politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Surely Douglas Carswell can’t remain in UKIP for much longer,

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Surely Douglas Carswell can’t remain in UKIP for much longer, can he?

Happy Christmas @DouglasCarswell https://t.co/qUTwE7dijS pic.twitter.com/VgEKHgwmAu

Read the full story here

Ishmael_Z

1. The next POTUS will be elected by AV.* Can't believe we haven't had a thread about this.

2. Ennoble Farage NOW! The mindset of the average UKIP voter is a mystery beyond understanding but I cannot believe that a substantial minority are farageistes who would follow him into the arms of Mrs May if she showed him favour.

* OK, partly by AV.

surbiton

Why not ?

AnneJGP

As soon as I hit 'Post Comment' for the first time on an established thread, another thread is published. It happens so often, I strongly suspect cause & effect.

So for the second time, good afternoon, everyone.

Morris_Dancer

Good afternoon, Miss JGP.

Pulpstar

He can, and he will.

isam

Well it is definitely right to highlight the absurdity of a party getting 12.6% of the votes in a GE and 0.15% of the seats. Labour beat UKIP 2.4-1 on votes and 232-1 on seats!!

As for Carswell, I find it hard to care. Farage is right that he doesn't seem to belong in UKIP. My own personal experience is that I campaigned for him in the Clacton By Election of October 14, canvassing in Jaywick. Jaywick is a place like no other I have seen. People walking around in the daytime drinking cheap cider,homes that are no more than crummy holiday chalets, cats and dogs everywhere, the roads crumbling. Farage had us all (I canvassed w Suzanne Evans, Farage was knocking on doors too) in the worst parts of town, as these voters were crucial (should've been in Heywood and Middleton in hindsight!)

I wrote to Douglas expressing the concerns from many residents I spoke with and he didn't reply except for an automatic email acknowledging receipt.

In the same Constituency is Frinton, with its million pound art deco seafront homes where many residents are on first name terms with him.. its fair to say Carswell is more comfortable expanding ideological theories than getting any thing practical done for his constituents.

I then wrote to him concerning FOBTs in Betting shops (I think I reproduced the letter on here) asking him to raise the issue in Parliament especially as it affects the poorest in society more than any other. Again no response.

Contrast this with Labour's Jon Cruddas, who I wrote to last month regarding High Speed Trains stopping at Rainham, Essex to provide a link (there is none) between Essex and Kent.. a positive reply within an hour. I really hope something gets done regarding that.. one for @Sunil_Prasannan

Philip_Thompson

Seems rather weird to see AV suggested as a more proportional voting system. The Australian Green Party won nearly 9% of the vote and got just 1 seat. The two parties (counting the Coalition as one party which it effectively is) took nearly 97% of the seats on nearly 77% of the vote.

Sandpit

Question to which the answer is no, Carswell is probably heading back to the Tories some time soon. Maybe he resigns from UKIP early next year, but doesn't rejoin the Tories until 2020, to avoid a messy by-election?

Another point not mentioned is the Short Money, which only goes to UKIP because Carswell is elected as a UKIP MP. He annoyed Farage by only claiming half the money to which they were entitled, but it's still north of £300k they'd lose as a party if Carswell resigns from the party.

Philip_Thompson

Why does Carswell's poster pledge "More GPS"?

Sat Nav systems have made things simpler but I'm not sure how more of them is for a candidate to Parliament to work on ...

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Sandpit, not sure I'd take him back. Sends the message that you can defect to a party that could've posed an existential threat to the Conservatives but that if it doesn't work out, you can just come back home.

If a vassal rebels against his lord, and the lord shows him mercy, then all his vassals may rebel. If they win, they gain power, if they are defeated, they lose nothing.

Morris_Dancer

Small digression: would teeth splintering read awkwardly? (Think medieval fight, getting an armoured elbow in the face). Could always make them shatter instead.

ThreeQuidder

Philip_Thompson said:

Seems rather weird to see AV suggested as a more proportional voting system. The Australian Green Party won nearly 9% of the vote and got just 1 seat. The two parties (counting the Coalition as one party which it effectively is) took nearly 97% of the seats on nearly 77% of the vote.

AV favours third parties when the more liked of the two main parties is also the more disliked. When the more liked is the less disliked, it promotes bigger landslides.

Sandpit

Philip_Thompson said:

Why does Carswell's poster pledge "More GPS"?

Sat Nav systems have made things simpler but I'm not sure how more of them is for a candidate to Parliament to work on ...

I was thinking the same. I guess he was campaigning for more General Practitioners (which I'd write as GPs) rather than more satnavs, but proofreading of literature hasn't proven to be UKIP's strong point in recent times.

TheScreamingEagles

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Sandpit, not sure I'd take him back. Sends the message that you can defect to a party that could've posed an existential threat to the Conservatives but that if it doesn't work out, you can just come back home.

If a vassal rebels against his lord, and the lord shows him mercy, then all his vassals may rebel. If they win, they gain power, if they are defeated, they lose nothing.

Sir Winston Churchill says hello.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Eagles, I thought Churchill went Con, Lib, Con, rather than Con, UKIP, Con.

PlatoSaid

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, I thought Churchill went Con, Lib, Con, rather than Con, UKIP, Con.

I like splintering - it's more graphic

Sandpit

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Sandpit, not sure I'd take him back. Sends the message that you can defect to a party that could've posed an existential threat to the Conservatives but that if it doesn't work out, you can just come back home.

If a vassal rebels against his lord, and the lord shows him mercy, then all his vassals may rebel. If they win, they gain power, if they are defeated, they lose nothing.

