I think he's concentrating on baking those lovely cakes actually.Neil Jones wrote:Stuck for a response are we?Flava wrote:Oh fuck off, you loser.
WE LOST!
-
Anonymous
Flava, I think you are pissed(drunk) first of all you can't spell come, you answered you with a "u" and now your going on about blowjobs. :roll:Flava wrote:Go suck yerself off. Or suck Neil Jones' willy.
But don't cum cryin to me, OK?
If I wanna be drunk I have a right. We lost and I'm gonna milk it.
Go to beddie
and don't come back till your sober.What the hell is all this aggro? Penalty shootout swearing and b*tching?
Pilgrim Hospital Radio, Boston, Lincolnshire - Monday - Friday 19:00 - 22:00.
The place where broadcasting careers begin!!
- BADGER BADGER!
The place where broadcasting careers begin!!
- BADGER BADGER!-
Square Eyes
- Posts: 630
- Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 13.38
Thanks for clarifying that, I really DID wonder what you meant.Barrett wrote:
Flava, I think you are pissed(drunk)
-
James Martin
- Posts: 1011
- Joined: Sun 15 Feb, 2004 19.26
Yes, I am very drunk, and acting as quite a tit this evening.
Well noticed, sir.
Well noticed, sir.
Being scottish, I'm tempted to make the link with yet another incident where English football fans have got drunk after loosing and started to trash the place. Although I do seem to remember last time they were throwing the white garden furniture around, not standing on it giving oral sex.
Either way, could we keep this on topic and fairly decent?
Thanks
Either way, could we keep this on topic and fairly decent?
Thanks
Martin wrote: Either way, could we keep this on topic and fairly decent?
Thanks
Evidently not.....Flava wrote:Removed
Pilgrim Hospital Radio, Boston, Lincolnshire - Monday - Friday 19:00 - 22:00.
The place where broadcasting careers begin!!
- BADGER BADGER!
The place where broadcasting careers begin!!
- BADGER BADGER!-
James Martin
- Posts: 1011
- Joined: Sun 15 Feb, 2004 19.26
I'd be smashing up Hinckley right now.
But I could do without the prison sentence.
But I could do without the prison sentence.
Right, my half arsed point of view:
Firstly, before saying anything, we *were* robbed (further qualification later - although i suspect everyone with an opinion knows why) and we *should* be in the semi final.
But, we played like crap for most of that game. Loosing Rooney knocked something out of our team that never came back. But that in itself should not have happened - our team should be worth more than a single player. Up until the 80th minute or so, it was more luck than judgement that we maintained our paltry 1-0 lead over Portugal. The disallowed goal should have been irrelevant - either we should have been so far ahead that we didn't need it, or we should have been so crushed by the (on the whole) more able Portuguese team that even having that goal allowed still wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference to our plight. At the expense of saying the same thing again, what turned out to be the deciding factor of the game shouldn't have been - the 1-0 score up till that point was arrived at both through us being crap by not advancing it further (our posession was ridiculously low) and by us being lucky that Portugal missed so many times (they certainly had more than their fair share of chances to strike).
And although he will doubtless be remembered as the goaly who jumped the wrong way on every single penalty that was scored against us, James does have to be commended on his general performance throughout the game - if he wasn't so well on form during it, we wouldn't even have got into extended time let alone a penalty shootout - we would just have been thrashed outright.
Beckham's performance tonight was shocking. Fair enough, he does have a lot of things going on in his personal life at present, but in that case he shouldn't have played. He quite frankly didn't appear fit, it was a huge case of mismangement on Sven's part that saw him be allowed to stay on for the whole shooting match when he should have been substituted off during the game, and I couldn't believe that after a game with such poor performance (and a tournament which has seen him give poor performance in general) that he was then allowed not only to take a penalty in the shootout, but also be allowed to take the first one - when morale in the England team desperately needed a boost.
Onto the disallowed goal though. An utterly disgraceful decision. The video evidence conclusively proves that we won that goal, and therefore rightly won the game. What on earth is the point of providing cameras that can show that if they will be ignored because of the two old school rules of 'if the referee didn't see it, it didn't happen' and 'the referee's decision is final'. Those rules came about in a time when decisions were based on eyesight, and ultimately you had to decide that one person's eyesight was the ultimate authority on the game. You can't do that now in the light of modern technology being deployed at games.
If it's captured on tape, what the referee saw is irrelevant, what actually happened is what decisions should be based on.
I'm not advocating that every challenge of a ref's decision should result in the tapes being dragged out, but at full time, the manager of both teams should have the right to lodge formal complaints about decisions made during the match, and an independent, unbiased panel of judges should view the footage there and then and should make a ruling. If the finding is that the referee was wrong, then his decision should be overturned and if necessary, the score altered to reflect those findings.
