politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This unique feel good moment has the potential to change our p
Options
Comments
-
I suppose, at a push, one could argue that the deliberate act was Stokes sticking his bat out to make his ground without the intention of obstructing the field.TheScreamingEagles said:Aussie Awful Taufel is assuming the act was the throw but other umpires say the act is the moment the ball hit Stokes.
0 -
If you add those Sky and C4 peaks together, you get to about 6.3m which is not a million miles away from the 9m peak for Wimbledon (which everyone knew was scheduled, and on BBC1!)eek said:
I'm surprised the viewing figures for the cricket was so low - we flicked over as soon as the tennis was finished...tlg86 said:0 -
Thinking about it Taufel has to be wrong because I've seen on a number of occasions a player attempt a run out, hit the stumps [but the batsman was safe] and the ball goes flying off and the batsmen can then run off again and get overthrow runs.
Given that they are setting off running after the ball hit the stumps, let alone when the ball was thrown, Taufel must surely be wrong?0 -
Mein gott no.williamglenn said:Ken Clarke’s big moment draws nearer.
https://twitter.com/mij_europe/status/1150683097698054144?s=21
While personally I don't subscribe to the Tyndallite view that Brexit must be delivered before anything else for the sake of "democracy", the optics of this would be terrible.
It would be deemed a "stitch-up". Yes, yes, it is entirely legit in a parliamentary democracy. Yes, yes, it is just as legit as 70,000 not-entirely-demographically-typical Conservative members choosing our next PM. No matter. If you want to reinforce the view of an elite ruling just for themselves, that is exactly how you do it.
Just have a general election. It's how Britain works.2 -
It's unclear if it was an error of law anyway, since they could easily have known the law but failed to realise the batsmen hadn't crossed. Which reduces the mistake to a simple error of judgment.Pulpstar said:
The act had to have been "wilful". If Stokes act had been "wilful" then he would have been out obstructing the field. Since it was not "wilful" the throw clearly should have been the correct point at which the runs were considered.tlg86 said:
There's a big difference between an official making an error of judgement and error of law. On this occasion I think there's sufficient wriggle room in the law meaning it's plausible that they got it right. And I didn't notice NZ kicking off about it at the time.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Stoke's apologised on the field the minute it happened.Nigelb said:
Ouch.TheScreamingEagles said:
Which umpire made the ruling on the day ...?
Too late to affect the result, but we ought to apologise to NZ.
Umpire's make mistakes all the time, non more so when Roy was given out closing in on his century v Australia and he was not out by any stretch of the imagination0 -
I guess in that scenario the batsmen are running the overthrows rather than running the original runs.Philip_Thompson said:Thinking about it Taufel has to be wrong because I've seen on a number of occasions a player attempt a run out, hit the stumps [but the batsman was safe] and the ball goes flying off and the batsmen can then run off again and get overthrow runs.
Given that they are setting off running after the ball hit the stumps, let alone when the ball was thrown, Taufel must surely be wrong?0 -
It's a very rare occurrence, though.tlg86 said:
In that case this is quite a serious error, though a good example of why competitive sports people should know the laws.Pulpstar said:
The act had to have been "wilful". If Stokes act had been "wilful" then he would have been out obstructing the field. Since it was not "wilful" the throw clearly should have been the correct point at which the runs were considered.tlg86 said:
There's a big difference between an official making an error of judgement and error of law. On this occasion I think there's sufficient wriggle room in the law meaning it's plausible that they got it right. And I didn't notice NZ kicking off about it at the time.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Stoke's apologised on the field the minute it happened.Nigelb said:
Ouch.TheScreamingEagles said:
Which umpire made the ruling on the day ...?
Too late to affect the result, but we ought to apologise to NZ.
Umpire's make mistakes all the time, non more so when Roy was given out closing in on his century v Australia and he was not out by any stretch of the imagination
That said, it seems an odd law to me - why give the umpires the hassle of something else to look out for?
Almost invariably a ball hitting a batsman in these circumstances won't get anywhere near the boundary, and it is convention that the batsmen don't run overthrows (though under the laws they may do so), hence Stokes's reaction.0 -
I wonder if it could have gone to the third umpire to check?Endillion said:
It's unclear if it was an error of law anyway, since they could easily have known the law but failed to realise the batsmen hadn't crossed. Which reduces the mistake to a simple error of judgment.Pulpstar said:
The act had to have been "wilful". If Stokes act had been "wilful" then he would have been out obstructing the field. Since it was not "wilful" the throw clearly should have been the correct point at which the runs were considered.tlg86 said:
There's a big difference between an official making an error of judgement and error of law. On this occasion I think there's sufficient wriggle room in the law meaning it's plausible that they got it right. And I didn't notice NZ kicking off about it at the time.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Stoke's apologised on the field the minute it happened.Nigelb said:
Ouch.TheScreamingEagles said:
Which umpire made the ruling on the day ...?
Too late to affect the result, but we ought to apologise to NZ.
Umpire's make mistakes all the time, non more so when Roy was given out closing in on his century v Australia and he was not out by any stretch of the imagination0 -
Surely it's 2.7million viewers (miles) away...mwadams said:
If you add those Sky and C4 peaks together, you get to about 6.3m which is not a million miles away from the 9m peak for Wimbledon (which everyone knew was scheduled, and on BBC1!)eek said:
I'm surprised the viewing figures for the cricket was so low - we flicked over as soon as the tennis was finished...tlg86 said:1 -
28 million watched some of the women football world cup with peak audience nearly 12 mil for England's semi0
-
It is not convention that batsmen don't run overthrows. If there is a misfield and they get the chance to, they run them.Nigelb said:
It's a very rare occurrence, though.tlg86 said:
In that case this is quite a serious error, though a good example of why competitive sports people should know the laws.Pulpstar said:
The act had to have been "wilful". If Stokes act had been "wilful" then he would have been out obstructing the field. Since it was not "wilful" the throw clearly should have been the correct point at which the runs were considered.tlg86 said:
There's a big difference between an official making an error of judgement and error of law. On this occasion I think there's sufficient wriggle room in the law meaning it's plausible that they got it right. And I didn't notice NZ kicking off about it at the time.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Stoke's apologised on the field the minute it happened.Nigelb said:
Ouch.TheScreamingEagles said:
Which umpire made the ruling on the day ...?
Too late to affect the result, but we ought to apologise to NZ.
Umpire's make mistakes all the time, non more so when Roy was given out closing in on his century v Australia and he was not out by any stretch of the imagination
That said, it seems an odd law to me - why give the umpires the hassle of something else to look out for?
