The C4C Football-haters Thread

[Derek Hazell]

This is the thread for forum members who either have no interest in football or hate football to post their comments and/or opinions.

This can either be about why you hate football, or about any other random non-football-related point not worthy of its own topic.

This is in honour of the now-virtually-defunct Lycos, and its successful Football Haters chat.

Apart from me, I can think of Gevin, Joseph, Phil and Sue who are not at all interested in the "beautiful" game. So roll up, one and all - don't be shy. Football lovers certainly aren't.

[Sue Sanders]

This is the thread for forum members who either have no interest in football or hate football to post their comments and/or opinions.

Apart from me, I can think of Gevin, Joseph, Phil and Sue who are not at all interested in the "beautiful" game. So roll up, one and all - don't be shy. Football lovers certainly aren't.

Er, actually, I didn't say that. I have very little interest in the day-to-day ins and outs of the league, or European fixtures, but I have been to football matches and thoroughly enjoyed them and love going to the pub to support England when they're playing in the World Cup or Euro whatever it is and often get caught up enough to then continue following other teams after England has got knocked out. It's true that I think people talking about football is one of the most mind-numbingly boring things you'll ever hear and the obsessive fanship is daft. I struggle far more with Rugby. Although it doesn't have such obvious boring fanship thing going on, the game itself doesn't work for me - can't get a grasp of what's going on. But football, yep - like to watch a good game. Oh, and one time, a few years ago there was a really exciting afternoon waiting to find out who was going to get relegated as the results kept changing as the scores changed at different games round the country.

[Andy Wilson]

I hate football because Thierry Henry plays it.

[George Jenkins]

This is the thread for forum members who either have no interest in football or hate football to post their comments and/or opinions.

Apart from me, I can think of Gevin, Joseph, Phil and Sue who are not at all interested in the "beautiful" game. So roll up, one and all - don't be shy. Football lovers certainly aren't.

Er, actually, I didn't say that. I have very little interest in the day-to-day ins and outs of the league, or European fixtures, but I have been to football matches and thoroughly enjoyed them and love going to the pub to support England when they're playing in the World Cup or Euro whatever it is and often get caught up enough to then continue following other teams after England has got knocked out. It's true that I think people talking about football is one of the most mind-numbingly boring things you'll ever hear and the obsessive fanship is daft. I struggle far more with Rugby. Although it doesn't have such obvious boring fanship thing going on, the game itself doesn't work for me - can't get a grasp of what's going on. But football, yep - like to watch a good game. Oh, and one time, a few years ago there was a really exciting afternoon waiting to find out who was going to get relegated as the results kept changing as the scores changed at different games round the country.

Football is supposed to be a man's game, but is played by overpaid posers who love to kiss and cuddle each other when a goal is scored. Ugh!

[Derek Hazell]

Er, actually, I didn't say that. I have very little interest in the day-to-day ins and outs of the league, or European fixtures, but I have been to football matches and thoroughly enjoyed them and love going to the pub to support England when they're playing in the World Cup or Euro whatever it is and often get caught up enough to then continue following other teams after England has got knocked out. It's true that I think people talking about football is one of the most mind-numbingly boring things you'll ever hear and the obsessive fanship is daft. I struggle far more with Rugby. Although it doesn't have such obvious boring fanship thing going on, the game itself doesn't work for me - can't get a grasp of what's going on. But football, yep - like to watch a good game. Oh, and one time, a few years ago there was a really exciting afternoon waiting to find out who was going to get relegated as the results kept changing as the scores changed at different games round the country.

Bloody hell, is this have-a-go-at-dez week or something? I knew it was a mistake to go to the finals rather than just a normal filming, as everything seems to have changed now. My posts are (mostly) harmless, and mostly not as cringeworthy as the jokes on the actual show. Maybe this topic doesn't work so much, because football is such a majority interest in this country, but when they do work they work very well. Find something bigger to get worked up about in your lives.

Thank God - if he exists - that a new week starts tomorrow!

[Charlie Reams]

Bloody hell, is this have-a-go-at-dez week or something?

Sue only pointed out that you were misrepresenting her... Are you still raw from Damian ignoring you?

[Derek Hazell]

Are you still raw from Damian ignoring you?

Ha! No, he didn't know I was there. Anyway, I'm sure you kept him so busy that he wouldn't have had time. I'll say "hello" when I go to a normal filming. Then we can talk about Blackpool FC if we exhaust these other fascinating subjects.