It's beyond ridiculous that tonight, England scored a legal goal, the referee was standing nowhere near the area and so didn't see the alledged incident properly, the linesman allowed the goal through, the video evidence shows the goal was legal - and yet the referee decided it wasn't and so that's how it willl stand. The situation now is that in a game which would decide who would go through to the semi-finals, England are out despite winning the game, and Portugal are through despite loosing it. When this can hardly be considered an isolated occasion, the case for doing something about the prehistoric way in which decisions in footbal are made cannot be allowed to continue and viewed through rose tinted spectles as though it is in someway essential to the game.
If that won't happen, then measures to reduced biased refereeing must be introduced. It is ridiculous that the referee from that match came from a country which England beat. It's all well and good to say that he has professional detachment, there was on occasions, shall we say 'extremely controversial' rulings made against England, and equally 'extremely controversial' incidents involving Portugal for which they suffered no sanctions. Referees should either be sourced from countries who did not qualify for the said tournament, or else they should be changed every 10 minutes (with no referees from the same country) to ensure that if any biasing is taking place, then the team getting the thin end of the wedge doesn't have to suffer this for the entire match.
Firstly, before saying anything, we *were* robbed (further qualification later - although i suspect everyone with an opinion knows why) and we *should* be in the semi final.
But, we played like crap for most of that game. Loosing Rooney knocked something out of our team that never came back. But that in itself should not have happened - our team should be worth more than a single player. Up until the 80th minute or so, it was more luck than judgement that we maintained our paltry 1-0 lead over Portugal. The disallowed goal should have been irrelevant - either we should have been so far ahead that we didn't need it, or we should have been so crushed by the (on the whole) more able Portuguese team that even having that goal allowed still wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference to our plight. At the expense of saying the same thing again, what turned out to be the deciding factor of the game shouldn't have been - the 1-0 score up till that point was arrived at both through us being crap by not advancing it further (our posession was ridiculously low) and by us being lucky that Portugal missed so many times (they certainly had more than their fair share of chances to strike).
And although he will doubtless be remembered as the goaly who jumped the wrong way on every single penalty that was scored against us, James does have to be commended on his general performance throughout the game - if he wasn't so well on form during it, we wouldn't even have got into extended time let alone a penalty shootout - we would just have been thrashed outright.
Beckham's performance tonight was shocking. Fair enough, he does have a lot of things going on in his personal life at present, but in that case he shouldn't have played. He quite frankly didn't appear fit, it was a huge case of mismangement on Sven's part that saw him be allowed to stay on for the whole shooting match when he should have been substituted off during the game, and I couldn't believe that after a game with such poor performance (and a tournament which has seen him give poor performance in general) that he was then allowed not only to take a penalty in the shootout, but also be allowed to take the first one - when morale in the England team desperately needed a boost.
Onto the disallowed goal though. An utterly disgraceful decision. The video evidence conclusively proves that we won that goal, and therefore rightly won the game. What on earth is the point of providing cameras that can show that if they will be ignored because of the two old school rules of 'if the referee didn't see it, it didn't happen' and 'the referee's decision is final'. Those rules came about in a time when decisions were based on eyesight, and ultimately you had to decide that one person's eyesight was the ultimate authority on the game. You can't do that now in the light of modern technology being deployed at games.
If it's captured on tape, what the referee saw is irrelevant, what actually happened is what decisions should be based on.
I'm not advocating that every challenge of a ref's decision should result in the tapes being dragged out, but at full time, the manager of both teams should have the right to lodge formal complaints about decisions made during the match, and an independent, unbiased panel of judges should view the footage there and then and should make a ruling. If the finding is that the referee was wrong, then his decision should be overturned and if necessary, the score altered to reflect those findings.
It's beyond ridiculous that tonight, England scored a legal goal, the referee was standing nowhere near the area and so didn't see the alledged incident properly, the linesman allowed the goal through, the video evidence shows the goal was legal - and yet the referee decided it wasn't and so that's how it willl stand. The situation now is that in a game which would decide who would go through to the semi-finals, England are out despite winning the game, and Portugal are through despite loosing it. When this can hardly be considered an isolated occasion, the case for doing something about the prehistoric way in which decisions in footbal are made cannot be allowed to continue and viewed through rose tinted spectles as though it is in someway essential to the game.
If that won't happen, then measures to reduced biased refereeing must be introduced. It is ridiculous that the referee from that match came from a country which England beat. It's all well and good to say that he has professional detachment, there was on occasions, shall we say 'extremely controversial' rulings made against England, and equally 'extremely controversial' incidents involving Portugal for which they suffered no sanctions. Referees should either be sourced from countries who did not qualify for the said tournament, or else they should be changed every 10 minutes (with no referees from the same country) to ensure that if any biasing is taking place, then the team getting the thin end of the wedge doesn't have to suffer this for the entire match.