Almost invariably a ball hitting a batsman in these circumstances won't get anywhere near the boundary, and it is convention that the batsmen don't run overthrows (though under the laws they may do so), hence Stokes's reaction.
Stoke's reaction is due to the overthrows being in part his fault and not a misfield by the Kiwis.0 -
Without the October 31st deadline a general election works. With the October 31st deadline that deadline needs to be removed and if the PM isn't willing / able to do so for a sane general election to occur another PM needs to be appointed to ensure the deadline is removed.El_Capitano said:
Mein gott no.williamglenn said:Ken Clarke’s big moment draws nearer.
https://twitter.com/mij_europe/status/1150683097698054144?s=21
While personally I don't subscribe to the Tyndallite view that Brexit must be delivered before anything else for the sake of "democracy", the optics of this would be terrible.
It would be deemed a "stitch-up". Yes, yes, it is entirely legit in a parliamentary democracy. Yes, yes, it is just as legit as 70,000 not-entirely-demographically-typical Conservative members choosing our next PM. No matter. If you want to reinforce the view of an elite ruling just for themselves, that is exactly how you do it.
Just have a general election. It's how Britain works.0 -
I don't think I can cope with much more. Another morning, another moment when Liam Fox turns out to be one of the adults in the room.
0 -
Good to see that the oft-repeated PB centre right line that indiscriminate use of the word fascist renders the term useless when society comes up against real fascism is now universally accepted.FrancisUrquhart said:I see the eco fascists are in bristol all this week...have they not got jobs to be doing?
0 -
Somebody has had an application for naturalisation declined for breaching their visa conditions.Philip_Thompson said:
En Anglais, s'il vous plait?CarlottaVance said:And we say (often with justification) that the UK Home Office is a mess:
(Apologies if I got that wrong)0 -
I wish I shared your optimism. I have long considered that we will crash out of the EU and that it will be a humiliating mess. Likewise no-one will do anything about Corbyn.Roger said:
But wouldn't him being elected leader and on day one being replaced as PM by someone chosen by the House be the more fantabulous result imaginable.....Cyclefree said:
While I would love to see Ken Clarke as PM, I don't see how he gets a majority in the Commons. Would he even get a majority of Tory MPs, given so many of them have gone the full Viceroy?TheScreamingEagles said:
Government loses a VONC but a new PM emerges in the 14 day window of the fixed term Parliament act.Cyclefree said:
How would / could that work?williamglenn said:Ken Clarke’s big moment draws nearer.
https://twitter.com/mij_europe/status/1150683097698054144?s=21
Better than the '66 Word Cup the Rugby Word Cup the Cricket World Cup and Murray's Wimbledon all rolled into one
There are too few principled MPs willing to act in accordance with their principles if it would cost them personally. So we will trundle on into second rate irrelevance or possibly much worse.1 -
It certainly takes away any sense of triumph when so much is owed to incompetent umpiring. I would make the same point re-tennis umpires.FrancisUrquhart said:
Umpires regularly make mistakes in cricket, its part of the game. Roy was given out in the semi final and wasn't.justin124 said:
Surely if a mistake has been clearly identified, it ought to be corrected! We would expect nothing less from an error discovered in an election count.Failing to do so makes the result appear pretty fraudulent - or at best contrived.Nigelb said:
Ouch.TheScreamingEagles said:
Which umpire made the ruling on the day ...?
Too late to affect the result, but we ought to apologise to NZ.
Though Adil is quite capable of having hit the winning runs (or getting out to an absurd swipe).0 -
No it doesn't. Cricketers and their fans respect the umpires and I wouldn't say it was incompetent, especially since the umpires seem to have made the right call.justin124 said:
It certainly takes away any sense of triumph when so much is owed to incompetent umpiring. I would make the same point re-tennis umpires.FrancisUrquhart said:
Umpires regularly make mistakes in cricket, its part of the game. Roy was given out in the semi final and wasn't.justin124 said:
Surely if a mistake has been clearly identified, it ought to be corrected! We would expect nothing less from an error discovered in an election count.Failing to do so makes the result appear pretty fraudulent - or at best contrived.Nigelb said:
Ouch.TheScreamingEagles said:
Which umpire made the ruling on the day ...?
Too late to affect the result, but we ought to apologise to NZ.
Though Adil is quite capable of having hit the winning runs (or getting out to an absurd swipe).0 -
Not good optics after the Mosque shootings, TSE!TheScreamingEagles said:The nation of New Zealand deserves an eternity of sporting bad luck after their vile spear tackle on Brian O’Driscoll in 2005.
0 -
Others appear to disagree.Honour would only really be satified - and the interests of justice and fair play best served - by holding a replay - as was formerly the norm for draws at FA Cup and World Cup Finals.Philip_Thompson said:
No it doesn't. Cricketers and their fans respect the umpires and I wouldn't say it was incompetent, especially since the umpires seem to have made the right call.justin124 said:
It certainly takes away any sense of triumph when so much is owed to incompetent umpiring. I would make the same point re-tennis umpires.FrancisUrquhart said:
Umpires regularly make mistakes in cricket, its part of the game. Roy was given out in the semi final and wasn't.justin124 said:
Surely if a mistake has been clearly identified, it ought to be corrected! We would expect nothing less from an error discovered in an election count.Failing to do so makes the result appear pretty fraudulent - or at best contrived.Nigelb said:
Ouch.TheScreamingEagles said:
Which umpire made the ruling on the day ...?
Too late to affect the result, but we ought to apologise to NZ.
Though Adil is quite capable of having hit the winning runs (or getting out to an absurd swipe).0 -
eek said:
Surely it's 2.7million viewers (miles) away...mwadams said:
If you add those Sky and C4 peaks together, you get to about 6.3m which is not a million miles away from the 9m peak for Wimbledon (which everyone knew was scheduled, and on BBC1!)eek said:
I'm surprised the viewing figures for the cricket was so low - we flicked over as soon as the tennis was finished...tlg86 said:
If my maths is correct 50 million people in the UK missed it all. they don't have many spokesmen today but there's a lot of them out there.
