has the option to stick with his original decision after reviewing the TV footage, but it's very rare.
The baffling thing is that almost every other professional sport (rugby, cricket, athletics, tennis) includes some analog of VAR, and manages to do it in a way which is uncontroversial and which improves the overall quality of decision making. Very late in the day, football comes in, acts as if it's coming up with a new idea and implements singularly uselessly.
Indeed. FIFA never wanted it, and it shows.
And yet you sense PB could have a 30 minute meeting and make it work no problem. Cricket's umpires call is crucial. Umpires get some protection from it, and removes some of the false precision (needing to be hitting at least 50% of a stump means its pretty likely it would. The ridiculous off-side calls we see where a toe is offside (or whatever) are losing all credibility. VAR was brought in because of Thierry Henry and Frank Lampard - clear and obvious things that the ref and linesmen missed. It should never have been about marginal off sides.
This is an excellent point, it should only be clear & obvious. Although they have made the line wider for offside, we are still seeing these decisions where its a bit ot a shoulder etc. For me it should be reserved for those decisions in which the ref / assistant has made a real howler.
Of course now we are moving to this semi-automatic system offside system.
Great, so you want to move the line where offside is determined from where the law says it is.
Where do you want to move it to?
No, same as cricket....ref decision, you can appeal, over turned if clear and obvious. Works fine in cricket, decisions get reviewed, sometimes they are shown as marginal, you stick with the umpire decision.
I already addressed this point - in cricket this doesn't apply to line decisions - run outs and stumpings.
If you're out of your ground by a millimetre, you're out of your ground and out.
Catches in cricket....you also stick with umpire decison unless clear & obvious mistake.
Yes, but that's not a line decision and not comparable...
They've mad many confusions over the line for offside, var officials getting it wrong, so for wont of a fingertip being over it seems beyond the purpose of the rule. They didn't design the rule for a high speed HD camera replay, and it's over harsh to retain it that way.
Which is an argument to change the offside law - which I agree with.
Latest @IpsosUK for @standardnews - Rishi Sunak starts as PM relatively liked by Britons, but without much of a honeymoon for the Conservative party brand. 47% like Sunak (better than Johnson earlier this year) but only 26% like the Cons party, its lowest score for 15 years. 1/6
Rishi Sunak also overtakes Keir Starmer – slightly – as most capable PM and as having what it takes to be a good PM. Starmer was ahead of Truss and Johnson earlier this year, but now he is actually in office Sunak’s ratings have improved compared to July leadership contest. 2/6
This is a fucking world cup. Five billion people would love tickets for any game. Stupid greedy FIFA
Awarding the World Cup to Qatar should perhaps be seen as a farcical echo of the earlier tragedy of "spreading democracy" to the Middle East. We need to accept that there are limits to how far Western culture can be globalised.
Yes, essentially the fact that the World Cup was awarded to Qatar is obviously the fault of woke virtue-signallers who think brown people are capable of choosing their own government and don't need the rule of a strong, preferably Western-educated monarch.
I might put a few quid on a 3-0 win for the Netherlands. I'm feeling lucky.
Janssen and Bergwijn in that front 3. Don't see where the goals come from.
32 minutes in (not that I'm watching), your pessimism on the Dutch as goalscorers looks justified.
Senegal are ranked at 18th by FIFA. Iran are 20th (Holland are 8th and England 5th)
Senegal are showing that it is hard to break these teams down, which puts England's display in context. That was a truly excellent performance by England
VAR in principle is a good idea, but the implementation is a farce.
I thought referee's whim was a fundamental principle ?
Referee's whim, yes. VAR's whim, no.
But the referee gets to decide if he wants to review.
No, that's not true - VAR tells the referee what to review. In theory, the ref has the option to stick with his original decision after reviewing the TV footage, but it's very rare.
The baffling thing is that almost every other professional sport (rugby, cricket, athletics, tennis) includes some analog of VAR, and manages to do it in a way which is uncontroversial and which improves the overall quality of decision making. Very late in the day, football comes in, acts as if it's coming up with a new idea and implements singularly uselessly.
Indeed. FIFA never wanted it, and it shows.
