Search results

Correct decision for the penalty I think - no contact.

Yeah has to be Webster for me. He is prone to a couple of howlers after a layoff, but just have to hope he gets through those without too much damage.

Blimey - their 'average' prediction seems to be about 4 or 5 nil to us. Got banana skin written all over this one :)

Well in my admittedly limited experience, Ive never heard a female orgasm like that.

That was a bad call. I believe that theres nothing wrong with the offside rule itself - Rashford clearly made a 'fake' for the ball and as such committed an offside offense according to the rule.

Well no surprise to me:). Enjoy the humble pie.

It was always going to be like this. GP would take about a season and a half to shape the team and get them playing his way. It is highly unlikely that he will be given time to do that. He will almost certainly be sacked after run of bad results as the clamouring will demand it.

The rule isn’t difficult to understand, it’s just a case of reading a few paragraphs- it’s very clear and well written (regardless of whether you agree with all of it). Some tv pundits (e.g Danny Murphy) just clearly haven’t bothered to read it and are not aware of the finer points of it...

The rule is intended to allow for the dodgy back pass. If you think about it, if the defender wasn’t under pressure and he’d tried to play it back to the keeper but played it short and salah had intercepted, you wouldn’t expect that to be ruled offside. (A bit like the Gross goal v Everton)...

Well you asked for it :). Quoted in full below. The reason Salah wasn't offside is because of the rule underlined. Note that the rules are applied for each touch of the ball. Every touch starts a new 'phase'. So when the cross came in, it went to the defender. At this point, Salah was in...

Thats what you would like the rule to be. Thats not what the rule is.

I dont understand the debate about the Salah goal. As the rule stands, he was onside. Its irrelevant whether its a good or bad rule. So why does the Wolves manager (and MOTD pundits) think it should have been given offside - do they not know the rules? This simple logic of truth vs what they...

Judging by the var pictures they were showing at the time, they were looking for that 2nd touch and not seeing it.

Why? because you wanted it to? :facepalm: It was offside.

A ransomware attack usually means that all their files have been encrypted by a program maliciously planted on their network. The attacker then offers them the decryption 'key' so they can get everything back for a hefty fee. Its unlikely to have compromised contacts or anything like that.

My dog stopped farting when the misses left.

I was with one of the small suppliers that went under a couple of years ago. Went they went down, all their records went with them and they basically had no idea of peoples balances (although they kept this fact hidden). When Octopus took them over, they sent out an 'initial balance estimate'...

I think he should stay for the euros, mainly to give time for a successor to emerge. Right now there is no obvious replacement.

That ball was perfect from Macallister. For some reason the attacker chose not to take a touch.

It is quite addictive in terms of the back-biting and skullduggery. The thing I dont think works very well is where they do various tasks to increase the money in the prize pot - all seems a bit pointless. They should just have a fixed prize and shorten the whole episode.