LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksYeah, just trying to explain why he was crying, some terrible pens here.Originally Posted by silentstriker
Yeah, just trying to explain why he was crying, some terrible pens here.
Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.
Walt Whitman
TBF, that took some bottle.
Cheeky long haired twatt.
Ghana swallowed it, I'm afraid.
- As featured in The Independent.
"This is not the time for namby-pamby promising youngsters who might just do something; not the time for building for the future. Pragmatism rules and they don't come more pragmatic than Rogers."
- Victor Marks makes the case for stiff-legged and stiff-armed 35 year old left-handers in Ashes squads
Ghana should have won, as much as I didn't want them to. Why isn't that an automatic goal?
"The future light cone of the next Indian fast bowler is exactly the same as the past light cone of the previous one"
-My beliefs summarized in words much more eloquent than I could come up with
How the Universe came from nothing
Because there's no provision in the rules for it.
My god, don't think I've ever seen anyone so distraught on a football field
Can you explain the reasoning of why it shouldn't be an automatic goal if the ball is clearly going in, there is no one behind the defender, and the defender deliberately uses his hand?
Ghana completely got hosed here - the game should have been over.
It's not a goal because it's not a goal.
I am asking if such a thing has been discussed before and if so, what was the reasoning behind the rule?
Becuz that's wot the rule iz. A penalty and red card deemed sufficient by those in the game.
Appreciate Swanneh For The Genius He Is.
Bore off, seriously.
The quotes may, or may not, read differently in context
I did not say the rules were violated FFS...I am asking what the rationale is behind the rule...
Nope, not that I'm aware of.It's not a goal because it's not a goal
I am asking if such a thing has been discussed before and if so, what was the reasoning behind the rule?
The reasoning is that, unless the whole ball crosses the line, there's no goal. Simple.
2 sentences in one post FTW.
Ah, that's all I was asking. I find it a little odd that such situation had not come up before in the huge history...
Hopefully this is cause for a change in rules.
Perhaps Kingson should of done his Research
That's not an explanation. That's a restatement of the rules - which we all agree were followed in this case.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