[Lesley Hines]

I support Wolves - does that count?

[Lesley Hines]

Football is supposed to be a man's game, but is played by overpaid posers who love to kiss and cuddle each other when a goal is scored. Ugh!

I think it was Matt that said it first, but heck we need a like button!

[Gavin Chipper]

I don't hate football, but I find people's obsession with it rather annoying sometimes. It's like religion but without a god. Actually it's not the obsession with football that's as annoying as the obsession with a particular team. I find it a bit weird really.

[Sue Sanders]

I don't hate football, but I find people's obsession with it rather annoying sometimes. It's like religion but without a god. Actually it's not the obsession with football that's as annoying as the obsession with a particular team. I find it a bit weird really.

Yeah - that's what I was talking to Derek about which he translated as me not liking football itself. Any sport where I can follow what's happening sufficiently for it to be both interesting and exciting, I'm often able to get quite into just for the duration of the game.

[Derek Hazell]

Yeah - that's what I was talking to Derek about which he translated as me not liking football itself. Any sport where I can follow what's happening sufficiently for it to be both interesting and exciting, I'm often able to get quite into just for the duration of the game.

Yeah, sorry about that. When we were both saying we couldn't understand why people follow certain teams, and that football talk is generally boring, and you said that several of your male friends don't like football my brain just went into shorthand mode when signalling to my hands. I also remembered Gevin saying something about not being too bothered before.

Basically I was just clutching at straws desperately trying to find someone else!

[Sue Sanders]

This can be.......about any other random non-football-related point not worthy of its own topic.

In the spirit of what the thread was meant to be.....

It's 'bored with' not 'bored of'.

Doesn't 'I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue' make you glad to be a middle class, middle aged, middle Englander?

I only remember to use my Oil of Ulay/Olay about once a fortnight and I have 4K in a pension fund but am not paying any more money into it. Both scenarios are insufficient.

[Charlie Reams]

It's 'bored with' not 'bored of'.

Why?

[Brian Moore]

It's 'bored with' not 'bored of'.

Why?

I ran into a "bored of" diatribe the other day. If you can be "tired of" something, what's the problem with "bored of"?

[Marc Meakin]

Are football haters, generally sport haters?

[Derek Hazell]

Are football haters, generally sport haters?

That's an interesting question. I personally am not really into any sports. I used to enjoy basketball at school, but don't watch or play anything now.

Sue mentioned that several of her friends are into extreme type sports, and I would think they would be wonderful fun to take part in - if I was brave enough.

I do think watching sports is different when someone you know is playing, and I would definitely do that and cheer them on whenever I got the chance.

[George Jenkins]

Are football haters, generally sport haters?

The best football match I've watched on television was the Ladies finals. I was suprised at the skill demonstrated by these Ladies. I can't remember if they kissed and cuddled each other when a goal was scored.
Some years ago I watched a group of retired footballers on television. they included ex England players, and they were discussing the trend of modern players to kiss and cuddle. they concluded that it was a good thing because it was a way of relieving tension. I'd like to know what old players like Tommy Lawton would have thought of that Idea.

[Brian Moore]

Are football haters, generally sport haters?

'Hate' is too strong a word for my dislike of football and the tribalism it engenders, but elevation of a moderately entertaining game into such a consuming passion for so many people does perplex me in a way that other sports don't.

Where this does trouble me is when, for instance, the Government was happy to pour millions of pounds subsidy (£161m?) into a stadium for this one game, when at the same time, for instance, one club (Man U) can have a turnover of £245m and the people playing the game can earn tens of thousands of pounds per week. This does suggest that football can skew people's values, when there are so many other worthwhile activities and causes that would benefit from such funding and attention.

[Charlie Reams]

Where this does trouble me is when, for instance, the Government was happy to pour millions of pounds subsidy (£161m?) into a stadium for this one game ... This does suggest that football can skew people's values, when there are so many other worthwhile activities and causes that would benefit from such funding and attention.

Just to play devil's advocate (wouldn't usually defend government spending) but surely the idea of the investment into the new national stadium was to stimulate the local area and enrich the country in the long term? It wasn't just a gift to the already-rich footballing world. It's an investment which, given the popularity of football, is likely to be wise in the long term, whereas money spent subsidising unpopular but supposedly worthy causes like opera is likely to sink without trace.