And yet you sense PB could have a 30 minute meeting and make it work no problem. Cricket's umpires call is crucial. Umpires get some protection from it, and removes some of the false precision (needing to be hitting at least 50% of a stump means its pretty likely it would. The ridiculous off-side calls we see where a toe is offside (or whatever) are losing all credibility. VAR was brought in because of Thierry Henry and Frank Lampard - clear and obvious things that the ref and linesmen missed. It should never have been about marginal off sides.
The problem is, if you allow VAR to review offside then it has to be able to disallow goals that are marginally offside - it's a line call and you can't be half offside any more than you can be half pregnant.
Cricket's umpire's call doesn't exist on run outs and stumpings.
In run outs and stumpings there is a physical line marked on the pitch and the batsmen needs something grounded beyond the line. In off-side almost any body part seems to count, there is no physical line (the grass pitch stripes are no good) and there is no referee's call being applied. I suggest anything under 15 cm (6 inches) lies in referees/linesmans call.
Yes people would still complain, but it would take VAR back towards the obvious offsides and errors it was meant to fix.
Great.
What if the player turns out to be 15.1cm offside? Or 14.9cm? It's a line decision - allowing a margin for error simply moves the line. That the line is determined by a player's position on the pitch rather than a line on the grass is irrelevant.
You talk about "obvious offsides" but a player who is 1cm offside is obviously offside!
15.1 cm is a clear and obvious error - its 6 inches. I get what you are saying, but .1 cm off (currently) vs 15.1cm (my proposal) would appear as level vs obviously wrong.
1cm offside isn't level, it's offside. If the linesman missed it, it's a clear and obvious error.
It's not clear and obvious if none of the players can tell.
If a human being couldn't make the call anyway just make it automated with all the fantastic AI I hear so much about.
I might put a few quid on a 3-0 win for the Netherlands. I'm feeling lucky.
Janssen and Bergwijn in that front 3. Don't see where the goals come from.
32 minutes in (not that I'm watching), your pessimism on the Dutch as goalscorers looks justified.
Senegal are ranked at 18th by FIFA. Iran are 20th (Holland are 8th and England 5th)
Senegal are showing that it is hard to break these teams down, which puts England's display in context. That was a truly excellent performance by England
It might be more to do with the fact pretty much the whole Senegal team play club football for an team in a top division in Europe.....e.g. shocked they can defend what with Koulibaly being centre back for Chelsea (actually come to think of it scrap that)
Iran, had one guy who plays for Porto and highly rated, the rest play very low level of football e.g. one bloke who couldn't even make it at Reading.
I might put a few quid on a 3-0 win for the Netherlands. I'm feeling lucky.
Janssen and Bergwijn in that front 3. Don't see where the goals come from.
32 minutes in (not that I'm watching), your pessimism on the Dutch as goalscorers looks justified.
Not a vintage Dutch team. But then neither was the 2010 side.
There have been some hefty wagers on Netherlands to lift the trophy. When did they stop being Holland btw?
'Holland' is an informal and not-technically-correct name for the Netherlands - technically Holland is just two of the 12 regions, albeit two of the most populous ones, containing Amsterdam, Rotterdam and the Hague.
cf (a bit) foreigners using 'England' as shorthand for the UK.
This is a fucking world cup. Five billion people would love tickets for any game. Stupid greedy FIFA
Well they would, but not at any price. And having to go to a shitty desert theocracy where you can't drink or fornicate is quite a high price to pay.
Ha. To paraphrase Alan Partridge, "I'll accept one, but not both!"
In fact, I wonder if Qatar is the shittiest country in the world. I've had a hunt round on Google maps - it appears to be utterly lacking in any natural beauty whatsoever. Nothing evident to lift the spirit in any way. Actually, Bahrain looks even grimmer.
It has the Shell Pearl GTL project. Which is pretty cool if you're into the energy industry.
I might put a few quid on a 3-0 win for the Netherlands. I'm feeling lucky.
Janssen and Bergwijn in that front 3. Don't see where the goals come from.
32 minutes in (not that I'm watching), your pessimism on the Dutch as goalscorers looks justified.
