JoeLatics

Hoping SC is on the phone to someone as we speak....

Short of us getting Mourinho in as a number 2, I'd give TP a chance for the rest of the season at least - didn't seem to do us any harm today!

About £100k in total just from today I'd guess! Should be a few weeks wages for Derby? ;-)

Excellent tactical switch by all accounts, players came out fighting presumably after a great motivational speech... Don't know whether it was GT holding PD back or whether TP is better at it than anyone thought, but it looks like it's working!!

The really low ones in the Carling Cup have been on Tuesday nights from what I can see. Would think lower 5 figures, but certainly into them.

Loved watching that video right up to "Oldham go above them into 2nd"... What should have been that season!! :'(

Forest away... meh...

On a side note, I've never seen Liam Jacobs but, judging from the OS's picture of him we should really be playing him every game - surely he'd fill the goal being that wide?! ;)

:laught30:

Words straight out of my mouth!

Not there but they'd've done well to have scored 3 goals off 2 shots on target? :P

It meant that the player was already stood there. Being stood in an offside position alone isn't an offence, only when you play the ball, interfere with play, or gain an advantage.

11/12 - didn't think either of the options on the spitting one were right, as far as I understand the attackers would get an indirect FK in the area, not a penalty!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K1RcKJVbHA That 2 minute video actually makes the existence of 50 Shades worth it

He accepts a 2 year contract for £2k per week on the new Football Manager

Cup all the way!

'Highlights' here too: http://www.itv.com/sport/football/article/2012-11-03/report-kidderminster-0-2-oldham/ - 'only' one advert in order to watch! :P

Hmm, sounded to me like they used 'alleged' in the same sense as BBC News uses it in the Saville case...

Ok just seen it again, you have a point about the second one - the first was a swing to the face which is undoubtedly VC (A player is guilty of violent conduct if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball.), the second would be a booking for USB which their lad should have had as well. Frankly the last thing you could possibly want from referees is consistency. The only possible way for us to be consistent would be to apply every single Law to the letter, which would end up with 8-a-side at best (and that's just off the dissent bookings). And imagine a situation with 2 identical bad tackles, one in the first minute of a meaningless end of season match and one in the middle of a heated derby which has about to overheat - nobody would argue that the identical tackles should be met with the same result. It's all about context. And the comment was ridiculous for the implication of some sort of bias towards United. Simply untrue.

Ignoring the ridiculous comment at the end, both were blatant textbook Violent Conduct. Granted their lad who pushed M'Voto should have seen yellow for Unsporting, but there's no argument that M'Voto deserves whatever comes his way, it was idiotic.

You utter, utter moron. You make Lee Hughes look thoughtful and intelligent...

Once again, direction of the ball means sod all. Law 11 only talks about position of the player relative to the ball.

True but I don't think that contradicts what I said? My point was that, so long as you're in front of the ball when played, the direction it is played in makes no difference to your being in an offside position or not. Edit: For example, this would be offside: pic.twitter.com/lbCrSiaW

Very common misconception. "A player is in an offside position if: • he is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent" Direction of the ball is Irrelevent - if you're in front of the ball and the second last opponent when your team mate plays it backwards and you run back to get it, you're still gonna be penalised for offside.