Louise Posted 8 January 2007 Posted 8 January 2007 FIFA are going to charge Holloway for calling Sep Blatter an 'idiot and a loonatic'.
lookwhaticando Posted 8 January 2007 Posted 8 January 2007 FIFA are going to charge Holloway for calling Sep Blatter an 'idiot and a loonatic'. That's very idiotic of them. It's not like he's bringing the game into disrepute or anything - Blatter's idiotic ramblings do that already. So actually Holloway is negating the effects of Blatter's idiocy by discrediting him. Bravo, Holloway, Bravo. Bet it doesn't stop him, either. ;)
dandannieldanok Posted 8 January 2007 Posted 8 January 2007 Holloway is an idiot himself. There is no doubting that Blatter is a fool but surely he knew what he was getting himself into by saying that. Blatter is one of the most powerful people in the game. I just don't get why Holloway is suddenly trying to grab the media's attentions with his strange ramblings. Yes his column on the BBC is good for chuckle (at times) but for me its just enhancing the fact that he is a bumbling old fool. Ask yourselves this: Is it a just coincedence that Plymouth's early season form has disappeared just as the media hype around Holloway, that he welcomes with open arms, increases?
Leonisco Posted 8 January 2007 Posted 8 January 2007 Sepp Blatter eats small children. Oh, and he knows nothing about football, either.
Flynny Posted 8 January 2007 Posted 8 January 2007 Was it Blatter who said that women's football would benefit from skimpier costumes? Only sane thing he's ever said.
Ultra Posted 8 January 2007 Posted 8 January 2007 Holloway is spot on. But this is as clear a case of pot and kettle as you'll ever see!
Maybes Posted 8 January 2007 Posted 8 January 2007 Holloway ....man of the people. Hes a funny guy, says what he thinks, got to admire him at times.
lookwhaticando Posted 8 January 2007 Posted 8 January 2007 Unless and until Blatter and his bandits tackle some of the real big issues in the game, they will always be considered lunatic idiots. Alas, Blatters Bandit's doing something useful is about as likely as Leicester City winning the Champions League in a year's time. Holloway didn't need to tell us Blatter is a first class buffoon - we knew that already.
JoeyB Posted 8 January 2007 Posted 8 January 2007 blatter needs to pull his finger out his arse and change the offside rule back to how it was. since that happened football has become a farce half the people i ask dont know the offside rule and im not even sure about. blatter is a disgrace to football and its time for him to quit well thats my opinion
lookwhaticando Posted 8 January 2007 Posted 8 January 2007 blatter needs to pull his finger out his arse and change the offside rule back to how it was. since that happened football has become a farce half the people i ask dont know the offside rule and im not even sure about. blatter is a disgrace to football and its time for him to quit well thats my opinion I know the offside rule still, and can explain it somewhat. People are mightily confused by it, after explanation, mind. The problem with the rule is a lack of clarity. Cisse's little 'dummy' against Blackburn (says Leonisco) last season was a prime example. If he wasn't interfering with play, I don't know what he was doing. He was clearly offside, and he initially went for the ball, but then let it go - he had the keeper and the defence watching him as he looked like he was going to shoot. Then someone else comes in and stabs in the goal. That was a silly decision. There's no way Cisse could be deemed not to be interfering. The rule is too open to interpretation, that's the problem.
davieG Posted 9 January 2007 Posted 9 January 2007 Well you could argue and I often do that if a defender notices a player in an offside position and reacts in someway then they are interfering with the play simply by distracting defenders. They should say anyone in an offside position is interfering with play but move the offside 'line/area' upto the edge of ther penalty area to reduce the incidences of off-side, it's hardly right the someone one foot in from the half way line should be deemed to be off-side. This would also have the effect of 'spreading' the field and opening up the game because at the moment far too many teams push up to the half way line and compress the game making passing difficult.
Leonisco Posted 9 January 2007 Posted 9 January 2007 I know the offside rule still, and can explain it somewhat. People are mightily confused by it, after explanation, mind. The problem with the rule is a lack of clarity. Cisse's little 'dummy' against Pompey (I think) last season was a prime example. If he wasn't interfering with play, I don't know what he was doing. He was clearly offside, and he initially went for the ball, but then let it go - he had the keeper and the defence watching him as he looked like he was going to shoot. Then someone else comes in and stabs in the goal. That was a silly decision. There's no way Cisse could be deemed not to be interfering. The rule is too open to interpretation, that's the problem. Just to be a pedantic git, that was against Blackburn.
lookwhaticando Posted 9 January 2007 Posted 9 January 2007 Just to be a pedantic git, that was against Blackburn. Hence the 'I think' after Pompey. Thanks!
act smiley Posted 10 January 2007 Posted 10 January 2007 Well you could argue and I often do that if a defender notices a player in an offside position and reacts in someway then they are interfering with the play simply by distracting defenders. Yeah, all that it really needs is being a bit tighter with the interfering with play/players bit, no point changing it back everyone would be in an uproar if they got a goal disallowed when the right winger was a little bit offside when it was crossed in from the left and scored by a striker and it'd happen far more than the occasional bit of exploiting the laws. Don't think there needs to be a further up "offside line", they tried that in America in the 70s I think and it didn't work.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.