0 -
Luton's problem is home-grown terrorism, rather than no-go areas.TheScreamingEagles said:This will cheer up Stephen Yaxley-Lennon
https://twitter.com/basitmahmood91/status/1150422563933302789?s=210 -
I made sure my three-year old niece was watching the TV at the crucial moment. I wanted her to be able to say she'd seen England win the World Cup. It might not happen again.algarkirk said:eek said:
Surely it's 2.7million viewers (miles) away...mwadams said:
If you add those Sky and C4 peaks together, you get to about 6.3m which is not a million miles away from the 9m peak for Wimbledon (which everyone knew was scheduled, and on BBC1!)eek said:
I'm surprised the viewing figures for the cricket was so low - we flicked over as soon as the tennis was finished...tlg86 said:
If my maths is correct 50 million people in the UK missed it all. they don't have many spokesmen today but there's a lot of them out there.1 -
Incidentally, those who bet on the new person to adorn the £50 note can find out at 11.15am.0
-
I have been surprised at the number of respectable MPs who have decided to hold their noses as the grab hold of Johnson's coat tails in order to curry favour with the great man.Cyclefree said:
I wish I shared your optimism. I have long considered that we will crash out of the EU and that it will be a humiliating mess. Likewise no-one will do anything about Corbyn.Roger said:
But wouldn't him being elected leader and on day one being replaced as PM by someone chosen by the House be the more fantabulous result imaginable.....Cyclefree said:
While I would love to see Ken Clarke as PM, I don't see how he gets a majority in the Commons. Would he even get a majority of Tory MPs, given so many of them have gone the full Viceroy?TheScreamingEagles said:
Government loses a VONC but a new PM emerges in the 14 day window of the fixed term Parliament act.Cyclefree said:
How would / could that work?williamglenn said:Ken Clarke’s big moment draws nearer.
https://twitter.com/mij_europe/status/1150683097698054144?s=21
Better than the '66 Word Cup the Rugby Word Cup the Cricket World Cup and Murray's Wimbledon all rolled into one
There are too few principled MPs willing to act in accordance with their principles if it would cost them personally. So we will trundle on into second rate irrelevance or possibly much worse.
Fortunately all but a few of Labour's unprincipled MP's will be looking for alternative employment soon after Boris' snap election.0 -
Ben Stokes?Morris_Dancer said:Incidentally, those who bet on the new person to adorn the £50 note can find out at 11.15am.
1 -
Mr. 86, it really out* to be Noor Khan, as I have a bet on that.
Edited extra bit: ought*0 -
I don't think anyone disagrees with the fact that the Umpire's decision is final.justin124 said:
Others appear to disagree.Honour would only really be satified - and the interests of justice and fair play best served - by holding a replay - as was formerly the norm for draws at FA Cup and World Cup Finals.Philip_Thompson said:
No it doesn't. Cricketers and their fans respect the umpires and I wouldn't say it was incompetent, especially since the umpires seem to have made the right call.justin124 said:
It certainly takes away any sense of triumph when so much is owed to incompetent umpiring. I would make the same point re-tennis umpires.FrancisUrquhart said:
Umpires regularly make mistakes in cricket, its part of the game. Roy was given out in the semi final and wasn't.justin124 said:
Surely if a mistake has been clearly identified, it ought to be corrected! We would expect nothing less from an error discovered in an election count.Failing to do so makes the result appear pretty fraudulent - or at best contrived.Nigelb said:
Ouch.TheScreamingEagles said:
Which umpire made the ruling on the day ...?
Too late to affect the result, but we ought to apologise to NZ.
Though Adil is quite capable of having hit the winning runs (or getting out to an absurd swipe).
The Kiwi's themselves have accepted it with good grace.0 -
I always wonder how accurate these figures are? Especially given the number of people who will have been watching the events in pubs, which given it was sunny could have been busier than average.algarkirk said:eek said:
Surely it's 2.7million viewers (miles) away...mwadams said:
If you add those Sky and C4 peaks together, you get to about 6.3m which is not a million miles away from the 9m peak for Wimbledon (which everyone knew was scheduled, and on BBC1!)eek said:
I'm surprised the viewing figures for the cricket was so low - we flicked over as soon as the tennis was finished...tlg86 said:
If my maths is correct 50 million people in the UK missed it all. they don't have many spokesmen today but there's a lot of them out there.0 -
On bad refereeing decisions, I'm still livid about this:
https://twitter.com/theanfieldwrap/status/9057360405640519680 -
Probably more, since adding together different channels introduces double counting. Even below that post there are fans saying they had both on simultaneouslyalgarkirk said:eek said:
Surely it's 2.7million viewers (miles) away...mwadams said:
If you add those Sky and C4 peaks together, you get to about 6.3m which is not a million miles away from the 9m peak for Wimbledon (which everyone knew was scheduled, and on BBC1!)eek said:
I'm surprised the viewing figures for the cricket was so low - we flicked over as soon as the tennis was finished...tlg86 said:
If my maths is correct 50 million people in the UK missed it all. they don't have many spokesmen today but there's a lot of them out there.0 -
Nigel Farage?tlg86 said:
Ben Stokes?Morris_Dancer said:Incidentally, those who bet on the new person to adorn the £50 note can find out at 11.15am.
0 -
That reflects well on them, but does not prevent the result appearing seriously flawed - effectively a fake victory.Philip_Thompson said:
I don't think anyone disagrees with the fact that the Umpire's decision is final.justin124 said:
Others appear to disagree.Honour would only really be satified - and the interests of justice and fair play best served - by holding a replay - as was formerly the norm for draws at FA Cup and World Cup Finals.Philip_Thompson said:
No it doesn't. Cricketers and their fans respect the umpires and I wouldn't say it was incompetent, especially since the umpires seem to have made the right call.justin124 said:
It certainly takes away any sense of triumph when so much is owed to incompetent umpiring. I would make the same point re-tennis umpires.FrancisUrquhart said:
Umpires regularly make mistakes in cricket, its part of the game. Roy was given out in the semi final and wasn't.justin124 said:
Surely if a mistake has been clearly identified, it ought to be corrected! We would expect nothing less from an error discovered in an election count.Failing to do so makes the result appear pretty fraudulent - or at best contrived.Nigelb said:
Ouch.TheScreamingEagles said:
Which umpire made the ruling on the day ...?
Too late to affect the result, but we ought to apologise to NZ.
Though Adil is quite capable of having hit the winning runs (or getting out to an absurd swipe).
The Kiwi's themselves have accepted it with good grace.0 -
Rewatching the overthrow delivery it looked like it was over waist height.