Senegal are ranked at 18th by FIFA. Iran are 20th (Holland are 8th and England 5th)
Senegal are showing that it is hard to break these teams down, which puts England's display in context. That was a truly excellent performance by England
It might be more to do with the fact pretty much the whole Senegal team play club football for an team in a top division in Europe.....e.g. shocked they can defend what with Koulibaly being centre back for Chelsea (actually come to think of it scrap that)
Iran, had one guy who plays for Porto and highly rated, the rest play very low level of football e.g. one bloke who couldn't even make it at Reading.
What you do find is in general national teams are hard to break down because these days the big leagues hoover up talent from all over the world and so many more are exposed to top class coaching from a very young age...and add into that national teams have got much better with tactical awareness (in no short part due to widespread availability to analytics).
Though, I imagine having to mark Sterling, Mount, Aubameyang, Pulisic etc, day in day out in training, if you weren't good before, you better get good quick.....where as playing Al Ahli (made up of 90% Qatar players) or Persepolis, not so much.
I might put a few quid on a 3-0 win for the Netherlands. I'm feeling lucky.
Janssen and Bergwijn in that front 3. Don't see where the goals come from.
32 minutes in (not that I'm watching), your pessimism on the Dutch as goalscorers looks justified.
Senegal are ranked at 18th by FIFA. Iran are 20th (Holland are 8th and England 5th)
Senegal are showing that it is hard to break these teams down, which puts England's display in context. That was a truly excellent performance by England
It might be more to do with the fact pretty much the whole Senegal team play club football for an team in a top division in Europe.....e.g. shocked they can defend what with Koulibaly being centre back for Chelsea (actually come to think of it scrap that)
Iran, had one guy who plays for Porto and highly rated, the rest play very low level of football e.g. one bloke who couldn't even make it at Reading.
FIFA rankings are a measure of recent results weighted by level of competition, which can overstate some teams (like Iran) and understate others, as they can't take into account every nuance (and can overweight some competitions).
They also move round quite a bit. They've never been a definitive list of teams in order of quality, and in absolute fairness to FIFA (sick-in-mouth) it's the media who present them as such. They do matter for seedings and whatnot, but that's it really.
This is a fucking world cup. Five billion people would love tickets for any game. Stupid greedy FIFA
Well they would, but not at any price. And having to go to a shitty desert theocracy where you can't drink or fornicate is quite a high price to pay.
Ha. To paraphrase Alan Partridge, "I'll accept one, but not both!"
In fact, I wonder if Qatar is the shittiest country in the world. I've had a hunt round on Google maps - it appears to be utterly lacking in any natural beauty whatsoever. Nothing evident to lift the spirit in any way. Actually, Bahrain looks even grimmer.
It has the Shell Pearl GTL project. Which is pretty cool if you're into the energy industry.
Well that sounds a commendable and useful thing. But it's hardly a thing to make the spirit soar.
If we were to back to the 'loveliest counties' list from over the summer: I would suggest even before the oppressive regime is considered, there is not one British county less lovely than Qatar. Not even Caithness.
One ERG-er was blaming “complete failure SpAds” for the Swiss-style arrangements briefing over the weekend, which of course is no criticism of Will Dry, who’s just been appointed.
The Tories cower before the ERG ultras and live in terror of Farage Whatever Sunak and Hunt suggest with regard to the EU they will back down the moment the hardliners scream "Brexit betrayal". What is in the country's best interests doesn't get a look in.
Our trading situation is not going to improve significantly until the Conservatives are out of office.
One ERG-er was blaming “complete failure SpAds” for the Swiss-style arrangements briefing over the weekend, which of course is no criticism of Will Dry, who’s just been appointed.
The Tories cower before the ERG ultras and live in terror of Farage Whatever Sunak and Hunt suggest with regard to the EU they will back down the moment the hardliners scream "Brexit betrayal". What is in the country's best interests doesn't get a look in.
Our trading situation is not going to improve significantly until the Conservatives are out of office.
Absolutely, see also: business investment. Why would you invest in closed off, self-harming economy like the UK?
The entire World Cup boils down to a couple of thousand already very rich men - and it is all men: Qatari state officials, Fifa's bunch of corrupt old troughers, and arguably the teams themselves - having a massive circle jerk in which they periodically spaff wads of high denomination bank notes all over each other. All taking place atop a mountain of migrant labourer skulls in the middle of an ocean of crude oil. About the best that can be said of the 2022 edition is that at least Qatar isn't a vast expansionist empire with thousands of nuclear warheads that's intent upon subjugating half the globe to its will, unlike the previous hosts.
