Mick Mac

I told Daizie on Friday night that Lucy wears the trousers - so don't worry, we all understand. Have a good day.

And a defender would be marking him... so he'd do feck all as usual.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > PS it's a secret ballot but I voted Liberal > Democrat so don't make personal judgements on your > own prejudices eh But you are a tory ...no?..... have I misunderstood your right wing mutterings?

Not many - sensible afternoon BBQ. I have just sent a PM to Sepp Blatter and he is ok with the idea, says it will save on the white paint and will expect it to be adopted next time. Have to say I just think FIFA are very poor in adopting new ideas and the rules of the game are long outdated. If a rugby man was in charge at FIFA the rules would develop and improve year on year.

Today's winnings on Germany to win todays game (can you believe they were 9/4 to beat the Argies) have been dumped on the Geeeeermiins to win the Cup also at 9/4.

Go to bed. I'm trying to have some fun here. People used to laugh at Jimmy Hill you kmow.

Its not just girls - most MOTD pundits don't understand it either. But if it was done away with, would the game change much - its not as if many teams can afford to have lots of players sitting up front waiting for the ball. There is no offside in 5 aside and it does not result in half the team goal hanging.

Boo

I saw a penalty awarded to Deco a few years ago whe he played for Porto - he was in the penalty area but running away from goal and about to exit the penalty area when fouled - was fouled and won penalty and therefore a goal. This all arose from a position where he was running away from goal and in no way was there a threat of scoring a goal, so how is a penalty/goal a fair result.

ruffers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Disagree with the proposal - sending off and > penalty is sufficient punishment. Obviously does not work though - this tempts people to handle on the line, stop the goal and cheat their way into the world cup semis. Current rules allow cheats to succeed.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Keeper brings down player whose rounded him...same > rule? Yes. That seems fair.

The Penalty Box - Lets do away with the penalty box. It is a simplistic concept that a player fouled in the box deserves a goal as a compensation - Currently any foul in the box will result in a penalty (likely a goal) whether there is a scoring opportunity or not. To give a goal where there is no scoring opportunity seems wrong. Rugby referees are allowed to award penaly tries where a try was likely to be scored irrespective of where the infringement happens on the pitch. Lets do away with the penalty box and only award a penalty if the attacking player is in possession and in a position where he has a real goalscoring opportunity, irrespective of where he is on the pitch.

The offside rule. Who needs it. The game would be much better without it.

Proposal Number 1 - "The Penalty Goal". If a defending player handles the ball on the line and there is NO doubt that the ball was going into the goal - then there should be no need for a penalty - the referee should be allowed to award a goal.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Estate agents are three a penney on LL. Not a single laugh......

citizenED Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Germany 4 - 1 England > Germany 4 - 0 Argentina > > Hurrah! we are better than Argentina Eh - less sh1t than Argentina.

Are you talking to yourself again Quids? Anyway - had a decent bet on Germany to win today - first wining world cup bet.

well said narnia. You make more sense than that declan fuck.

Excellent post Quids - what did it really say?

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ghana had their chance....they didn't take it. > Gutted for them. Hate cheating and thank god they > had a better linesman than the one at the England/ > Germany game. > > Expect Holland to make the final though. Sorry mate - but they did take their chance - they scored what would have been a winning goal had it not been deliberately handled on the line. Thats a goal and if FIFA allow this type of thing to continue they allow cheats to prosper. Ghana were deserved winners and Uraguay I'm afraid have cheated their way into the semis.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Fantastic. Easily the most exciting (although not > technical!) game of the World Cup so > far...absolutely gutted for Ghana. Handball on the line is cheating - the only fair decision is to award a goal, not a penalty, but FIFA are so backward on all of these issues. If it was rugby it would be a penalty try, but rugby is a bit more forward thinking than football.

So Hal. Cant be bothered to read the links and prob would be too complex for me. But are you telling me that all the loans lent at 0.25 above base when the rate was 5% for 25 years - are profitable when the rate is now 0.5%?

Hmmm..... No sweets for the kids this weekend.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I said that 2 years ago before we had billions of > QE and interest rates at didley squat...that's a > temporary plaster....there isn't anyone left with > any money who hasn't already bought a place apart > from the very wise. There's no movement, real > incomes will fall for 5 years or so, there's going > to be an increase in unemployment and the banks > have no money....go figure. We are going to be a > poorer country going forward as the rest of the > world starts to come up against the west or unless > we find something new, so inflation or a Japanese > situation...it's still an assett buble that's also > what's happened to the stockmarket although that's > now seeing it as it is a bit more.In real terms > prices will fall. Thta all sounds very sensible and can't say I disagree with any aspect of that. But the property market has proven to be extremely robust and as the FTSE has not been a profitable place for money for 10 years, it seems to be that people are investing huge sums in their family home rather than risking it elsewhere. A shortage of supply of the right homes remains. East Dulwich remains significantly less expensive than Clapham/Wimbledon etc. I still think ED property is a good bet.

Can't you just say "What Mick said"... 3 years on the forum and still waiting for my first one.....:)