So England were denied a free hit.0 -
Stop being such a party pooper man.justin124 said:
That reflects well on them, but does not prevent the result appearing seriously flawed - effectively a fake victory.Philip_Thompson said:
I don't think anyone disagrees with the fact that the Umpire's decision is final.justin124 said:
Others appear to disagree.Honour would only really be satified - and the interests of justice and fair play best served - by holding a replay - as was formerly the norm for draws at FA Cup and World Cup Finals.Philip_Thompson said:
No it doesn't. Cricketers and their fans respect the umpires and I wouldn't say it was incompetent, especially since the umpires seem to have made the right call.justin124 said:
It certainly takes away any sense of triumph when so much is owed to incompetent umpiring. I would make the same point re-tennis umpires.FrancisUrquhart said:
Umpires regularly make mistakes in cricket, its part of the game. Roy was given out in the semi final and wasn't.justin124 said:
Surely if a mistake has been clearly identified, it ought to be corrected! We would expect nothing less from an error discovered in an election count.Failing to do so makes the result appear pretty fraudulent - or at best contrived.Nigelb said:
Ouch.TheScreamingEagles said:
Which umpire made the ruling on the day ...?
Too late to affect the result, but we ought to apologise to NZ.
Though Adil is quite capable of having hit the winning runs (or getting out to an absurd swipe).
The Kiwi's themselves have accepted it with good grace.0 -
Get the feck in.
I tipped Alan Turing at 33/1
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/10/17/who-will-be-the-face-of-the-new-50-note/
https://twitter.com/tseofpb/status/1150710805265911814?s=211 -
Mr. Eagles, congrats.
Annoyed I didn't back that. Ah well.0 -
About time. Excellent news.TheScreamingEagles said:Get the feck in.
I tipped Alan Turing at 33/1
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/10/17/who-will-be-the-face-of-the-new-50-note/
https://twitter.com/tseofpb/status/1150710805265911814?s=210 -
Best goalkeeping performance in an FA Cup final ever.tlg86 said:On bad refereeing decisions, I'm still livid about this:
https://twitter.com/theanfieldwrap/status/9057360405640519681 -
Annoyingly I was pretty sure I had followed TSE's tip and bet on Turing. Now can't find any record of it.
0 -
There'll be no living with him after this!TheScreamingEagles said:Get the feck in.
I tipped Alan Turing at 33/10 -
That’s a Ladbrokes system issue, you can’t view older bets, you need to contact customer services.rottenborough said:Annoyingly I was pretty sure I had followed TSE's tip and bet on Turing. Now can't find any record of it.
What I do is keep a record of all my bets on a spreadsheet with the transaction ID.1 -
I have been able to check my bets, but you have to search by when it was placed (in my case 17 October 2018) - I've lost a tenner but Ada Lovelace was a good value loser at 50/1.TheScreamingEagles said:
That’s a Ladbrokes system issue, you can’t view older bets, you need to contact customer services.rottenborough said:Annoyingly I was pretty sure I had followed TSE's tip and bet on Turing. Now can't find any record of it.
What I do is keep a record of all my bets on a spreadsheet with the transaction ID.0 -
Just logged into Ladbrokes for first time in months and can't go any further until I upload my driving licence.
I am presuming this is genuine?0 -
At least when an election is decided on the orientation of a cock drawing it can be settled in court.justin124 said:
That reflects well on them, but does not prevent the result appearing seriously flawed - effectively a fake victory.Philip_Thompson said:
I don't think anyone disagrees with the fact that the Umpire's decision is final.justin124 said:
Others appear to disagree.Honour would only really be satified - and the interests of justice and fair play best served - by holding a replay - as was formerly the norm for draws at FA Cup and World Cup Finals.Philip_Thompson said:
No it doesn't. Cricketers and their fans respect the umpires and I wouldn't say it was incompetent, especially since the umpires seem to have made the right call.justin124 said:
It certainly takes away any sense of triumph when so much is owed to incompetent umpiring. I would make the same point re-tennis umpires.FrancisUrquhart said:
Umpires regularly make mistakes in cricket, its part of the game. Roy was given out in the semi final and wasn't.justin124 said:
Surely if a mistake has been clearly identified, it ought to be corrected! We would expect nothing less from an error discovered in an election count.Failing to do so makes the result appear pretty fraudulent - or at best contrived.Nigelb said:
Ouch.TheScreamingEagles said:
Which umpire made the ruling on the day ...?
Too late to affect the result, but we ought to apologise to NZ.
Though Adil is quite capable of having hit the winning runs (or getting out to an absurd swipe).
The Kiwi's themselves have accepted it with good grace.0 -
You do talk utter rubbish. Are we to expect replays on every error of judgment by a referree or umpire, and this was not an error of judgmentjustin124 said:
Others appear to disagree.Honour would only really be satified - and the interests of justice and fair play best served - by holding a replay - as was formerly the norm for draws at FA Cup and World Cup Finals.Philip_Thompson said:
No it doesn't. Cricketers and their fans respect the umpires and I wouldn't say it was incompetent, especially since the umpires seem to have made the right call.justin124 said:
It certainly takes away any sense of triumph when so much is owed to incompetent umpiring. I would make the same point re-tennis umpires.FrancisUrquhart said:
Umpires regularly make mistakes in cricket, its part of the game. Roy was given out in the semi final and wasn't.justin124 said:
Surely if a mistake has been clearly identified, it ought to be corrected! We would expect nothing less from an error discovered in an election count.Failing to do so makes the result appear pretty fraudulent - or at best contrived.Nigelb said:
Ouch.TheScreamingEagles said:
Which umpire made the ruling on the day ...?
Too late to affect the result, but we ought to apologise to NZ.
Though Adil is quite capable of having hit the winning runs (or getting out to an absurd swipe).
Stokes ran the second run and in order to make the crease he dived with bat outstretched which is usual practice. The fielder threw the ball and amazingly it hit Stokes bat and richoched for four overthrow runs. Perfectly legitimate unless Stokes had done it deliberately which he did not
As a matter of interest have you ever played or enjoyed sport any sport0 -
Just realised I need a new avatar.0
-
Yes, it is because of new regulations tightening up the rules on ID verification for bookies.rottenborough said:Just logged into Ladbrokes for first time in months and can't go any further until I upload my driving licence.
I am presuming this is genuine?0 -
I have never been inclined to jump on bandwaggons. Justice and fair play matters far more to me. It is a pity really that such issues cannot be taken to the Courts.Gallowgate said:
Stop being such a party pooper man.justin124 said:
That reflects well on them, but does not prevent the result appearing seriously flawed - effectively a fake victory.Philip_Thompson said:
I don't think anyone disagrees with the fact that the Umpire's decision is final.justin124 said:
Others appear to disagree.Honour would only really be satified - and the interests of justice and fair play best served - by holding a replay - as was formerly the norm for draws at FA Cup and World Cup Finals.Philip_Thompson said:
No it doesn't. Cricketers and their fans respect the umpires and I wouldn't say it was incompetent, especially since the umpires seem to have made the right call.justin124 said:
It certainly takes away any sense of triumph when so much is owed to incompetent umpiring. I would make the same point re-tennis umpires.FrancisUrquhart said:
Umpires regularly make mistakes in cricket, its part of the game. Roy was given out in the semi final and wasn't.justin124 said:
Surely if a mistake has been clearly identified, it ought to be corrected! We would expect nothing less from an error discovered in an election count.Failing to do so makes the result appear pretty fraudulent - or at best contrived.Nigelb said:
Ouch.TheScreamingEagles said:
Which umpire made the ruling on the day ...?
