Skip to content

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

SystemSystem Posts: 12,682
edited December 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.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


«13

Comments

  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    edited December 2016
    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.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Why not ?
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 3,983
    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_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,893
    Good afternoon, Miss JGP.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,100
    He can, and he will.
  • isamisam Posts: 42,609
    edited December 2016
    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_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    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.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,896
    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_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    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_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,893
    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_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,893
    Small digression: would teeth splintering read awkwardly? (Think medieval fight, getting an armoured elbow in the face). Could always make them shatter instead.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    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.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,896
    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.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,760
    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_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,893
    Mr. Eagles, I thought Churchill went Con, Lib, Con, rather than Con, UKIP, Con.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Morris_Dancer said:

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

    I like splintering - it's more graphic
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,896
    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*
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,879
    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.
  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 1,579
    FPTP sucks.

    That is all!
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,908
    More GPS! Useful for orienteering, sailing and rallying :lol:
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    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_richardanother_richard Posts: 28,257
    Surely there is no chance of Carswell leaving UKIP as long as he knows his membership so aggravates Farage ?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 47,052
    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 ... ;)
  • isamisam Posts: 42,609
    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
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,760
    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.
  • ArtistArtist Posts: 1,894
    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_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,908
    2011 UK referendum:

    No 2 AV 68%
    Yes 2 AV 32%
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,893
    Miss Plato, thanks, that was my feeling too.
  • oldpoliticsoldpolitics Posts: 455
    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_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,338
    Set the teeth shattering to music.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZwuTo7zKM8
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    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.
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,966
    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.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    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_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,893
    Dr. Spyn, there shall be no bowel-unplugging in my writing.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    QWTAIWGAF

    Question where the answer is who gives a f***
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,760
    I've just backed Liverpool to win Six One against Stoke at 90/1

    Wish me luck.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,705
    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.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    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
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,760
    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

    image
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,760
    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_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,893
    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?
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    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

    image
    66 goals in 10 games!
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,966
    Farage looks like a manlet in that photo.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    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
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,760
    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.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,760
    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

    image
    66 goals in 10 games!
    You'd hate to be the Match Of The Day editor trying sort out the running order that night.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,896
    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!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,705
    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_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,338
    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.
  • isamisam Posts: 42,609
    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
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,760
    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_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    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?"
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,216
    Cassetteboy's take on Brexit:

    http://tinyurl.com/j2d9u3r
  • isamisam Posts: 42,609
    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
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,896
    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! ;)
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,693
    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.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,896
    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!
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,693
    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”?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,397
    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

    image
    66 goals in 10 games!
    Were there simply a lot more goals per game 55 years ago?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,896
    Eagles, what did I say?

    Liverpool 0-1 Stoke.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,216
    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

    image
    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_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,893
    Cristina Fernandez, former Argentine president, has been charged over corruption:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-38443546

    Most awfully bad luck.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,317
    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.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    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

    image
    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
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    Farage is the one to leave , his recent comments have been disgraceful. Carswell is an odd cove, I doubt he "fits" anywhere.
  • isamisam Posts: 42,609
    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

    image
    66 goals in 10 games!
    Were there simply a lot more goals per game 55 years ago?
    Just slightly!
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    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.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,317
    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

    image
    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_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    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.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,216
    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

    image
    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).
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,317
    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

    image
    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_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,908
    At least West Ham are back to winning ways.
  • isamisam Posts: 42,609
    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

    image
    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?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,896
    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

    image
    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

    ;)
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,216
    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

    image
    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.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,896
    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_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,893
    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.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,216
    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

    image
    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_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,908
    RIP Richard Adams, author of Watership Down

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-38446309
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited December 2016
    Meanwhile in America, Die Hard is considered a Christmas movie because this is a typical american Christmas :
    https://twitter.com/SalenaZito/status/813713062402334720
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Carrie Fisher dead, says radio 4.
  • isamisam Posts: 42,609
    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

    image
    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!
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Carrie Fisher dead, says radio 4.

    How many Celebrities are still going to die in the 5 days left of 2016 ?
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited December 2016
    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.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 56,925
    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.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,317
    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

    image
    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?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,879
    Won't somebody take that fvcking scythe off that man??
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,896
    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/
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Carrie Fisher, Richard Adams; 2016 is knocking them off like flies. It's as if the year must have a special quota. Really weird!
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    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

    image
    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
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,317
    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

    image
    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_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,908
    OMG

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

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-38446753
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,705
    Sad news, but not unexpected after the heart attack. I read she was not breathing on the flight for several minutes.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,216
    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

    image
    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.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,317
    edited December 2016
    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.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,374
    Can someone explain how the introduction of AV would affect the offside law?
  • isamisam Posts: 42,609
    edited December 2016
    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

    image
    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?

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,317
    SandyRentool said:

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

    If the referee is behind Door A...
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 3,983
    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

    image
    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. :smile:
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,216
    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

    image
    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.
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025