[Brian Moore]

Where this does trouble me is when, for instance, the Government was happy to pour millions of pounds subsidy (£161m?) into a stadium for this one game ... This does suggest that football can skew people's values, when there are so many other worthwhile activities and causes that would benefit from such funding and attention.

Just to play devil's advocate (wouldn't usually defend government spending) but surely the idea of the investment into the new national stadium was to stimulate the local area and enrich the country in the long term? It wasn't just a gift to the already-rich footballing world. It's an investment which, given the popularity of football, is likely to be wise in the long term, whereas money spent subsidising unpopular but supposedly worthy causes like opera is likely to sink without trace.

With my almost entire ignorance of economics, the Wembley Stadium thing reminds me of the bank rescues - taking each industry as whole, something must be out of balance if the public are pouring in millions (or billions) while at the same time others in the same industry are earning extremely large amounts of money. Was there not enough money in the football industry as a whole to afford a 'national' football stadium? I'm not denying there aren't economic and social benefits from things in which I have no interest, but I'm not sure I can understand why I should be paying extra taxes for a very commercial game. Hmm, this might be an argument for a publicly-subsidised national lacrosse stadium. Maybe there's one already.

[Charlie Reams]

I'm not sure I can understand why I should be paying extra taxes for a very commercial game.

It's a question of cui bono. Although some football clubs and players are making a lot of money, those are private entities whereas the national stadium is, obviously, nationalised. Maybe clubs could be asked to invest in the stadium (maybe this actually happened, I don't know) but it seems reasonable to me that taxes fund something which is in the national interest, given the vast number of people who enjoy football. Also the revenue generated by football is taxed so it's obviously in the national interest to generate wealth from sport as from anything else.

[Phil Reynolds]

I'm bored by this thread now.

[Derek Hazell]

I'm bored by this thread now.

"Bored by Derek's nonsense, I bored with brute force my way into Phil's house, where we cleared his bored of biscuits."

[Richard Adams]

This game can be beautiful. My best man is devoted to Rotherham FC and took me to see them play Plymouth. His team scored a brilliant goal, from goalie to the centre, one-bounce and on to the left winger, one-bounce to an instinctive left-footed half-volley taken shoulder-high across the goal-mouth from the left to the right-hand corner of the net. Stunning and unforgettable.

But it is also sooooooooooo frustrating, both players appeal for the throw, for the corner/goal-kick, they dive, they cheat...I have some sympathy for Henry, I think what he did was instinctive (rather than deliberate) and that he only had a few seconds in which to decide whether to 'confess' or just see what happened, and some sympathy for the professional fouler who would rather take the penalty within the rules than concede the goal, but the cheating - the diving - really spoils it for me

[Alec Rivers]

I'm bored by this thread now.

"Bored by Derek's nonsense, I bored with brute force my way into Phil's house, where we cleared his bored of biscuits."

[Phil Reynolds]

This game can be beautiful.

Wrong topic.

[Brian Moore]

I'm not sure I can understand why I should be paying extra taxes for a very commercial game.

It's a question of cui bono. Although some football clubs and players are making a lot of money, those are private entities whereas the national stadium is, obviously, nationalised. Maybe clubs could be asked to invest in the stadium (maybe this actually happened, I don't know) but it seems reasonable to me that taxes fund something which is in the national interest, given the vast number of people who enjoy football. Also the revenue generated by football is taxed so it's obviously in the national interest to generate wealth from sport as from anything else.

I have problems with this argument on two counts (and three if you count my ignorance)...

Surely this is only valid if, firstly, Wembley Stadium is truly nationalised, and secondly if no other private sources of funding were available to replace the subsidy.

Firstly, according to my extensive research, Wembley Stadium is owned by a subsidiary of the FA, which, I assume, is not a nationalised business. And secondly, if Wikipedia is to be believed, the FA's income from television rights is somewhere in the region of £570m a year. If my cursory understanding of football economics is correct, a proportion of this sum is paid to the clubs, which in turn goes to pay players' wages and shareholders, so it doesn't seem that the separation of clubs and the national stadium is clear-cut. It would only have taken a re-prioritisation of income distribution to make a public subsidy unnecessary.

If public popularity, national interest and tax-generating ability were the main criteria, it could be argued that the X-Factor and Simon Cowell would be in with a chance for public subsidy...

[Sue Sanders]

It's 'bored with' not 'bored of'.

Why?

I ran into a "bored of" diatribe the other day. If you can be "tired of" something, what's the problem with "bored of"?