Nah, the govt have a majority of ten, they'll be more than happy to welcome any defectors.

Hello John Woodcock in Barrow. *waves*

MarqueeMark

The loss of Short money followed by the loss of MEPs and their income stream in 2018 would be a huge blow to UKIP ahead of an election within 2 years.

tpfkar

FPTP sucks.

That is all!

Sunil_Prasannan

More GPS! Useful for orienteering, sailing and rallying

Philip_Thompson

ThreeQuidder said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Seems rather weird to see AV suggested as a more proportional voting system. The Australian Green Party won nearly 9% of the vote and got just 1 seat. The two parties (counting the Coalition as one party which it effectively is) took nearly 97% of the seats on nearly 77% of the vote.

AV favours third parties when the more liked of the two main parties is also the more disliked. When the more liked is the less disliked, it promotes bigger landslides.

I can't think of any AV nation with a more electorally successful third party than in the FPTP UK or FPTP Canada have had for decades now.

another_richard

Surely there is no chance of Carswell leaving UKIP as long as he knows his membership so aggravates Farage ?

isam

another_richard said:

Surely there is no chance of Carswell leaving UKIP as long as he knows his membership so aggravates Farage ?

He probably knows that if he leaves, Arron Banks will start funding them again

JosiasJessop

Philip_Thompson said:

Why does Carswell's poster pledge "More GPS"?

Sat Nav systems have made things simpler but I'm not sure how more of them is for a candidate to Parliament to work on ...

That's the way I read it as well.

Since the alternatives to the GPS system are the Russian GLONASS and EU Galileo systems, he should state which one he wishes to use in addition ...

TheScreamingEagles

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, I thought Churchill went Con, Lib, Con, rather than Con, UKIP, Con.

It'll be fine, whilst the Tory majority is what it is, defectors to the Tory party will be welcome.

Plus defections are hyped up by the media, most people accept defections as a normal occurrence in politics, see for example the calm and sanguine reaction of myself and many other Tories to Mark Reckless defecting to UKIP.

Artist

He's stuck. It'd be ridiculous to trigger a by-election for a second time in three years. He could leave UKIP and stay as an independent MP but it'd almost certainly mean he'd be defeated at the next election. His best hope of staying as an MP would be to switch to the Tories in Jan/Feb 2020.

Sunil_Prasannan

2011 UK referendum:

No 2 AV 68%
Yes 2 AV 32%

Morris_Dancer

Miss Plato, thanks, that was my feeling too.

oldpolitics

UKIP of course can't "start supporting AV", because they already supported it at the referendum, where it was rejected by a landslide.

That aside, the illusion of proportionality created by AV is simply the result of a bonus to vanilla parties and a penalty to marmite parties. From a tactical perspective, parties like UKIP should want pure PR or PR-driven AMS, not AV at all.

STV would probably see them right in large enough constituencies - "England's historic and patriotic shires" would probably be the appropriate geography, albeit that they vary appreciable in population.

dr_spyn

Set the teeth shattering to music.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZwuTo7zKM8

Ishmael_Z

JosiasJessop said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Why does Carswell's poster pledge "More GPS"?

Sat Nav systems have made things simpler but I'm not sure how more of them is for a candidate to Parliament to work on ...

That's the way I read it as well.

Since the alternatives to the GPS system are the Russian GLONASS and EU Galileo systems, he should state which one he wishes to use in addition ...

Well, this is the party that believes that "Brexit mean's BREXIT."

I think the slogan Nigel is obscuring says "Vote for a change" but it might say "Vote, for a change" -a different but equally sensible message. Tricky business, typography.

Essexit

Carswell would need to consider Clacton's reaction if he returned to the Conservatives. He could be vulnerable to a true Ukip candidate in 2020. If he becomes an independent, it would be easier to keep portraying himself as a local champion.

DecrepitJohnL

Theresa May should offer Carswell a peerage and expect to win the byelection for the Tories.

Majority up by 2 and no more Short money to Ukip.

Morris_Dancer

Dr. Spyn, there shall be no bowel-unplugging in my writing.

SouthamObserver

QWTAIWGAF

Question where the answer is who gives a f***

TheScreamingEagles

I've just backed Liverpool to win Six One against Stoke at 90/1

Wish me luck.

RobD

Ishmael_Z said:

1. The next POTUS will be elected by AV.* Can't believe we haven't had a thread about this.

2. Ennoble Farage NOW! The mindset of the average UKIP voter is a mystery beyond understanding but I cannot believe that a substantial minority are farageistes who would follow him into the arms of Mrs May if she showed him favour.

* OK, partly by AV.

They are changing the voting system for 2020, or is that a comment on the electoral college? I wouldn't call it AV.

JonnyJimmy

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've just backed Liverpool to win Six One against Stoke at 90/1

Wish me luck.

Did you just watch this? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v9IAXSUGt3k

TheScreamingEagles

JonnyJimmy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've just backed Liverpool to win Six One against Stoke at 90/1

Wish me luck.

Did you just watch this? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v9IAXSUGt3k

No, I'm still traumatised by that.

I was more thinking of a previous occasion when Liverpool played Stoke at home on/close to Boxing Day

TheScreamingEagles

Also on Stoke to win at 9/1 and Jordan Henderson as FGS at 14/1

Thank heavens for a load of free bets from Bet Victor corporate hospitality.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Eagles, good luck.

Although you really should be sacrificing a goat to some manner of Greek deity, if you really want to win. Perhaps Nike?

JonnyJimmy

TheScreamingEagles said:

JonnyJimmy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've just backed Liverpool to win Six One against Stoke at 90/1

Wish me luck.