Too late to affect the result, but we ought to apologise to NZ.
Though Adil is quite capable of having hit the winning runs (or getting out to an absurd swipe).
The Kiwi's themselves have accepted it with good grace.0 -
Yes.rottenborough said:Just logged into Ladbrokes for first time in months and can't go any further until I upload my driving licence.
I am presuming this is genuine?
0 -
0
-
Wd, have some icing on the cake.TheScreamingEagles said:Get the feck in.
I tipped Alan Turing at 33/1
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/10/17/who-will-be-the-face-of-the-new-50-note/
https://twitter.com/tseofpb/status/1150710805265911814?s=21
https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/11506678022626140160 -
I assume that you think if NZ were awarded the World Cup in six months' time by a judge, that would give them a "sense of triumph"?justin124 said:
I have never been inclined to jump on bandwaggons. Justice and fair play matters far more to me. It is a pity really that such issues cannot be taken to the Courts.Gallowgate said:
Stop being such a party pooper man.justin124 said:
That reflects well on them, but does not prevent the result appearing seriously flawed - effectively a fake victory.Philip_Thompson said:
I don't think anyone disagrees with the fact that the Umpire's decision is final.justin124 said:
Others appear to disagree.Honour would only really be satified - and the interests of justice and fair play best served - by holding a replay - as was formerly the norm for draws at FA Cup and World Cup Finals.Philip_Thompson said:
No it doesn't. Cricketers and their fans respect the umpires and I wouldn't say it was incompetent, especially since the umpires seem to have made the right call.justin124 said:
It certainly takes away any sense of triumph when so much is owed to incompetent umpiring. I would make the same point re-tennis umpires.FrancisUrquhart said:
Umpires regularly make mistakes in cricket, its part of the game. Roy was given out in the semi final and wasn't.justin124 said:
Surely if a mistake has been clearly identified, it ought to be corrected! We would expect nothing less from an error discovered in an election count.Failing to do so makes the result appear pretty fraudulent - or at best contrived.Nigelb said:
Ouch.TheScreamingEagles said:
Which umpire made the ruling on the day ...?
Too late to affect the result, but we ought to apologise to NZ.
Though Adil is quite capable of having hit the winning runs (or getting out to an absurd swipe).
The Kiwi's themselves have accepted it with good grace.0 -
ThxRichard_Nabavi said:
Yes, it is because of new regulations tightening up the rules on ID verification for bookies.rottenborough said:Just logged into Ladbrokes for first time in months and can't go any further until I upload my driving licence.
I am presuming this is genuine?0 -
Breaking not very exciting by election news.
https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/11507135316433879050 -
Wonderful decision.Theuniondivvie said:
Wd, have some icing on the cake.TheScreamingEagles said:Get the feck in.
I tipped Alan Turing at 33/1
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/10/17/who-will-be-the-face-of-the-new-50-note/
https://twitter.com/tseofpb/status/1150710805265911814?s=21
https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/11506678022626140160 -
Apologies - neighbours! However, you're right Roger is enough to make anyone write some cross words!Nigelb said:felix said:
All of my neighbour's are Spanish. Your prejudices and stereotypes continue to amuse.Roger said:
Has it occured to you 'he' might be your next door neighbour? The woman sitting beside the pool with the big breasts pretending to do the crossword......felix said:
As a Brit abroad myself I get the irony but his lunacy is a product of who he is not where he lives.RochdalePioneers said:Viceroy ranting from Spain about the threat from foreigners...
You're neighbour's... pools ? crosswords... ?? ...0 -
Also missing the point. It wasn't his language that was the problem but his sentiments.CarlottaVance said:Still too polite
0 -
I only wish that those from secret services and police who hounded Turing to his death were alive to see this day. Maybe one or two are?TheWhiteRabbit said:
I have been able to check my bets, but you have to search by when it was placed (in my case 17 October 2018) - I've lost a tenner but Ada Lovelace was a good value loser at 50/1.TheScreamingEagles said:
That’s a Ladbrokes system issue, you can’t view older bets, you need to contact customer services.rottenborough said:Annoyingly I was pretty sure I had followed TSE's tip and bet on Turing. Now can't find any record of it.
What I do is keep a record of all my bets on a spreadsheet with the transaction ID.0 -
Yup - the only thing as daft as JRM's original comment are all the responses from the crowds on the outrage bus.nico67 said:Can’t people just say well done .
Incredible game of cricket . Played in a good spirit . NZ are wonderful ambassadors for their country and England put a smile on peoples faces .
That’s it, does Brexit need to come in to everything .0 -
And one in the eye for the Anderton Park Primary protestors (tho they'd deny they were homophobic....I bet "some of their best friends are gay" (Not))rottenborough said:
About time. Excellent news.TheScreamingEagles said:Get the feck in.
I tipped Alan Turing at 33/1
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/10/17/who-will-be-the-face-of-the-new-50-note/
https://twitter.com/tseofpb/status/1150710805265911814?s=210 -
I doubt it.rottenborough said:
I only wish that those from secret services and police who hounded Turing to his death were alive to see this day. Maybe one or two are?TheWhiteRabbit said:
I have been able to check my bets, but you have to search by when it was placed (in my case 17 October 2018) - I've lost a tenner but Ada Lovelace was a good value loser at 50/1.TheScreamingEagles said:
That’s a Ladbrokes system issue, you can’t view older bets, you need to contact customer services.rottenborough said:Annoyingly I was pretty sure I had followed TSE's tip and bet on Turing. Now can't find any record of it.
What I do is keep a record of all my bets on a spreadsheet with the transaction ID.
A tenner aside, I am happy with the choice, but I know there are people who feel very strongly about ethnic minority and female representation0 -
So after all the obfuscation , it was really new Zealand that won the trophy but were robbed by an "innocent" mistake of umpire not understanding the rules. Pyrrhic victory.Nigelb said:
Ouch.TheScreamingEagles said:
Which umpire made the ruling on the day ...?