Yes, indeed, 'tired of' is correct. Despite increasing usage, 'bored of' still isn't recognised as Standard English. Certain things get drummed into you at school, and getting it wrong resulted in a big, red cross on the page. The ones that have stuck with me are 'bored of', 'alot', 'off of' and signing a note or letter with 'Love Sue' rather than 'Love, Sue'.

There will have been others, but I've forgotten them. However, if I know the correct form, I prefer to stick with it.

For me, it grates to hear, 'it fit' instead of 'it fitted' and constructions such as 'they've got those, don't they?' instead of 'they've got those, haven't they?'. It seems though, that we now live in an era when even adverts for products with an aitch in their name are accepted with the pronunciation, 'haitch'.

[Charlie Reams]

Yes, indeed, 'tired of' is correct. Despite increasing usage, 'bored of' still isn't recognised as Standard English. Certain things get drummed into you at school, and getting it wrong resulted in a big, red cross on the page. The ones that have stuck with me are 'bored of', 'alot', 'off of' and signing a note or letter with 'Love Sue' rather than 'Love, Sue'.

Hmm, bored of gets 2.6M Google hits to bored with's 3.6M. If something gets over 40% of the usage and still isn't recognised by dictionaries then I'd say that's a fault in statistical linguistics more than anything else.

[Sue Sanders]

Apparently the google hits jumped up due to the number of hits on 'Bored of the Rings', a title which was obviously intended as a pun rather than an indication of common grammatical usage of 'bored of'.

[Derek Hazell]

There's something wrong when someone calls themself an Englishman but doesn't like England's greatest game (well, our greatest game since we used to think cricket was our greatest game anyway).

[Marc Meakin]

There's something wrong when someone calls themself an Englishman but doesn't like England's greatest game (well, our greatest game since we used to think cricket was our greatest game anyway).

Are you not English then?

[Charlie Reams]

Apparently the google hits jumped up due to the number of hits on 'Bored of the Rings', a title which was obviously intended as a pun rather than an indication of common grammatical usage of 'bored of'.

"bored of" -"bored of the rings" still gets 2.53M so no significant difference.

[Jon Corby]

Apparently the google hits jumped up due to the number of hits on 'Bored of the Rings', a title which was obviously intended as a pun rather than an indication of common grammatical usage of 'bored of'.

"bored of" -"bored of the rings" still gets 2.53M so no significant difference.

In fact

"bored of the rings" = 34,400 results
"bored with the rings" = 446,000 results

lol




(Edit - I'm glad I just put lol at the end of this, rather than some kind of conclusion, because actually it's utterly meaningless)

[Sue Sanders]

Ok, well perhaps the ODE will see fit to change their 'usage notes' under the entry for 'bored'. While they're at it perhaps they'll change the definition of 'black' and 'white'

[Rosemary Roberts]

It's 'bored with' not 'bored of'.

That grates with me, too, Sue. If there is a danger that such things will become mainstream just because they are tolerated, maybe the solution is for us to become less tolerant.

perhaps the ODE will see fit to change their 'usage notes' under the entry for 'bored'. While they're at it perhaps they'll change the definition of 'black' and 'white'

[Charlie Reams]

Ok, well perhaps the ODE will see fit to change their 'usage notes' under the entry for 'bored'. While they're at it perhaps they'll change the definition of 'black' and 'white'

It's interesting how strongly people cling to what they were taught as a child. Even those old codgers at the ODE were forced to admit that "bored of" is common in informal English which, I think you'll agree, probably includes an Internet forum about a daytime game show.

[Alec Rivers]

If there is a danger that such things will become mainstream just because they are tolerated, maybe the solution is for us to become less tolerant.

Personally, I think there is a very important distinction to be made with regard to the dynamism of English and the tolerance of any changes. Generally, there are two kinds of situation when an alteration to the usage of the language occurs:

• 1. A new object or concept needs describing, in which case either an existing word takes on an additional meaning or a new word is created.
  2. Laziness and/or ignorance changes the usage or spelling of a word, yet does nothing to enrich the language.

The latter, I feel, is to be resisted. A language enables efficient and unambiguous communication (subject to the natural limitations of human language) only when the rules of that language are universally agreed upon. Any unnecessary changes, therefore, introduce inefficiencies and ambiguities which can lead to misunderstandings and, sometimes, a failure to relate important information correctly. Among the most disappointing changes are those where subtle distinctions are lost by the misuse of words and phrases, often homonyms.