Did you just watch this? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v9IAXSUGt3k

No, I'm still traumatised by that.

I was more thinking of a previous occasion when Liverpool played Stoke at home on/close to Boxing Day

66 goals in 10 games!

Essexit

Farage looks like a manlet in that photo.

Ishmael_Z

RobD said:

Ishmael_Z said:

1. The next POTUS will be elected by AV.* Can't believe we haven't had a thread about this.

2. Ennoble Farage NOW! The mindset of the average UKIP voter is a mystery beyond understanding but I cannot believe that a substantial minority are farageistes who would follow him into the arms of Mrs May if she showed him favour.

* OK, partly by AV.

They are changing the voting system for 2020, or is that a comment on the electoral college? I wouldn't call it AV.

No, just Maine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine_referendums,_2016

TheScreamingEagles

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, good luck.

Although you really should be sacrificing a goat to some manner of Greek deity, if you really want to win. Perhaps Nike?

I'm thinking of sacrificing a goat to the Greek God Adidas.

I'll get my coat.

TheScreamingEagles

JonnyJimmy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JonnyJimmy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've just backed Liverpool to win Six One against Stoke at 90/1

Wish me luck.

Did you just watch this? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v9IAXSUGt3k

No, I'm still traumatised by that.

I was more thinking of a previous occasion when Liverpool played Stoke at home on/close to Boxing Day

66 goals in 10 games!

You'd hate to be the Match Of The Day editor trying sort out the running order that night.

Sandpit

TheScreamingEagles said:

Also on Stoke to win at 9/1 and Jordan Henderson as FGS at 14/1

Thank heavens for a load of free bets from Bet Victor corporate hospitality.

If you're at Anfield then there's definitely value in that 9/1!

RobD

Ishmael_Z said:

RobD said:

Ishmael_Z said:

1. The next POTUS will be elected by AV.* Can't believe we haven't had a thread about this.

2. Ennoble Farage NOW! The mindset of the average UKIP voter is a mystery beyond understanding but I cannot believe that a substantial minority are farageistes who would follow him into the arms of Mrs May if she showed him favour.

* OK, partly by AV.

They are changing the voting system for 2020, or is that a comment on the electoral college? I wouldn't call it AV.

No, just Maine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine_referendums,_2016

Isn't it just for state-wide elections, rather than the presidential?

dr_spyn

Just been looking for details of that Man U game, only to discover that 2 days later, United hit 5 against Burnley at Old Trafford.

isam

TheScreamingEagles said:

Also on Stoke to win at 9/1 and Jordan Henderson as FGS at 14/1

Thank heavens for a load of free bets from Bet Victor corporate hospitality.

Henderson 37/1 on Betfair

TheScreamingEagles

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Also on Stoke to win at 9/1 and Jordan Henderson as FGS at 14/1

Thank heavens for a load of free bets from Bet Victor corporate hospitality.

If you're at Anfield then there's definitely value in that 9/1!

Yup.

Really regret not taking up the 50/1 Bet Victor were offering at the start of the season on Liverpool winning the Premier League.

Bet Victor since they've become a Liverpool sponsor offer some great/enhanced bets on Liverpool as well as complimentary bets too.

Ishmael_Z

RobD said:

Ishmael_Z said:

RobD said:

Ishmael_Z said:

1. The next POTUS will be elected by AV.* Can't believe we haven't had a thread about this.

2. Ennoble Farage NOW! The mindset of the average UKIP voter is a mystery beyond understanding but I cannot believe that a substantial minority are farageistes who would follow him into the arms of Mrs May if she showed him favour.

* OK, partly by AV.

They are changing the voting system for 2020, or is that a comment on the electoral college? I wouldn't call it AV.

No, just Maine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine_referendums,_2016

Isn't it just for state-wide elections, rather than the presidential?

Ah yes you seem to be right. The actual question was "Do you want to allow voters to rank their choices of candidates in elections for U.S. Senate, Congress, Governor, State Senate, and State Representative, and to have ballots counted at the state level in multiple rounds in which last-place candidates are eliminated until a candidate wins by majority?"

tlg86

Cassetteboy's take on Brexit:

http://tinyurl.com/j2d9u3r

isam

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Also on Stoke to win at 9/1 and Jordan Henderson as FGS at 14/1

Thank heavens for a load of free bets from Bet Victor corporate hospitality.

If you're at Anfield then there's definitely value in that 9/1!

10/1 Betfair

Sandpit

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Also on Stoke to win at 9/1 and Jordan Henderson as FGS at 14/1

Thank heavens for a load of free bets from Bet Victor corporate hospitality.

If you're at Anfield then there's definitely value in that 9/1!

Yup.

Really regret not taking up the 50/1 Bet Victor were offering at the start of the season on Liverpool winning the Premier League.

Bet Victor since they've become a Liverpool sponsor offer some great/enhanced bets on Liverpool as well as complimentary bets too.

But almost every time you're at Anfield we don't get the points - if you want us to win the league then you really need to stop going there!

OldKingCole

Sandpit said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Why does Carswell's poster pledge "More GPS"?

Sat Nav systems have made things simpler but I'm not sure how more of them is for a candidate to Parliament to work on ...

I was thinking the same. I guess he was campaigning for more General Practitioners (which I'd write as GPs) rather than more satnavs, but proofreading of literature hasn't proven to be UKIP's strong point in recent times.

Boring post. There is a severe problem with enough GP’s (and other health professionals) in parts of the Clacton area for reasons which Mr Isam graphically and accurately describes. There is also a general shortage of GP’s in Essex, possibly associated with the county’s unjustified poor public image.