Too late to affect the result, but we ought to apologise to NZ.
Though Adil is quite capable of having hit the winning runs (or getting out to an absurd swipe).0 -
Looking forward to when I next ask a builder how he wants paying and he says:Theuniondivvie said:
Wd, have some icing on the cake.TheScreamingEagles said:Get the feck in.
I tipped Alan Turing at 33/1
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/10/17/who-will-be-the-face-of-the-new-50-note/
https://twitter.com/tseofpb/status/1150710805265911814?s=21
https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1150667802262614016
"I only take Turings mate."0 -
Oh dear, what a snowflake.Theuniondivvie said:
Wd, have some icing on the cake.TheScreamingEagles said:Get the feck in.
I tipped Alan Turing at 33/1
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/10/17/who-will-be-the-face-of-the-new-50-note/
https://twitter.com/tseofpb/status/1150710805265911814?s=21
https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/11506678022626140160 -
Well done on the 33-1 tip.0
-
I would prefer to see a replay such as used to occur when FA and World Cup Finals were drawn.. Far better than a victory which already appears tarnished.Endillion said:
I assume that you think if NZ were awarded the World Cup in six months' time by a judge, that would give them a "sense of triumph"?justin124 said:
I have never been inclined to jump on bandwaggons. Justice and fair play matters far more to me. It is a pity really that such issues cannot be taken to the Courts.Gallowgate said:
Stop being such a party pooper man.justin124 said:
That reflects well on them, but does not prevent the result appearing seriously flawed - effectively a fake victory.Philip_Thompson said:
I don't think anyone disagrees with the fact that the Umpire's decision is final.justin124 said:
Others appear to disagree.Honour would only really be satified - and the interests of justice and fair play best served - by holding a replay - as was formerly the norm for draws at FA Cup and World Cup Finals.Philip_Thompson said:
No it doesn't. Cricketers and their fans respect the umpires and I wouldn't say it was incompetent, especially since the umpires seem to have made the right call.justin124 said:
It certainly takes away any sense of triumph when so much is owed to incompetent umpiring. I would make the same point re-tennis umpires.FrancisUrquhart said:
Umpires regularly make mistakes in cricket, its part of the game. Roy was given out in the semi final and wasn't.justin124 said:
Surely if a mistake has been clearly identified, it ought to be corrected! We would expect nothing less from an error discovered in an election count.Failing to do so makes the result appear pretty fraudulent - or at best contrived.Nigelb said:
Ouch.TheScreamingEagles said:
Which umpire made the ruling on the day ...?
Too late to affect the result, but we ought to apologise to NZ.
Though Adil is quite capable of having hit the winning runs (or getting out to an absurd swipe).
The Kiwi's themselves have accepted it with good grace.0 -
Not at all sure it was a mistake. If the return ball had been overthrown the players are entitled to run overthrows.malcolmg said:
So after all the obfuscation , it was really new Zealand that won the trophy but were robbed by an "innocent" mistake of umpire not understanding the rules. Pyrrhic victory.Nigelb said:
Ouch.TheScreamingEagles said:
Which umpire made the ruling on the day ...?
Too late to affect the result, but we ought to apologise to NZ.
Though Adil is quite capable of having hit the winning runs (or getting out to an absurd swipe).
In this case the overthrow richoched of a grounded bat and went for four runs. I see no breach of the rules in those actions0 -
It looks a bit that way.malcolmg said:
So after all the obfuscation , it was really new Zealand that won the trophy but were robbed by an "innocent" mistake of umpire not understanding the rules. Pyrrhic victory.Nigelb said:
Ouch.TheScreamingEagles said:
Which umpire made the ruling on the day ...?
Too late to affect the result, but we ought to apologise to NZ.
Though Adil is quite capable of having hit the winning runs (or getting out to an absurd swipe).0 -
"Fair play" is respecting that the umpire's decision is final.justin124 said:
Others appear to disagree.Honour would only really be satified - and the interests of justice and fair play best served - by holding a replay - as was formerly the norm for draws at FA Cup and World Cup Finals.Philip_Thompson said:
No it doesn't. Cricketers and their fans respect the umpires and I wouldn't say it was incompetent, especially since the umpires seem to have made the right call.justin124 said:
It certainly takes away any sense of triumph when so much is owed to incompetent umpiring. I would make the same point re-tennis umpires.FrancisUrquhart said:
Umpires regularly make mistakes in cricket, its part of the game. Roy was given out in the semi final and wasn't.justin124 said:
Surely if a mistake has been clearly identified, it ought to be corrected! We would expect nothing less from an error discovered in an election count.Failing to do so makes the result appear pretty fraudulent - or at best contrived.Nigelb said:
Ouch.TheScreamingEagles said:
Which umpire made the ruling on the day ...?
Too late to affect the result, but we ought to apologise to NZ.
Though Adil is quite capable of having hit the winning runs (or getting out to an absurd swipe).0 -
Utter nonsensejustin124 said:
I would prefer to see a replay such as used to occur when FA and World Cup Finals were drawn.. Far better than a victory which already appears tarnished.Endillion said:
I assume that you think if NZ were awarded the World Cup in six months' time by a judge, that would give them a "sense of triumph"?justin124 said:
I have never been inclined to jump on bandwaggons. Justice and fair play matters far more to me. It is a pity really that such issues cannot be taken to the Courts.Gallowgate said:
Stop being such a party pooper man.justin124 said:
That reflects well on them, but does not prevent the result appearing seriously flawed - effectively a fake victory.Philip_Thompson said:
I don't think anyone disagrees with the fact that the Umpire's decision is final.justin124 said:
Others appear to disagree.Honour would only really be satified - and the interests of justice and fair play best served - by holding a replay - as was formerly the norm for draws at FA Cup and World Cup Finals.Philip_Thompson said:
No it doesn't. Cricketers and their fans respect the umpires and I wouldn't say it was incompetent, especially since the umpires seem to have made the right call.justin124 said:
It certainly takes away any sense of triumph when so much is owed to incompetent umpiring. I would make the same point re-tennis umpires.FrancisUrquhart said:
Umpires regularly make mistakes in cricket, its part of the game. Roy was given out in the semi final and wasn't.justin124 said:
Surely if a mistake has been clearly identified, it ought to be corrected! We would expect nothing less from an error discovered in an election count.Failing to do so makes the result appear pretty fraudulent - or at best contrived.Nigelb said:
Ouch.TheScreamingEagles said:
Which umpire made the ruling on the day ...?
Too late to affect the result, but we ought to apologise to NZ.