[Charlie Reams]

The latter, I feel, is to be resisted.

So would you be happier if we were still writing "to-morrow"? Dropping the hyphen doesn't add any expressive power, it's just laziness (or ignorance).

[Alec Rivers]

The latter, I feel, is to be resisted.

So would you be happier if we were still writing "to-morrow"? Dropping the hyphen doesn't add any expressive power, it's just laziness (or ignorance).

In any short write-up on such a vast subject there are always going to be omissions and generalisations within which you can find things to challenge.

Changing 'to-morrow' was an improvement in efficiency that did not blur any distinctions between it and other words. I meant to emphasise that I am mostly dismayed at unnecessary changes in meaning, and at misspellings, that can cause misunderstandings. I also think it's a shame when a generally respectable person whose opinions might be worth noting affects his perceived credibility by writing poorly. I am much less inclined to take someone seriously if they appear to be uneducated. Unfortunately, unless I am very much mistaken, the proportion of the population who cannot confidently write the phrase "They're putting their things over there" correctly seems to be growing. I think this should concern us all.

[JimBentley]

I also think it's a shame when a generally respectable person whose opinions might be worth noting affects his perceived credibility by writing poorly. I am much less inclined to take someone seriously if they appear to be uneducated.

Youse sayin ima fuckin loser or summat?

[Alec Rivers]

lol

[Charlie Reams]

Changing 'to-morrow' was an improvement in efficiency that did not blur any distinctions between it and other words. I meant to emphasise that I am mostly dismayed at unnecessary changes in meaning, and at misspellings, that can cause misunderstandings. I also think it's a shame when a generally respectable person whose opinions might be worth noting affects his perceived credibility by writing poorly. I am much less inclined to take someone seriously if they appear to be uneducated. Unfortunately, unless I am very much mistaken, the proportion of the population who cannot confidently write the phrase "They're putting their things over there" correctly seems to be growing. I think this should concern us all.

Right, but I'm pretty sure you would object to words like "seperate" and "buisness" (both of which generate millions of Google hits), even though those really aren't confusable with any other word. And I guess I would too. It's just hard to have any kind of consistent opinion on this which doesn't boil down to preconceptions about what "educated" people would do.

[Marc Meakin]

To try and steer this mother back towards being on topic again, it is interesting that both Wigan and Charlton have nicknames that have evolved from supporters of those teams being unable to pronounce athletic properly (the Latics and the Addicks respectively).

[Alec Rivers]

I'm pretty sure you would object to words like "seperate" and "buisness"

Yes, because they are illogical. 'Separate' is from L. se- + parare and 'business' is simply busy + -ness.
Considering how many hundreds of millions of people worldwide use English (or are likely to in the future), it might help them if we tried to maintain whatever consistency still remains in the language. That includes all the words which are still more-or-less true to their source, e.g. 'separate', so that they might be a little easier to learn for people with knowledge of the languages whence they were taken.

... boil down to preconceptions about what "educated" people would do.

I think that may be what this (and my ire) is all about, actually; maybe I'm a snob; who knows.


p.s. Note the now-rare correct usage of 'whence'.

[Charlie Reams]

Yes, because they are illogical. 'Separate' is from L. se- + parare and 'business' is simply busy + -ness.

It's also illogical that a word which is pronounced "bizness" is spelt like "busyness", so you can't win.

[Brian Moore]

I'm pretty sure you would object to words like "seperate" and "buisness"

Yes, because they are illogical.

If logic were to come into it, we would have to roll back the centuries on thousands of words and phrases, including ones (for instance) like auger, umpire, adder, newt, nick-name and humble pie, all the result of faulty separation or false splitting. Citing logic in the "let's preserve English as it is (or as it should be)" is a dangerous game.

[Alec Rivers]

If logic were to come into it, we would have to roll back the centuries on thousands of words and phrases

Which is why I suggested we ...

maintain whatever consistency still remains in the language

Regressing would do much more harm than good, not least in view of the sheer quantity of English-language material already in the world.

[Ben Hunter]

You can't really maintain the consistency of a language spoken by so many people without being nasty and authoritarian. How exactly do you propose to stop it from changing? You only have to look at the evil Academie Francaise to get an idea of what a similar British organisation would end up like. Better the English language regress into a massive soup of 'bos' and 'innits' than having an advisory body going around trying to crush our regional dialects.