With luck, several members of the winning side will all come out as gay at the trophy ceremony and thus set fire to the whole bloody thing. I mean, that clearly won't happen, but it would be very funny.
Way Off Topic (official by OGH, unofficial re: Global Kickballfest)
With all but handful of votes counted in Alaska, for 1st preference in RCV race for state's single at-large seat in US House:
Mary Peltola* (D) 127,364 48.7% Sarah Palin (R) 67,485 25.8% Nick Begich (R) 61,179 23.4% Chris Bye (L) 4,521 1.7% write ins 1,077 +0.4% Total reported 261,626
And here is map showing 1st-preference results by state senate district:
> Hard to see how Mary Peltola can avoid winning; she's already close to majority, and will only need a small share of transfers from eliminated hopefuls to go over the top: from writeins; then from Bye; finally and decisively from Begich.
> Map shows MP winning absolute majorities in Anchorage and much of southeast Alaska as well as in the Bush, where Native vote is concentrated
> Also shows Begich winning zero districts (unlike in August special election for US House) clearly much of his summer 1st preferences migrated to Peltola this election.
> According to map, only areas where Palin is ahead in 1st prefs (but in no district by majority) is exurban Anchorage plus Matanuska Valley (SP's home turf).
Conclusion - Mary Peltola will prevail, thanks once again to her own strengths as a person & candidate, outside economic & political forces, AND - last but hardly least - to the toxic candidacy of Sarah Palin, as magnified (and yet diminished) by the impact of Donald Trump.
Of course, it's entirely possible that post-Columbian emigrants took a very old coin with them.
Surely old news? Viking settlement is long established. There is a great book - "A voyage long and strange" on this subject.
But it can't be Vikings with a 1427 coin! The implication in the article is that there was contact and trade with the eastern seaboard of America - especially Northumberland - half a century and more before Columbus. I don't think it's inconceivable - if you had discovered a new land whose seas teemed with fish, you wouldn't necessarily tell all and sundry about it.
I think its all bound up with Greenland etc. I suspect trading had been going on for centuries before Columbus.
I've read that Basque and (maybe) British cod fishers may well have fished off the east coast of North America prior to Columbus - but kept their new-found (and fecund) hunting grounds a trade secret.
On the other side, some potential pre-Columbian contact between Polynesians and the Pacific coast of South America is plausible (the sweet potato question) but not proven.
Not as far, but going back much further there was supposedly a (pretty ropey) Phoenician find in the Azores. Not impossible given they almost certainly did circumnavigate Africa.
As well as possible contacts between Shan China and Mesoamerica based on archaeological finds.
No doubt however that the Spanish 'discovery' was the most significant since the original migration over the Bering Strait.
I have a theory, which is probably completely bollocks, that the shortest ancient migration route from Africa to the New World is from Senegal to Brazil.
I might put a few quid on a 3-0 win for the Netherlands. I'm feeling lucky.
Janssen and Bergwijn in that front 3. Don't see where the goals come from.
32 minutes in (not that I'm watching), your pessimism on the Dutch as goalscorers looks justified.
Not a vintage Dutch team. But then neither was the 2010 side.
There have been some hefty wagers on Netherlands to lift the trophy. When did they stop being Holland btw?
'Holland' is an informal and not-technically-correct name for the Netherlands - technically Holland is just two of the 12 regions, albeit two of the most populous ones, containing Amsterdam, Rotterdam and the Hague.
cf (a bit) foreigners using 'England' as shorthand for the UK.
Funny thing is the official Netherlands tourist website uses Holland as its name.
I remember when he used to be of moderate voice of common sense and was quite a favourite on PB as the bloke a lot of people would vote for regardless of party....
Please STFU about Qatar. You have no idea how nauseatingly neo-colonial your virtue-signals sound
None of you forced-jab supporting, baby-injecting, lockdown-loving, mask-mandating, science-denying transhumanist cheerleaders for globalist technocrats have ANY moral authority.