Though Adil is quite capable of having hit the winning runs (or getting out to an absurd swipe).
The Kiwi's themselves have accepted it with good grace.0 -
Feel sorry for Arsenal fans.
As Arsenal fans we have watched with frustration as the team’s football performances have declined over the past decade. When Stan Kroenke began buying Arsenal shares the club had just competed in a first Champions League final. Twelve years on Arsenal are about to play in the Europa League for the third year running.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/jul/15/arsenal-fans-stan-kroenke-investment-vehicle0 -
0
-
Surely if there is a counterargument it is for Williamson to make, not anyone else on his behalf.Philip_Thompson said:
"Fair play" is respecting that the umpire's decision is final.justin124 said:
Others appear to disagree.Honour would only really be satified - and the interests of justice and fair play best served - by holding a replay - as was formerly the norm for draws at FA Cup and World Cup Finals.Philip_Thompson said:
No it doesn't. Cricketers and their fans respect the umpires and I wouldn't say it was incompetent, especially since the umpires seem to have made the right call.justin124 said:
It certainly takes away any sense of triumph when so much is owed to incompetent umpiring. I would make the same point re-tennis umpires.FrancisUrquhart said:
Umpires regularly make mistakes in cricket, its part of the game. Roy was given out in the semi final and wasn't.justin124 said:
Surely if a mistake has been clearly identified, it ought to be corrected! We would expect nothing less from an error discovered in an election count.Failing to do so makes the result appear pretty fraudulent - or at best contrived.Nigelb said:
Ouch.TheScreamingEagles said:
Which umpire made the ruling on the day ...?
Too late to affect the result, but we ought to apologise to NZ.
Though Adil is quite capable of having hit the winning runs (or getting out to an absurd swipe).0 -
Deary me...its sport...its part of the attraction that there is luck, incorrect decisions and cheating. Its why people watch, its why they still talk about great matches 50 years later.justin124 said:
I would prefer to see a replay such as used to occur when FA and World Cup Finals were drawn.. Far better than a victory which already appears tarnished.
Can we rerun the Argentina game where Maradona hand-balled it in the net? What about when Sol Campbell headed a perfectly good goal against Portugal?
If we took your approach, they would still be just about finishing the rerunning of most sporting competitions from the 90s about now. 60 year old sprinters in the 10th rerun of the 1988 100m finals...nobody wants to see that.0 -
Always fascinating to see that a boring, crappy sport like Cricket produces such passion in my fellow PBers
0 -
May gets tippsy and announces a snap GE?CarlottaVance said:What could possibly go wrong?
https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/11507143209694863370 -
The Europa League is the FA Vase of European competition!TheScreamingEagles said:Feel sorry for Arsenal fans.
As Arsenal fans we have watched with frustration as the team’s football performances have declined over the past decade. When Stan Kroenke began buying Arsenal shares the club had just competed in a first Champions League final. Twelve years on Arsenal are about to play in the Europa League for the third year running.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/jul/15/arsenal-fans-stan-kroenke-investment-vehicle0 -
But why would a replay be so unreasonable - given that was the norm for FA and World Cup Finals when the teams remained level following Extra Time?FrancisUrquhart said:
Deary me...its sport...its part of the attraction that there is luck, incorrect decisions and cheating. Its why people watch, its why they still talk about great matches 50 years later.justin124 said:
I would prefer to see a replay such as used to occur when FA and World Cup Finals were drawn.. Far better than a victory which already appears tarnished.
If we took your approach, they would still be just about finishing the rerunning of most sporting competitions from the 90s about now. 60 year old sprinters in the 10th rerun of the 1988 100m finals.0 -
Thatcher far too divisive a figure - we'll all be long gone before (if ever) Thatcher appears on a note (if we still have them).Theuniondivvie said:
Wd, have some icing on the cake.TheScreamingEagles said:Get the feck in.
I tipped Alan Turing at 33/1
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/10/17/who-will-be-the-face-of-the-new-50-note/
https://twitter.com/tseofpb/status/1150710805265911814?s=21
https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1150667802262614016
Edit - Thatcher wasn't even on the shortlist which was "Scientists":
The shortlisted characters, or pairs of characters, considered were: Mary Anning, Paul Dirac, Rosalind Franklin, William Herschel and Caroline Herschel, Dorothy Hodgkin, Ada Lovelace and Charles Babbage, Stephen Hawking, James Clerk Maxwell, Srinivasa Ramanujan, Ernest Rutherford, Frederick Sanger and Alan Turing.0 -
BiB - They just can't help themselves, can they? Three FA Cups between 2013-14 and 2016-17, a second place finish in 2015-16. What's done for Arsenal isn't Kroenke, but the idiots signing the players in the last few years.TheScreamingEagles said:Feel sorry for Arsenal fans.
As Arsenal fans we have watched with frustration as the team’s football performances have declined over the past decade. When Stan Kroenke began buying Arsenal shares the club had just competed in a first Champions League final. Twelve years on Arsenal are about to play in the Europa League for the third year running.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/jul/15/arsenal-fans-stan-kroenke-investment-vehicle0 -
We would first need to replay all the previous 47 matches in the world cup, as in each there were equally incorrect decisions.justin124 said:
But why would a replay be so unreasonable - given that was the norm for FA and World Cup Finals when the teams remained level following Extra Time?FrancisUrquhart said:
Deary me...its sport...its part of the attraction that there is luck, incorrect decisions and cheating. Its why people watch, its why they still talk about great matches 50 years later.justin124 said:
I would prefer to see a replay such as used to occur when FA and World Cup Finals were drawn.. Far better than a victory which already appears tarnished.
If we took your approach, they would still be just about finishing the rerunning of most sporting competitions from the 90s about now. 60 year old sprinters in the 10th rerun of the 1988 100m finals.
Remember a number of games got rained off, that alone would have changed who got in the final 4.0 -
What if you don't have a drivers license? Not happy about uploading my passport.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, it is because of new regulations tightening up the rules on ID verification for bookies.rottenborough said:Just logged into Ladbrokes for first time in months and can't go any further until I upload my driving licence.
I am presuming this is genuine?0 -
Wouldn't go that far, but it's one of those things that are not as universally appealing as fans think. I mentioned it at work today - nobody had been following it, though one guy said he'd caught up with the final moments and they "seemed quite exciting".Sunil_Prasannan said:Always fascinating to see that a boring, crappy sport like Cricket produces such passion in my fellow PBers
Politics strikes most of them the same way - a hobby for other people. By contrast, football interests nearly everyone.0 -
I was astonished to see that since Klopp took over Arsenal's net spend was higher than Liverpool's.tlg86 said:
BiB - They just can't help themselves, can they? Three FA Cups between 2013-14 and 2016-17, a second place finish in 2015-16. What's done for Arsenal isn't Kroenke, but the idiots signing the players in the last few years.TheScreamingEagles said:Feel sorry for Arsenal fans.