Sandpit

isam said:

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Also on Stoke to win at 9/1 and Jordan Henderson as FGS at 14/1

Thank heavens for a load of free bets from Bet Victor corporate hospitality.

If you're at Anfield then there's definitely value in that 9/1!

10/1 Betfair

Thanks! If Mr Eagles is watching live there's always value to be had in backing the away team!

OldKingCole

Ishmael_Z said:

RobD said:

Ishmael_Z said:

RobD said:

Ishmael_Z said:

1. The next POTUS will be elected by AV.* Can't believe we haven't had a thread about this.

2. Ennoble Farage NOW! The mindset of the average UKIP voter is a mystery beyond understanding but I cannot believe that a substantial minority are farageistes who would follow him into the arms of Mrs May if she showed him favour.

* OK, partly by AV.

They are changing the voting system for 2020, or is that a comment on the electoral college? I wouldn't call it AV.

No, just Maine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine_referendums,_2016

Isn't it just for state-wide elections, rather than the presidential?

Ah yes you seem to be right. The actual question was "Do you want to allow voters to rank their choices of candidates in elections for U.S. Senate, Congress, Governor, State Senate, and State Representative, and to have ballots counted at the state level in multiple rounds in which last-place candidates are eliminated until a candidate wins by majority?"

Surely a question to which the answer is “You what”?

rcs1000

JonnyJimmy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JonnyJimmy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've just backed Liverpool to win Six One against Stoke at 90/1

Wish me luck.

Did you just watch this? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v9IAXSUGt3k

No, I'm still traumatised by that.

I was more thinking of a previous occasion when Liverpool played Stoke at home on/close to Boxing Day

66 goals in 10 games!

Were there simply a lot more goals per game 55 years ago?

Sandpit

Eagles, what did I say?

Liverpool 0-1 Stoke.

tlg86

rcs1000 said:

JonnyJimmy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JonnyJimmy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've just backed Liverpool to win Six One against Stoke at 90/1

Wish me luck.

Did you just watch this? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v9IAXSUGt3k

No, I'm still traumatised by that.

I was more thinking of a previous occasion when Liverpool played Stoke at home on/close to Boxing Day

66 goals in 10 games!

Were there simply a lot more goals per game 55 years ago?

3.4 goals per game in 63-64, so yes. The most dramatic change in goal scoring came with the change in the offside law prior to the 1925-26 season. In 1924-25, games in the top flight averaged 2.58 goals per game. The following season that increased to 3.69. It took some time for managers to adapt to the new rule that meant that you only had to be level with two opponents rather than three.

Morris_Dancer

Cristina Fernandez, former Argentine president, has been charged over corruption:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-38443546

Most awfully bad luck.

TOPPING

Sandpit said:

Eagles, what did I say?

Liverpool 0-1 Stoke.

Set up nicely for Liverpool to score the remaining six to bring in @TSE's bet.

JonnyJimmy

tlg86 said:

rcs1000 said:

JonnyJimmy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JonnyJimmy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've just backed Liverpool to win Six One against Stoke at 90/1

Wish me luck.

Did you just watch this? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v9IAXSUGt3k

No, I'm still traumatised by that.

I was more thinking of a previous occasion when Liverpool played Stoke at home on/close to Boxing Day

66 goals in 10 games!

Were there simply a lot more goals per game 55 years ago?

3.4 goals per game in 63-64, so yes. The most dramatic change in goal scoring came with the change in the offside law prior to the 1925-26 season. In 1924-25, games in the top flight averaged 2.58 goals per game. The following season that increased to 3.69. It took some time for managers to adapt to the new rule that meant that you only had to be level with two opponents rather than three.

Premier league average is 2.64 goals/game over 25 years; the highest in one season was 2.81

SquareRoot

Farage is the one to leave , his recent comments have been disgraceful. Carswell is an odd cove, I doubt he "fits" anywhere.

isam

rcs1000 said:

JonnyJimmy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JonnyJimmy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've just backed Liverpool to win Six One against Stoke at 90/1

Wish me luck.

Did you just watch this? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v9IAXSUGt3k

No, I'm still traumatised by that.

I was more thinking of a previous occasion when Liverpool played Stoke at home on/close to Boxing Day

66 goals in 10 games!

Were there simply a lot more goals per game 55 years ago?

Just slightly!

williamglenn

Morris_Dancer said:

Cristina Fernandez, former Argentine president, has been charged over corruption:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-38443546

Most awfully bad luck.

Cameron's most successful negotiation was when he refused to take her file.

TOPPING

tlg86 said:

rcs1000 said:

JonnyJimmy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JonnyJimmy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've just backed Liverpool to win Six One against Stoke at 90/1

Wish me luck.

Did you just watch this? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v9IAXSUGt3k

No, I'm still traumatised by that.

I was more thinking of a previous occasion when Liverpool played Stoke at home on/close to Boxing Day

66 goals in 10 games!

Were there simply a lot more goals per game 55 years ago?

3.4 goals per game in 63-64, so yes. The most dramatic change in goal scoring came with the change in the offside law prior to the 1925-26 season. In 1924-25, games in the top flight averaged 2.58 goals per game. The following season that increased to 3.69. It took some time for managers to adapt to the new rule that meant that you only had to be level with two opponents rather than three.

