Jump to content

sugna

Gold Members
  • Content Count

    782
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

735 Excellent

About sugna

  • Rank
    Third Division Reserve

Profile Information

  • My Team
    Alloa Athletic

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. That would require referees to make up a Law. There is nothing in the Laws under cautionable offences that mentions opposition fans. In fact, there's no mention of "fans" or "supporters" anywhere in the Laws, neither does the word "obscene" appear anywhere. But the guidelines on gestures that must be sanctioned during celebrations is very clear. Such gestures are " provocative, derisory or inflammatory".
  2. So we agree, the part of the Laws that I quoted was applied correctly to Morelos; but was inapplicable to Lennon. Read the part that you quoted. It begins: "A player must be cautioned..."
  3. It is incorrect to say that every gesture ["to away fans" - not part of the Laws] is a booking. It is correct to say that some gestures in the context of celebrating are bookings. Those are gestures that in the opinion of the referee, are provocative, derisory or inflammatory. That's defined by FIFA, not the SFA.
  4. There can be some blurring of the lines when comparing the Morelos incident to others that are "similar", unless it's done in the context of the applicable part of the Laws: The key word there is "must". I don't think anyone would say that the bullet isn't applicable, as it exactly matches the gesture involved. Pundits are fond of saying: "We've all seen them given!", when I suspect they usually mean: "We've all seen incidents that appear comparable to this one, due to my proud ignorance of the Laws, with referees making a different decision which appears inconsistent to me, again because of my ignorance!" In some places, such as this, the Laws say "must" - and that isn't sloppiness on the part of the legislators. Today's gesture, despite what people might claim, didn't "give the ref a decision to make", any more than if Morelos had removed his short after scoring. On a side note, the word "gesture" can be a significant between this and to other cases. Running to the opposition fans is, as far as I can tell, not specified to be sanctioned at all.
  5. That's very generous, but I've tended to do different sports quite intensively, in "few year bursts" - typically taking up things like racket sports and rugby, then moving on after a while. Once I'm playing for the club first team at whatever it is, I find my drive can start to wane a bit. I've been back at my main sport since 2002, though, which represents the longest I've ever stuck at anything. I've done "some weights" each season, mostly during the winter, and I've lifted a fair amount for 3 of those winters ahead of specific competitions. This winter, encouraged by some new pals I met at competitions in 2019, I've started earlier and with more of a committed approach. Thinking back, I loaned my home weights to Currie RFC in 1991, and didn't have weights from then until 2003, so I must have been quietly losing strength for over a decade! 😀
  6. Updates BP: 105% BW DL: 181% BW BP could probably go a bit higher, as I'm still doing inclined and haven't 1RM-tested on a flat bench since 6 October. Hoping to test on 22 December, and would like to get 80kg. (Haven't been over 100kg since 1984.) DL, not certain about the accuracy, because I'm lifting from slightly higher than floor level (going to sort that out over the holidays with some cunningly-dimensioned MDF). However, I've found that going public-ish on here has helped me stick to a schedule, which I suppose is really the point of this thread. 9 weeks ago, I set myself targets for both lifts by 22 December - that is, an 11-week programme to the weekend before the holidays. I made the targets "too tough" (as I thought), to give myself some hard incentives. Made the BP target after 8 weeks, and the DL target 2 weeks later. Apart from the boost of this thread, the other obvious advantage is re-introducing specific lifts: the body is desperate to adapt,and prove itself, so you get the first few weeks of improvement for free.
  7. That isn't "feedback". He's coming on to you.
  8. That's a very strange system, but I was once almost the victim of a stranger one. We were working with some statisticians, one of whom was really very bad at his job. His boss asked me - working in a separate organisation, who were suppliers to the statisticians' organisation - for performance feedback on the bad guy. It was essentially gathering ammo to make a case against him. I want to stress that the boss wasn't wanting to be particularly evil, just trying to gather the full (bad) picture. The "ammo" aspect comes from the fact that any comments from anyone were going to be pretty damning (if they were true). I was on the verge of doing it, following that instinct that seems very common, to lend a hand when possible and particularly when requested; but the stronger instinct was that it was completely the wrong thing to be doing. I confirmed with my boss, because I was going to be saying no to a client, then politely declined. The person who had made the request was absolutely fine about it. Really not a bad person, just trying clumsily to do the best thing in a bad situation. It seemed pretty clear-cut afterwards; but a few years later on it occurred to me that I had been in a very good position to make a pretty accurate call on the junior statto's capabilities and performance, at least in one area. Leaving aside legal considerations, I actually think it would have been fine, ethically and with respect to accuracy. But as Harry Hill often says, "It's a good thing that system isn't in use!"
  9. 🙂 Reminded me of the classic sketch: "Your Majesty is like a dose of clap: before you arrive is pleasure, but after is a pain on the dong."
  10. It's just arithmetic. Ashley has a high enough number of pounds that he can put into a football club, to provide Rangers with more funding than Celtic. Leaving aside personal opinions, I'm not sure how that's anything other than an objective fact. Also, your marking scheme seems unduly harsh: 80% approval garnering just 4/10. I feel like I've just performed an Argentine Tango in front of Craig Revel Horwood.
  11. Following the announcement of King's stepping-down as chairman, and regardless of the reasons underlying that, it's a good point to review the "financial stability" that he says is so important. To avoid propagating spin that has been fed through the Daily Record and others, I've taken a look at audited accounts for projected borrowing requirements to the end of each season. They are: 2016 - £3.75m 2017 - £4m (plus £3.2m projected for 2018-19 season) 2018 - £4.6m (plus £3m for 2019-20) 2019 - £10m That appears to my untrained eye to be going in the wrong direction, away from stability; and the 230% error in projected 2019-20 borrowing (from the previous year's accounts) seems like quite a lot. It also looks like a possible Scottish record for the cumulative borrowing requirement over just 4 years, in return for no major silverware. (Although that's dividing by zero to get the amount per trophy, so maybe isn't valid.) There are several outstanding legal issues to be resolved, and at least one significant bill to be settled where liability has been established, and only the amount of the claim is to be decided (the £1.3m claim for the Memorial Wall). It's not clear if the £10m covers all of that. It strikes me that the 2015 coup has led to very poor returns on the pitch - lots of borrowing for no tangible success - which would have been absolutely unacceptable as a prospect at the time of the boardroom changes. The only saving grace appears to be, on the face of it, that the support sees King as "one of us", and prefer a very poor record under his regime to the prospect of a much better one under, say, Mike Ashley. Because Ashley really did/does have the potential to make Rangers the top team in Scotland.
  12. I'm going to have to tick the "Strongly agree with Throbber" box on this one. Those aren't "things" that have intersections in any sense. If they did, the middle bit would also be a "thing", not an adjectival phrase. On a less pedantic-compulsive note, it is also desperately unfunny.
×
×
  • Create New...