As Arsenal fans we have watched with frustration as the team’s football performances have declined over the past decade. When Stan Kroenke began buying Arsenal shares the club had just competed in a first Champions League final. Twelve years on Arsenal are about to play in the Europa League for the third year running.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/jul/15/arsenal-fans-stan-kroenke-investment-vehicle
Is down to the really good prices we got not only for Coutinho but we offloaded the likes of Jordon Ibe and Dom Solanke each for more than Arsenal got for Ramsey, Wilshire, Wellbeck.0 -
There's a range of documents you can use. It's all the standard stuff; sadly we now in the UK have levels of pointless bureaucracy comparable to that you get in France and the US.dixiedean said:
What if you don't have a drivers license? Not happy about uploading my passport.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, it is because of new regulations tightening up the rules on ID verification for bookies.rottenborough said:Just logged into Ladbrokes for first time in months and can't go any further until I upload my driving licence.
I am presuming this is genuine?0 -
I have neither a passport nor a driving licence so have been locked out of Hills. It is lucky most of us do not need them to vote.dixiedean said:
What if you don't have a drivers license? Not happy about uploading my passport.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, it is because of new regulations tightening up the rules on ID verification for bookies.rottenborough said:Just logged into Ladbrokes for first time in months and can't go any further until I upload my driving licence.
I am presuming this is genuine?0 -
I did by a toilet roll once which was made up with pictures of thatcher on a five pound note!CarlottaVance said:
Thatcher far too divisive a figure - we'll all be long gone before (if ever) Thatcher appears on a note (if we still have them.Theuniondivvie said:
Wd, have some icing on the cake.TheScreamingEagles said:Get the feck in.
I tipped Alan Turing at 33/1
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/10/17/who-will-be-the-face-of-the-new-50-note/
https://twitter.com/tseofpb/status/1150710805265911814?s=21
https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/11506678022626140160 -
I think she's got more sense - and better manners - than to call the President of the United States a racist, however well deserved.williamglenn said:
Also missing the point. It wasn't his language that was the problem but his sentiments.CarlottaVance said:Still too polite
1 -
Who is on Scottish £50 notes, as a matter of interest?Theuniondivvie said:
Wd, have some icing on the cake.TheScreamingEagles said:Get the feck in.
I tipped Alan Turing at 33/1
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/10/17/who-will-be-the-face-of-the-new-50-note/
https://twitter.com/tseofpb/status/1150710805265911814?s=21
https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/11506678022626140160 -
You can have all the tech you like in sports, and that *should* reduce errors (And will in the long run) but there is always an element of probability and random variation (luck for want of a better word) that can decide things.
One of the hawk-eye reviewed balls in the tennis my other half distinctly saw some white chalk fly up, but the ball was out by a millimetre or so - perhaps the chalk was outside where the lines should have been (Which is what I think hawkeye works off).
It happens in all sports, Kane WIlliamson would not want a repeat of yesterday due to a misruling - the umpire's decision is always final and he always plays the game with the utmost class and respect which shone through yesterday.
Stuff can always be improved (I think LBWs will become progressively less in favour of the batsmen over time for instance) but there'll always be the potential for freak stuff to happen that's totally outside what might be envisioned. That can never be eliminated.0 -
A replay would be unreasonable because it is against the laws of cricket and the laws of football decades ago has nothing to do with the laws of cricket.justin124 said:
But why would a replay be so unreasonable - given that was the norm for FA and World Cup Finals when the teams remained level following Extra Time?FrancisUrquhart said:
Deary me...its sport...its part of the attraction that there is luck, incorrect decisions and cheating. Its why people watch, its why they still talk about great matches 50 years later.justin124 said:
I would prefer to see a replay such as used to occur when FA and World Cup Finals were drawn.. Far better than a victory which already appears tarnished.
If we took your approach, they would still be just about finishing the rerunning of most sporting competitions from the 90s about now. 60 year old sprinters in the 10th rerun of the 1988 100m finals.1 -
Don't gamble online.dixiedean said:
What if you don't have a drivers license? Not happy about uploading my passport.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, it is because of new regulations tightening up the rules on ID verification for bookies.rottenborough said:Just logged into Ladbrokes for first time in months and can't go any further until I upload my driving licence.
I am presuming this is genuine?0 -
I think the challenge system in tennis and cricket is a very good middle ground. If you genuinely think you are on the end of a terrible decision you can challenge it, if (in cricket) it is touch and go, the balance is left with the original decision.Pulpstar said:You can have all the tech you like in sports, and that *should* reduce errors (And will in the long run) but there is always an element of probability and random variation (luck for want of a better word) that can decide things.
One of the hawk-eye reviewed balls in the tennis my other half distinctly saw some white chalk fly up, but the ball was out by a millimetre or so - perhaps the chalk was outside where the lines should have been (Which is what I think hawkeye works off).
It happens in all sports, Kane WIlliamson would not want a repeat of yesterday due to a misruling - the umpire's decision is always final.
Stuff can always be improved (I think LBWs will become progressively less in favour of the batsmen over time for instance) but there'll always be the potential for freak stuff to happen that's totally outside what might be envisioned. That can never be eliminated.0 -
Dorothy Hodgkin was Mrs Thatcher's tutor at Oxford iirc.CarlottaVance said:
Thatcher far too divisive a figure - we'll all be long gone before (if ever) Thatcher appears on a note (if we still have them).Theuniondivvie said:
Wd, have some icing on the cake.TheScreamingEagles said:Get the feck in.
I tipped Alan Turing at 33/1
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/10/17/who-will-be-the-face-of-the-new-50-note/
https://twitter.com/tseofpb/status/1150710805265911814?s=21
https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1150667802262614016
Edit - Thatcher wasn't even on the shortlist which was "Scientists":
The shortlisted characters, or pairs of characters, considered were: Mary Anning, Paul Dirac, Rosalind Franklin, William Herschel and Caroline Herschel, Dorothy Hodgkin, Ada Lovelace and Charles Babbage, Stephen Hawking, James Clerk Maxwell, Srinivasa Ramanujan, Ernest Rutherford, Frederick Sanger and Alan Turing.
You can probably have Mrs Thatcher on your bank card these days. Most let you add your own pictures.0
This discussion has been closed.