And, for any martians lurking, or for the Wykeham Professor of Logic for that matter, can you please explain it as it is now?

peter_from_putney

FPT

MarqueeMark Posts: 11,223
3:02PM
peter_from_putney said:
» show previous quotes
FWIW, Hidden Figures is best-priced to win the 2017 Best Picture Oscar, at 66/1 with Bet365 and SkyBet, where it appears about 14th down Oddschecker's very long list of candidates.

To be fair, Peter, there are plenty of "worthy" films being touted and the biggest favourite is the feel good musical La La Land. But if Herself is any wider indicator of the voters, she thinks that Hidden Figures is up there. If it gets a good campaign behind it....

Thanks for that MM. Although I have very limited knowledge of such things, I've noticed that in past years the early favourite (or indeed favourites) quite often doesn't make it on the night.
I reckon that at these sort of odds (66/1) it has to be worth the price of a pint, if only for the fun factor. After all, should it mount any sort of a challenge nearer the event, it should be possible to lay this off profitably with Betfair. PBers should DYOR.

tlg86

TOPPING said:

tlg86 said:

rcs1000 said:

JonnyJimmy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JonnyJimmy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've just backed Liverpool to win Six One against Stoke at 90/1

Wish me luck.

Did you just watch this? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v9IAXSUGt3k

No, I'm still traumatised by that.

I was more thinking of a previous occasion when Liverpool played Stoke at home on/close to Boxing Day

66 goals in 10 games!

Were there simply a lot more goals per game 55 years ago?

3.4 goals per game in 63-64, so yes. The most dramatic change in goal scoring came with the change in the offside law prior to the 1925-26 season. In 1924-25, games in the top flight averaged 2.58 goals per game. The following season that increased to 3.69. It took some time for managers to adapt to the new rule that meant that you only had to be level with two opponents rather than three.

And, for any martians lurking, or for the Wykeham Professor of Logic for that matter, can you please explain it as it is now?

As it was in 1925-26 except you can now, it appears, only be offside if you touch the ball. (See David Silva v Arsenal).

TOPPING

tlg86 said:

TOPPING said:

tlg86 said:

rcs1000 said:

JonnyJimmy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JonnyJimmy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've just backed Liverpool to win Six One against Stoke at 90/1

Wish me luck.

Did you just watch this? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v9IAXSUGt3k

No, I'm still traumatised by that.

I was more thinking of a previous occasion when Liverpool played Stoke at home on/close to Boxing Day

66 goals in 10 games!

Were there simply a lot more goals per game 55 years ago?

3.4 goals per game in 63-64, so yes. The most dramatic change in goal scoring came with the change in the offside law prior to the 1925-26 season. In 1924-25, games in the top flight averaged 2.58 goals per game. The following season that increased to 3.69. It took some time for managers to adapt to the new rule that meant that you only had to be level with two opponents rather than three.

And, for any martians lurking, or for the Wykeham Professor of Logic for that matter, can you please explain it as it is now?

As it was in 1925-26 except you can now, it appears, only be offside if you touch the ball. (See David Silva v Arsenal).

Thanks so to summarise it (without reference to previous rules)?

Sunil_Prasannan

At least West Ham are back to winning ways.

isam

TOPPING said:

tlg86 said:

TOPPING said:

tlg86 said:

rcs1000 said:

JonnyJimmy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JonnyJimmy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've just backed Liverpool to win Six One against Stoke at 90/1

Wish me luck.

Did you just watch this? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v9IAXSUGt3k

No, I'm still traumatised by that.

I was more thinking of a previous occasion when Liverpool played Stoke at home on/close to Boxing Day

66 goals in 10 games!

Were there simply a lot more goals per game 55 years ago?

3.4 goals per game in 63-64, so yes. The most dramatic change in goal scoring came with the change in the offside law prior to the 1925-26 season. In 1924-25, games in the top flight averaged 2.58 goals per game. The following season that increased to 3.69. It took some time for managers to adapt to the new rule that meant that you only had to be level with two opponents rather than three.

And, for any martians lurking, or for the Wykeham Professor of Logic for that matter, can you please explain it as it is now?

As it was in 1925-26 except you can now, it appears, only be offside if you touch the ball. (See David Silva v Arsenal).

Thanks so to summarise it (without reference to previous rules)?

Two or more defenders have to be between the furthest forward attacker and the goal line when the ball is passed forwards by the attacking team, else its offiside?

Sandpit

TOPPING said:

tlg86 said:

TOPPING said:

tlg86 said:

rcs1000 said:

JonnyJimmy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JonnyJimmy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've just backed Liverpool to win Six One against Stoke at 90/1

Wish me luck.

Did you just watch this? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v9IAXSUGt3k

No, I'm still traumatised by that.

I was more thinking of a previous occasion when Liverpool played Stoke at home on/close to Boxing Day

66 goals in 10 games!

Were there simply a lot more goals per game 55 years ago?

3.4 goals per game in 63-64, so yes. The most dramatic change in goal scoring came with the change in the offside law prior to the 1925-26 season. In 1924-25, games in the top flight averaged 2.58 goals per game. The following season that increased to 3.69. It took some time for managers to adapt to the new rule that meant that you only had to be level with two opponents rather than three.

And, for any martians lurking, or for the Wykeham Professor of Logic for that matter, can you please explain it as it is now?

As it was in 1925-26 except you can now, it appears, only be offside if you touch the ball. (See David Silva v Arsenal).

Thanks so to summarise it (without reference to previous rules)?

This is how I explained it to the missus

http://wellithoughtitwasfunny.blogspot.ae/2007/10/offside-rule-for-women.html

tlg86

TOPPING said:

tlg86 said:

TOPPING said:

tlg86 said:

rcs1000 said:

JonnyJimmy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JonnyJimmy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've just backed Liverpool to win Six One against Stoke at 90/1

Wish me luck.