You election-interfering, Hunter-Biden laptop denying, Ukraine war-mongering, money-laundering, media-slaving hypocrites.
You have no idea how nauseatingly neo-colonial your virtue-signals sound
None of you forced-jab supporting, baby-injecting, lockdown-loving, mask-mandating, science-denying transhumanist cheerleaders for globalist technocrats have ANY moral authority.
You election-interfering, Hunter-Biden laptop denying, Ukraine war-mongering, money-laundering, media-slaving hypocrites.
I remember when he used to be of moderate voice of common sense and was quite a favourite on PB as the bloke a lot of people would vote for regardless of party....
Comments
There was simply no one left to respond to their concerns.
Which is fine, as long as the VAR is "recommending" reviews consistently. Today that didn't happen.
Cricket's umpire's call doesn't exist on run outs and stumpings.
USA, I'm not sure. In theory, Mexico have all the ingredients too and yet have never made it. Based on demographics alone, it ought to be one of Egypt or Nigeria that break out, but they've not even made it to this one.
If we're talking about a 9th nation to win, I'd guess Netherlands are probably the most consistently strong side not to win it so far.
https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1594408064337301504
Yes people would still complain, but it would take VAR back towards the obvious offsides and errors it was meant to fix.
Of course now we are moving to this semi-automatic system offside system.
What if the player turns out to be 15.1cm offside? Or 14.9cm? It's a line decision - allowing a margin for error simply moves the line. That the line is determined by a player's position on the pitch rather than a line on the grass is irrelevant.
You talk about "obvious offsides" but a player who is 1cm offside is obviously offside!
Where do you want to move it to?
But we couldn't even get it working. The ad serving experience was completely broken. At first we couldn't login. We spend hours tracking down someone to turn off 2FA, because 2FA was broken. And then we when finally got in, it wouldn't take our money.
Eventually we gave up in frustration.
BTW that was the dullest 8 goal thriller I have seen for ages, and it felt like the agony would be never ending.
If you're out of your ground by a millimetre, you're out of your ground and out.
This is a fucking world cup. Five billion people would love tickets for any game. Stupid greedy FIFA
There are two classes of decision:
(1) Line decisions. Objective. Either you are or you aren't. Offside in football, run out in cricket. No "umpire's call", no "clear and obvious" test.
(2) Other decisions. Subjective. Ref/umpire's opinion. "Clear and obvious" test.
On the other side, some potential pre-Columbian contact between Polynesians and the Pacific coast of South America is plausible (the sweet potato question) but not proven.
Not as far, but going back much further there was supposedly a (pretty ropey) Phoenician find in the Azores. Not impossible given they almost certainly did circumnavigate Africa.
I agree on Stamp Duty - I support the Progressive Property Tax, which would replace Council Tax with an approx 0.5% capital levy on property and include abolition of Stamp Duty. Despite the liability transferring to LL, which will make it more difficult for Ts on certain benefits.
I would never take a "pay every six months" tenant without the full gamut of normal checks.
It was one who offered 6 months payment in advance who was the only time a member of my family has had their fingers burnt, against my advice. Never paid any more rent, and it was the only time we had to evict through the courts. T turned out to be what is known as a 'rogue tenant' who had done it before, and was a hoarder who left the French Window ajar 24-7 for the unauthorised cat, and when they left there were skips full of rubbish including a kitchen stacked high with rotting food.
Given that eviction now takes months and months and months due to legal process delays, and could always take up to 5-6 months if eg a Council were compelling T to exercise all their rights until the Bailiffs Arrived, safety is the basic rule.
The time to have dodged Stamp Duty was during the COVID suspension, as done by iirc George Osborne.
If a linesman could not reasonably be expected to detect a 5cm knee or whatever over the line then refs call.
Not perfect, but better.
But given his hinterland, I am told his appointment is causing the ERG to “massively kick off”. https://twitter.com/christiancalgie/status/1594714251230605313
Here's an interesting appointment - former Remain campaigner for 'Our Future Our Choice' Will Dry has joined No. 10 as a SpAd 👀
https://twitter.com/christiancalgie/status/1594714251230605313
The commentators were mentioning how comfortable England were as a team and playing their system, so Southgate could be loathe to break that when he has players that are used to it and have well slotted in.
