THAT goal

[HighPeakFox]

10 minutes ago, StanSP said:

what length of time would the ban be?

A decade 

[Plastik Man]

4 hours ago, jammie82uk said:

Ok Let’s try a different explanation then 

 

what minute is it classed as something happening in a football match say for example 9mins and 30secs? 

 

I’m sure you will agree it’s the tenth minute 

 

so 9 years and 6 months is therefore in the 10th year? 

I don't disagree in your analysis of minutes but years are different, in our system they are counted from 1AD, with no year 0. So the first decade AD ended at the end of 10AD, not 9AD.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_zero

 

Let's leave it at that.

 

1 hour ago, hackneyfox said:

When someone mention the 1800s they don't mean the period 1801-1900, they mean 1700 to 1799

Eh? 1701-1800 was the 18th century, wasn't the 1800s just the beginning of the 19th century?

[Aus Fox]

@Plastik Man @Trav Le Bleu I brought this up in the what grinds my gears thread a few weeks back, didn’t get anywhere and gave up trying to explain it.

The major problem is this is all out of sink with how people think about time, when we think about minutes in a football game, or someone’s age we start at 0 as at some point the time on the clock of that  football game someone mentioned was 0:30 and a child was 6 month old. 

We need to critically think about years and readjust our thinking as this wasn’t the case. As is demonstrated by the media and the ridicule people meet with when they explain this many people aren’t able to think critically about more complex mathematics. 

 

[Bayfox]

1 hour ago, The_77 said:

Was over from NYC that week and in the back row of the kop thanks to @Bayfox-- it felt like the game was in slow motion when Mahrez played that ball to Vardy, and I just kept thinking, "don't hit it, don't hit it." But, my goodness, once Vardy struck that ball, it was only going in. I wound up a few rows down during the beautifully raucous eruption around the stadium. 

 

Watching the replays now, I'm struck by how long the crowd and the players celebrated after the goal. Damn, what a moment.

Glad to be of service. Up the city.

[Trav Le Bleu]

4 hours ago, Aus Fox said:

@Plastik Man @Trav Le Bleu I brought this up in the what grinds my gears thread a few weeks back, didn’t get anywhere and gave up trying to explain it.

The major problem is this is all out of sink with how people think about time, when we think about minutes in a football game, or someone’s age we start at 0 as at some point the time on the clock of that  football game someone mentioned was 0:30 and a child was 6 month old. 

We need to critically think about years and readjust our thinking as this wasn’t the case. As is demonstrated by the media and the ridicule people meet with when they explain this many people aren’t able to think critically about more complex mathematics. 

 

Amen brother!

[Oxfordfox83]

4 hours ago, Aus Fox said:

@Plastik Man @Trav Le Bleu I brought this up in the what grinds my gears thread a few weeks back, didn’t get anywhere and gave up trying to explain it.

The major problem is this is all out of sink with how people think about time, when we think about minutes in a football game, or someone’s age we start at 0 as at some point the time on the clock of that  football game someone mentioned was 0:30 and a child was 6 month old. 

We need to critically think about years and readjust our thinking as this wasn’t the case. As is demonstrated by the media and the ridicule people meet with when they explain this many people aren’t able to think critically about more complex mathematics. 

 

Have a maths degree. It’s not complex, it’s just that you’re wrong. The 1990s is the entire time period where the year is 199x. The year of birth of a character from a religious book doesn’t enter into it. 

[Aus Fox]

8 hours ago, Oxfordfox83 said:

Have a maths degree. It’s not complex, it’s just that you’re wrong. The 1990s is the entire time period where the year is 199x. The year of birth of a character from a religious book doesn’t enter into it. 

So with your mathematics degree, you would already know about zero bias, I’m assuming.

Would you now like to explain, using your mathematics degree which decade had only 9 years?

[HighPeakFox]

It was a wonderful goal.

[hackneyfox]

14 hours ago, Plastik Man said:

I don't disagree in your analysis of minutes but years are different, in our system they are counted from 1AD, with no year 0. So the first decade AD ended at the end of 10AD, not 9AD.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_zero

 

Let's leave it at that.

 

Eh? 1701-1800 was the 18th century, wasn't the 1800s just the beginning of the 19th century?

Oops

[Oxfordfox83]

1 hour ago, Aus Fox said:

So with your mathematics degree, you would already know about zero bias, I’m assuming.

Would you now like to explain, using your mathematics degree which decade had only 9 years?