Did you just watch this? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v9IAXSUGt3k

No, I'm still traumatised by that.

I was more thinking of a previous occasion when Liverpool played Stoke at home on/close to Boxing Day

66 goals in 10 games!

Were there simply a lot more goals per game 55 years ago?

3.4 goals per game in 63-64, so yes. The most dramatic change in goal scoring came with the change in the offside law prior to the 1925-26 season. In 1924-25, games in the top flight averaged 2.58 goals per game. The following season that increased to 3.69. It took some time for managers to adapt to the new rule that meant that you only had to be level with two opponents rather than three.

And, for any martians lurking, or for the Wykeham Professor of Logic for that matter, can you please explain it as it is now?

As it was in 1925-26 except you can now, it appears, only be offside if you touch the ball. (See David Silva v Arsenal).

Thanks so to summarise it (without reference to previous rules)?

When the ball is played, if you are in your opponents half, you have to be at least level (i.e. not closer to your opponents' goal line) with two opponents.

Sandpit

TOPPING said:

Sandpit said:

Eagles, what did I say?

Liverpool 0-1 Stoke.

Set up nicely for Liverpool to score the remaining six to bring in @TSE's bet.

One down, five to go!

Morris_Dancer

Meanwhile, in 'victory for democracy' news:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-38442443

Surprised the conspiracy failed given 40,000 people have been arrested for taking part in it.

tlg86

isam said:

TOPPING said:

tlg86 said:

TOPPING said:

tlg86 said:

rcs1000 said:

JonnyJimmy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JonnyJimmy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've just backed Liverpool to win Six One against Stoke at 90/1

Wish me luck.

Did you just watch this? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v9IAXSUGt3k

No, I'm still traumatised by that.

I was more thinking of a previous occasion when Liverpool played Stoke at home on/close to Boxing Day

66 goals in 10 games!

Were there simply a lot more goals per game 55 years ago?

3.4 goals per game in 63-64, so yes. The most dramatic change in goal scoring came with the change in the offside law prior to the 1925-26 season. In 1924-25, games in the top flight averaged 2.58 goals per game. The following season that increased to 3.69. It took some time for managers to adapt to the new rule that meant that you only had to be level with two opponents rather than three.

And, for any martians lurking, or for the Wykeham Professor of Logic for that matter, can you please explain it as it is now?

As it was in 1925-26 except you can now, it appears, only be offside if you touch the ball. (See David Silva v Arsenal).

Thanks so to summarise it (without reference to previous rules)?

Two or more defenders have to be between the furthest forward attacker and the goal line when the ball is passed forwards by the attacking team, else its offiside?

Yes, except the ball doesn't have to go forward.

Sunil_Prasannan

RIP Richard Adams, author of Watership Down

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-38446309

Speedy

Meanwhile in America, Die Hard is considered a Christmas movie because this is a typical american Christmas :
https://twitter.com/SalenaZito/status/813713062402334720

Ishmael_Z

Carrie Fisher dead, says radio 4.

isam

tlg86 said:

isam said:

TOPPING said:

tlg86 said:

TOPPING said:

tlg86 said:

rcs1000 said:

JonnyJimmy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JonnyJimmy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've just backed Liverpool to win Six One against Stoke at 90/1

Wish me luck.

Did you just watch this? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v9IAXSUGt3k

No, I'm still traumatised by that.

I was more thinking of a previous occasion when Liverpool played Stoke at home on/close to Boxing Day

66 goals in 10 games!

Were there simply a lot more goals per game 55 years ago?

3.4 goals per game in 63-64, so yes. The most dramatic change in goal scoring came with the change in the offside law prior to the 1925-26 season. In 1924-25, games in the top flight averaged 2.58 goals per game. The following season that increased to 3.69. It took some time for managers to adapt to the new rule that meant that you only had to be level with two opponents rather than three.

And, for any martians lurking, or for the Wykeham Professor of Logic for that matter, can you please explain it as it is now?

As it was in 1925-26 except you can now, it appears, only be offside if you touch the ball. (See David Silva v Arsenal).

Thanks so to summarise it (without reference to previous rules)?

Two or more defenders have to be between the furthest forward attacker and the goal line when the ball is passed forwards by the attacking team, else its offiside?

Yes, except the ball doesn't have to go forward.

Oh I put that because there doesn't have to be two defenders between etc etc if its played back!

Speedy

Ishmael_Z said:

Carrie Fisher dead, says radio 4.

How many Celebrities are still going to die in the 5 days left of 2016 ?

Speedy

Will this be the End of Star Wars ? (Or the beginning of the end ?)

When the lead actors of the franchise die it will definitely be a hit, and it was always a risk after 40 years of the same.

Malmesbury

Speedy said:

Meanwhile in America, Die Hard is considered a Christmas movie because this is a typical american Christmas :
https://twitter.com/SalenaZito/status/813713062402334720

The violence is restricted to certain areas - and to a rather small group of people. The members of the gangs number a few hundreds. Who have a life expectancy of a WWII infantry soldier. And earn less than minimum wage doing what they do.

The sad part is the innocent bystanders who catch stray bullets.

TOPPING

tlg86 said:

TOPPING said:

tlg86 said:

TOPPING said:

tlg86 said:

rcs1000 said:

JonnyJimmy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JonnyJimmy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've just backed Liverpool to win Six One against Stoke at 90/1

Wish me luck.

Did you just watch this? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v9IAXSUGt3k

No, I'm still traumatised by that.