Actually, Bahrain looks even grimmer.
Rishi Sunak also overtakes Keir Starmer – slightly – as most capable PM and as having what it takes to be a good PM. Starmer was ahead of Truss and Johnson earlier this year, but now he is actually in office Sunak’s ratings have improved compared to July leadership contest. 2/6
https://twitter.com/gideonskinner/status/1594730705367465987
https://twitter.com/GrantWahl/status/1594721724746338305?s=20&t=qd2HEMKNCG1G-tCR--G9Rw
Seems very harsh, nice colourful t-shirt....now that flat cap, different matter.
Senegal are showing that it is hard to break these teams down, which puts England's display in context. That was a truly excellent performance by England
Just not legally.
Iran, had one guy who plays for Porto and highly rated, the rest play very low level of football e.g. one bloke who couldn't even make it at Reading.
It just means they haven't got enough fans to fill the stadium. Ridiculous. Almost anywhere else on earth those seats would be filled and then some
cf (a bit) foreigners using 'England' as shorthand for the UK.
Though, I imagine having to mark Sterling, Mount, Aubameyang, Pulisic etc, day in day out in training, if you weren't good before, you better get good quick.....where as playing Al Ahli (made up of 90% Qatar players) or Persepolis, not so much.
They also move round quite a bit. They've never been a definitive list of teams in order of quality, and in absolute fairness to FIFA (sick-in-mouth) it's the media who present them as such. They do matter for seedings and whatnot, but that's it really.
If we were to back to the 'loveliest counties' list from over the summer: I would suggest even before the oppressive regime is considered, there is not one British county less lovely than Qatar. Not even Caithness.
Our trading situation is not going to improve significantly until the Conservatives are out of office.
Why would you invest in closed off, self-harming economy like the UK?
With luck, several members of the winning side will all come out as gay at the trophy ceremony and thus set fire to the whole bloody thing. I mean, that clearly won't happen, but it would be very funny.
With all but handful of votes counted in Alaska, for 1st preference in RCV race for state's single at-large seat in US House:
Mary Peltola* (D) 127,364 48.7%
Sarah Palin (R) 67,485 25.8%
Nick Begich (R) 61,179 23.4%
Chris Bye (L) 4,521 1.7%
write ins 1,077 +0.4%
Total reported 261,626
And here is map showing 1st-preference results by state senate district:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2022_United_States_House_of_Representatives_general_election_in_Alaska_by_State_House_district.svg
Based on above numbers & mapping:
> Hard to see how Mary Peltola can avoid winning; she's already close to majority, and will only need a small share of transfers from eliminated hopefuls to go over the top: from writeins; then from Bye; finally and decisively from Begich.
> Map shows MP winning absolute majorities in Anchorage and much of southeast Alaska as well as in the Bush, where Native vote is concentrated
> Also shows Begich winning zero districts (unlike in August special election for US House) clearly much of his summer 1st preferences migrated to Peltola this election.
> According to map, only areas where Palin is ahead in 1st prefs (but in no district by majority) is exurban Anchorage plus Matanuska Valley (SP's home turf).
Conclusion - Mary Peltola will prevail, thanks once again to her own strengths as a person & candidate, outside economic & political forces, AND - last but hardly least - to the toxic candidacy of Sarah Palin, as magnified (and yet diminished) by the impact of Donald Trump.
https://www.holland.com/global/tourism.htm
Please STFU about Qatar. You have no idea how nauseatingly neo-colonial your virtue-signals sound
None of you forced-jab supporting, baby-injecting, lockdown-loving, mask-mandating, science-denying transhumanist cheerleaders for globalist technocrats have ANY moral authority.
You election-interfering, Hunter-Biden laptop denying, Ukraine war-mongering, money-laundering, media-slaving hypocrites.
https://twitter.com/MaajidNawaz/status/1594713923294531588
Westminster Voting Intention (20 Nov.):
Labour 49% (+1)
Conservative 28% (+1)
Liberal Democrat 9% (-1)
Reform UK 5% (–)
Green 4% (–)
SNP 4% (-1)
Other 2% (+1)
Changes +/- 16-17 Nov.
https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voting-intention-20-november-2022/ https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1594737537792212995/photo/1