[Rosemary Roberts]

You can't really maintain the consistency of a language spoken by so many people without being nasty and authoritarian. How exactly do you propose to stop it from changing?

I agree. One way to preserve what is good and gently resist what is less good is for the educated among us, and yes, I include myself and you lot, to continue writing as correctly as we can without bitching (much) about each other's personal habits. Although all "users of English" certainly have a voice, a lot of them have only that. When it comes to English, my "educated people" are not so much those who can speak and/or read English, but those who can and do write it fluently (and spell at least as well as I do).

[George Jenkins]

There's something wrong when someone calls herself an Englishman but doesn't like England's greatest game (well, our greatest game since we used to think cricket was our greatest game anyway).

I was going to argue with you Derek and say that professional football is not a game, but a money making business. Then I remembered my Irish Grandmother, Welsh Grandad and Scottish Grandad. I decided to keep my mouth shut and just enjoy this forum, lazing about in comfort, with money piling up in the Bank. Enjoying a big fat pension financed by kind real Englishmen through their income tax. I can't thank you enough.

[Richard Adams]

This game can be beautiful.

Wrong topic.

Harsh, Phil. What would you prefer to see in this thread other than reasons to hate football? OK I embellished mine, but purely for contrast.

But I've just read this, which says it much better.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 926947.ece

[Marc Meakin]

This game can be beautiful.

Wrong topic.

Harsh, Phil. What would you prefer to see in this thread other than reasons to hate football? OK I embellished mine, but purely for contrast.

But I've just read this, which says it much better.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 926947.ece

Lots of posts about grammer, by the looks of it.

[Alec Rivers]

But I've just read this, which says it much better.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 926947.ece

He questions why it's still called 'the beautiful game'. Firstly, the game itself will always be beautiful to those of us who love it, even if some of those playing it aren't. Secondly, this guy clearly doesn't appreciate Arsenal's efforts to continue elevating their gameplay to artistic levels, skilfully combining physical and mental agility to express the game in its purest form. Throughout Europe, Arsenal and Barcelona are generally regarded to be the main proponents of this stylish approach which is very pleasing on the eye and to which so many other teams aspire.

[Sue Sanders]

But I've just read this, which says it much better.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 926947.ece

He questions why it's still called 'the beautiful game'. Firstly, the game itself will always be beautiful to those of us who love it, even if some of those playing it aren't. Secondly, this guy clearly doesn't appreciate Arsenal's efforts to continue elevating their gameplay to artistic levels, skilfully combining physical and mental agility to express the game in its purest form. Throughout Europe, Arsenal and Barcelona are generally regarded to be the main proponents of this stylish approach which is very pleasing on the eye and to which so many other teams aspire.

TAKE THIS POST ELSEWHERE, ALEC
Whilst I appreciate you are making replies to something that is could be said to be 'football hating', I'm now having to read the sort of thing that has its own thread - a thread which I avoid because it's not meant for me.

[Peter Mabey]

Yes, because they are illogical. 'Separate' is from L. se- + parare and 'business' is simply busy + -ness.

It's also illogical that a word which is pronounced "bizness" is spelt like "busyness", so you can't win.

you could say "bees' knees"

[Gavin Chipper]

Another thing that annoys me about football is the imprecision of deciding the winner. I know adjudicating is always going to have its controversies in pretty much any conceivable competition, but I think football suffers more than most other games. The Henry incident with the handball is just the top of the iceberg - most games that I've seen have had debatable off-side/not off-side decisions or penalties/non-penalties. And when a game is often decided by just the one goal, these things can easily decide the match and results can be fairly arbitrary. I know the game is more "exciting" for not having 25-8 scorelines but it suffers in another crucial area.

[Phil Reynolds]

Another thing that annoys me about football is the imprecision of deciding the winner. I know adjudicating is always going to have its controversies in pretty much any conceivable competition, but I think football suffers more than most other games. The Henry incident with the handball is just the top of the iceberg - most games that I've seen have had debatable off-side/not off-side decisions or penalties/non-penalties. And when a game is often decided by just the one goal, these things can easily decide the match and results can be fairly arbitrary. I know the game is more "exciting" for not having 25-8 scorelines but it suffers in another crucial area.

If you actually care two hoots about any of this, you're posting in the wrong topic.

[Alec Rivers]

TAKE THIS POST ELSEWHERE, ALEC

If you actually care two hoots about any of this, you're posting in the wrong topic.

I like your style, Phil.


Just a playful dig, Sue.