I was more thinking of a previous occasion when Liverpool played Stoke at home on/close to Boxing Day

66 goals in 10 games!

Were there simply a lot more goals per game 55 years ago?

3.4 goals per game in 63-64, so yes. The most dramatic change in goal scoring came with the change in the offside law prior to the 1925-26 season. In 1924-25, games in the top flight averaged 2.58 goals per game. The following season that increased to 3.69. It took some time for managers to adapt to the new rule that meant that you only had to be level with two opponents rather than three.

And, for any martians lurking, or for the Wykeham Professor of Logic for that matter, can you please explain it as it is now?

As it was in 1925-26 except you can now, it appears, only be offside if you touch the ball. (See David Silva v Arsenal).

Thanks so to summarise it (without reference to previous rules)?

When the ball is played, if you are in your opponents half, you have to be at least level (i.e. not closer to your opponents' goal line) with two opponents.

One being the goalie?

MarqueeMark

Won't somebody take that fvcking scythe off that man??

Sandpit

Looks to be confirmed. How many entertainers is that this year?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/27/carrie-fisher-has-died-aged-60-daughter-confirms/

MikeK

Carrie Fisher, Richard Adams; 2016 is knocking them off like flies. It's as if the year must have a special quota. Really weird!

JonnyJimmy

isam said:

rcs1000 said:

JonnyJimmy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JonnyJimmy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've just backed Liverpool to win Six One against Stoke at 90/1

Wish me luck.

Did you just watch this? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v9IAXSUGt3k

No, I'm still traumatised by that.

I was more thinking of a previous occasion when Liverpool played Stoke at home on/close to Boxing Day

66 goals in 10 games!

Were there simply a lot more goals per game 55 years ago?

Just slightly!

Only for a few years though, average has been under 3/game since before the end of the 60s

TOPPING

isam said:

tlg86 said:

isam said:

TOPPING said:

tlg86 said:

TOPPING said:

tlg86 said:

rcs1000 said:

JonnyJimmy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JonnyJimmy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've just backed Liverpool to win Six One against Stoke at 90/1

Wish me luck.

Did you just watch this? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v9IAXSUGt3k

No, I'm still traumatised by that.

I was more thinking of a previous occasion when Liverpool played Stoke at home on/close to Boxing Day

66 goals in 10 games!

Were there simply a lot more goals per game 55 years ago?

3.4 goals per game in 63-64, so yes. The most dramatic change in goal scoring came with the change in the offside law prior to the 1925-26 season. In 1924-25, games in the top flight averaged 2.58 goals per game. The following season that increased to 3.69. It took some time for managers to adapt to the new rule that meant that you only had to be level with two opponents rather than three.

And, for any martians lurking, or for the Wykeham Professor of Logic for that matter, can you please explain it as it is now?

As it was in 1925-26 except you can now, it appears, only be offside if you touch the ball. (See David Silva v Arsenal).

Thanks so to summarise it (without reference to previous rules)?

Two or more defenders have to be between the furthest forward attacker and the goal line when the ball is passed forwards by the attacking team, else its offiside?

Yes, except the ball doesn't have to go forward.

Oh I put that because there doesn't have to be two defenders between etc etc if its played back!

Come on lads - a succinct summary of the whole rule so that someone who has no idea about it as it stands is able to understand it (such as myself).

Thanks - start from a blank piece of paper.

Sunil_Prasannan

OMG

RIP Carrie Fisher, dies aged 60 after her very recent cardiac arrest:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-38446753

RobD

Sad news, but not unexpected after the heart attack. I read she was not breathing on the flight for several minutes.

tlg86

isam said:

tlg86 said:

isam said:

TOPPING said:

tlg86 said:

TOPPING said:

tlg86 said:

rcs1000 said:

JonnyJimmy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JonnyJimmy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've just backed Liverpool to win Six One against Stoke at 90/1

Wish me luck.

Did you just watch this? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v9IAXSUGt3k

No, I'm still traumatised by that.

I was more thinking of a previous occasion when Liverpool played Stoke at home on/close to Boxing Day

66 goals in 10 games!

Were there simply a lot more goals per game 55 years ago?

3.4 goals per game in 63-64, so yes. The most dramatic change in goal scoring came with the change in the offside law prior to the 1925-26 season. In 1924-25, games in the top flight averaged 2.58 goals per game. The following season that increased to 3.69. It took some time for managers to adapt to the new rule that meant that you only had to be level with two opponents rather than three.

And, for any martians lurking, or for the Wykeham Professor of Logic for that matter, can you please explain it as it is now?

As it was in 1925-26 except you can now, it appears, only be offside if you touch the ball. (See David Silva v Arsenal).

Thanks so to summarise it (without reference to previous rules)?

Two or more defenders have to be between the furthest forward attacker and the goal line when the ball is passed forwards by the attacking team, else its offiside?

Yes, except the ball doesn't have to go forward.

Oh I put that because there doesn't have to be two defenders between etc etc if its played back!

We probably should have also said that if you're level with the ball you can't be offside.

It's rare, but a player is still offside if he runs back to get to a ball that's gone backwards. There was an interesting case in 2008 when Arsenal played Reading. Cesc and Van Persie were taking corners where RVP would pass it a few yards to Cesc who would trap it and then RVP would cross it. Reading had no one on the line so RVP was offside if you thought Cesc was playing the ball as soon as he received it. But the linesman let it go every time so presumably he thought Cesc wasn't playing it until the very last moment by which point RVP was onside.

SandyRentool

Can someone explain how the introduction of AV would affect the offside law?