Not really. 1986-1995 was a decade. A decade is a ten year period whenever people choose it to be, and everybody chooses 0-9 as their 80s, 90s, 00s, etc. We don’t have to stack them up to some imagined year zero or year one that wasn’t referred to as such until decades after the fact.

 

You can continue to be wound up by it if you insist, but don’t give yourself the pedant’s comfort of thinking you’re right, because you’re not.

[Xen]

Language evolves over time to meet the established usage, even if that goes against logic. The vast majority of people would agree that 'the 90s' was the period between 1990 and 1999, so that is how it's 'defined' culturally. Doesn't matter whether or not there was a year 0, especially as no-one referring to 'the 00s' means the years 0X AD.

 

The literal definition of 'a decade' is just a period of 10 years, regardless of start point. The cultural definition of a decade starts with the year ending in '0'. 

 

But Jamie Vardy, man. What a goal. Would we say that's his best yet, or would goals like the volley against WBA beat it? Outside of the PL I'd probably add his England backheel goal against Neuer for consideration, just for the sheer audacity of it.

[HighPeakFox]

11 minutes ago, Xen said:

Jamie Vardy, man. What a goal. Would we say that's his best yet, or would goals like the volley against WBA beat it? Outside of the PL I'd probably add his England backheel goal against Neuer for consideration, just for the sheer audacity of it.

Exactly. To think I've been bollocked on this forum for pedantry... 

 

 

[HighPeakFox]

To answer you properly @Xen, I think the technique of the WBA over shoulder volley is ridiculously awesome. However, the significance of the Liverpool goal at the time and in the context of that historic season makes it hard to beat much like the Mahrez goal at Man City a few days later... 

[urban fox]

For sheer technique the WBA goal has to be the winner (was MOTD goal of the season) but for significance, the context of the game, and the sheer audacity of it then this one. (remember this did not get goal of the month at the time, that went to Alli for his swivel volley if I remember rightly).

Whilst this goal is sublime the best bit of this match for me was the sequence of interchanges on our right ending with Shini bursting through to get brought down in the box (nothing given). Now if that had resulted in a goal then there would have been no debate. The best passage of play I have seen from any Leicester side ever. Like watching Brazil at their best. I honestly had to ask myself if I had truly seen what had just taken place.

[Wolfox]

Sat in SK4 and I remember him shaping to shoot and thinking… what are you doing? Okazaki (I think?)  Was making a run and it needed to be squared

 

Anyway the net bulged and i remember feeling mildly confused for a split second…. Soon got over it and jumped around like a lunatic 

 

Oh and that little tiki taka sequence later on was pure filth…. That would’ve been goal of the decade for sure!

[Oxfordfox83]

1 hour ago, urban fox said:

For sheer technique the WBA goal has to be the winner (was MOTD goal of the season) but for significance, the context of the game, and the sheer audacity of it then this one. (remember this did not get goal of the month at the time, that went to Alli for his swivel volley if I remember rightly).

Whilst this goal is sublime the best bit of this match for me was the sequence of interchanges on our right ending with Shini bursting through to get brought down in the box (nothing given). Now if that had resulted in a goal then there would have been no debate. The best passage of play I have seen from any Leicester side ever. Like watching Brazil at their best. I honestly had to ask myself if I had truly seen what had just taken place.

I still have that little video as a favourite on my phone-reckon it comes out twice a month whenever I need a little boost...

[Jimbo]

On 10/12/2019 at 22:22, Trav Le Bleu said:

But there's still a year to go.

 

 

(Sorry, it just really, really, grates that everyone ends decade's on a 9 year, when common sense screams,at me it should be a 10 year.)

Sorry, had to get involved with this 😂

How can there be a year to go??

 

10-11 is 1 year

11-12 is 2 years

12-13 is 3 years

13-14 is 4 years

14-15 is 5 years

15-16 is 6 years

16-17 is 7 years

17-18 is 8 years

18-19 is 9 years

19-20 is 10 years

10 years is a decade

 

Time starts at zero, by the time you've been alive for 10 years you're 10, not 9

 

 

The decade does end at the end of a 9 year and begins again on a 0 year.

 

Anyway, it's all relative. Time is an illusion made by humans. Probably some drunk guys who just wanted to mess with everyone's brains knowing that at the end of each and every year there'll be some woman sitting in the corner crying, some bloke who's stormed off, numerous couples breaking up, people fighting in every single english pub because the "year" has been so bad, when really it's just another day