TOPPING

Malmesbury said:

Speedy said:

Meanwhile in America, Die Hard is considered a Christmas movie because this is a typical american Christmas :
https://twitter.com/SalenaZito/status/813713062402334720

The violence is restricted to certain areas - and to a rather small group of people. The members of the gangs number a few hundreds. Who have a life expectancy of a WWII infantry soldier. And earn less than minimum wage doing what they do.

The sad part is the innocent bystanders who catch stray bullets.

When I was in an Illinois suburb once I was told, very matter-of-factly, that my idea of walking the twenty odd blocks to Michigan Avenue, would get me killed for certain as I passed through various stretches.

isam

TOPPING said:

isam said:

tlg86 said:

isam said:

TOPPING said:

tlg86 said:

TOPPING said:

tlg86 said:

rcs1000 said:

JonnyJimmy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JonnyJimmy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've just backed Liverpool to win Six One against Stoke at 90/1

Wish me luck.

Did you just watch this? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v9IAXSUGt3k

No, I'm still traumatised by that.

I was more thinking of a previous occasion when Liverpool played Stoke at home on/close to Boxing Day

66 goals in 10 games!

Were there simply a lot more goals per game 55 years ago?

3.4 goals per game in 63-64, so yes. The most dramatic change in goal scoring came with the change in the offside law prior to the 1925-26 season. In 1924-25, games in the top flight averaged 2.58 goals per game. The following season that increased to 3.69. It took some time for managers to adapt to the new rule that meant that you only had to be level with two opponents rather than three.

And, for any martians lurking, or for the Wykeham Professor of Logic for that matter, can you please explain it as it is now?

As it was in 1925-26 except you can now, it appears, only be offside if you touch the ball. (See David Silva v Arsenal).

Thanks so to summarise it (without reference to previous rules)?

Two or more defenders have to be between the furthest forward attacker and the goal line when the ball is passed forwards by the attacking team, else its offiside?

Yes, except the ball doesn't have to go forward.

Oh I put that because there doesn't have to be two defenders between etc etc if its played back!

Come on lads - a succinct summary of the whole rule so that someone who has no idea about it as it stands is able to understand it (such as myself).

Thanks - start from a blank piece of paper.

When he is in the opposition half, two or more defenders have to be level with or between the furthest forward attacker and their goal line when the ball is passed forwards by the attacking team, else its offside?

TOPPING

SandyRentool said:

Can someone explain how the introduction of AV would affect the offside law?

If the referee is behind Door A...

AnneJGP

TOPPING said:

isam said:

tlg86 said:

isam said:

TOPPING said:

tlg86 said:

TOPPING said:

tlg86 said:

rcs1000 said:

JonnyJimmy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JonnyJimmy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've just backed Liverpool to win Six One against Stoke at 90/1

Wish me luck.

Did you just watch this? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v9IAXSUGt3k

No, I'm still traumatised by that.

I was more thinking of a previous occasion when Liverpool played Stoke at home on/close to Boxing Day

66 goals in 10 games!

Were there simply a lot more goals per game 55 years ago?

3.4 goals per game in 63-64, so yes. The most dramatic change in goal scoring came with the change in the offside law prior to the 1925-26 season. In 1924-25, games in the top flight averaged 2.58 goals per game. The following season that increased to 3.69. It took some time for managers to adapt to the new rule that meant that you only had to be level with two opponents rather than three.

And, for any martians lurking, or for the Wykeham Professor of Logic for that matter, can you please explain it as it is now?

As it was in 1925-26 except you can now, it appears, only be offside if you touch the ball. (See David Silva v Arsenal).

Thanks so to summarise it (without reference to previous rules)?

Two or more defenders have to be between the furthest forward attacker and the goal line when the ball is passed forwards by the attacking team, else its offiside?

Yes, except the ball doesn't have to go forward.

Oh I put that because there doesn't have to be two defenders between etc etc if its played back!

Come on lads - a succinct summary of the whole rule so that someone who has no idea about it as it stands is able to understand it (such as myself).

Thanks - start from a blank piece of paper.

@Sandpit's link made it perfectly clear to this ignoramus.

tlg86

TOPPING said:

tlg86 said:

TOPPING said:

tlg86 said:

TOPPING said:

tlg86 said:

rcs1000 said:

JonnyJimmy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JonnyJimmy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've just backed Liverpool to win Six One against Stoke at 90/1

Wish me luck.

Did you just watch this? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v9IAXSUGt3k

No, I'm still traumatised by that.

I was more thinking of a previous occasion when Liverpool played Stoke at home on/close to Boxing Day

66 goals in 10 games!

Were there simply a lot more goals per game 55 years ago?

3.4 goals per game in 63-64, so yes. The most dramatic change in goal scoring came with the change in the offside law prior to the 1925-26 season. In 1924-25, games in the top flight averaged 2.58 goals per game. The following season that increased to 3.69. It took some time for managers to adapt to the new rule that meant that you only had to be level with two opponents rather than three.

And, for any martians lurking, or for the Wykeham Professor of Logic for that matter, can you please explain it as it is now?

As it was in 1925-26 except you can now, it appears, only be offside if you touch the ball. (See David Silva v Arsenal).

Thanks so to summarise it (without reference to previous rules)?

When the ball is played, if you are in your opponents half, you have to be at least level (i.e. not closer to your opponents' goal line) with two opponents.

One being the goalie?

That's right. Linesmen have to be careful, particularly with set pieces. It's very easy to see a defender on the line and assume that they are playing an attacker onside, but they're not if the goalkeeper is off his line. Basically it can be any two players, but one is usually the goalkeeper.