The Lemon Fool

didds wrote:

pje16 wrote:I read today they should receive honours
OH COME ON
What for.... 9 hours of playing football
(sorry I forgot to include the 2 lots of 30mins extra time)

Paul Collingwood famously got an OBE for scoring 17 runs and taking one catch at the Oval.

If it carries on like that we'll all have one soon

didds wrote:

Looked to me like she paused briefly at the time to consider, and then decided to take the shirt off anyway, knowing the direct penalty, but perhaps not the indirect impact of scenarios that could have evolved in the following 8 minutes.

whereas i think she was about to do so ... then waited to see if the goal stood eg not deemed offside ... and then when it was clear the goal DID stand ... the rest is history.

Yes that's what happened. She said so in an interview.

Scott.

Pretty ancient. You could probably find fragments of dinosaur droppings.

Jack Charlton?

pje16 wrote:I read today they shoud receive honours
OH COME ON
What for.... 9 hours of playing football
(sorry I forgot to include the 2 lots of 30mins extra time)

Are you just anti-football, anti sport, anti women? I'm not clear why you have such a problem; what is it that you do not appreciate about these things?

I suppose much depends on what honours they might me given, of course. I expect many would agree they should not be over- honoured, but might not object to a minor honour. There are plenty of folk recognised for doing great service to the advancement of a particular sort, and this would fit in here. The highest footballing trophy in 56 years has to be worth something by way of recognition.


Arb.

Arborbridge wrote:

pje16 wrote:I read today they shoud receive honours
OH COME ON
What for.... 9 hours of playing football
(sorry I forgot to include the 2 lots of 30mins extra time)

Are you just anti-football, anti sport, anti women? I'm not clear why you have such a problem; what is it that you do not appreciate about these things?

I suppose much depends on what honours they might me given, of course. I expect many would agree they should not be over- honoured, but might not object to a minor honour. There are plenty of folk recognised for doing great service to the advancement of a particular sort, and this would fit in here. The highest footballing trophy in 56 years has to be worth something by way of recognition.

Arb.

Are you just anti-football, anti sport, anti women?
NO NO and NO - not in the slightest, where did I give you that idea
Do you really think people should get honours for just doing their job for a handful of hours
If so that is an anathema to me

pje16 wrote:

Arborbridge wrote:

pje16 wrote:I read today they shoud receive honours
OH COME ON
What for.... 9 hours of playing football
(sorry I forgot to include the 2 lots of 30mins extra time)

Are you just anti-football, anti sport, anti women? I'm not clear why you have such a problem; what is it that you do not appreciate about these things?

I suppose much depends on what honours they might me given, of course. I expect many would agree they should not be over- honoured, but might not object to a minor honour. There are plenty of folk recognised for doing great service to the advancement of a particular sort, and this would fit in here. The highest footballing trophy in 56 years has to be worth something by way of recognition.

Arb.

Are you just anti-football, anti sport, anti women?
NO NO and NO - not in the slightest, where did I give you that idea
Do you really think people should get honours for just doing their job for a handful of hours
If so that is an anathema to me

Handful of hours? You must be joking. Would anyone here really believe that a "handful of hours" is a valid assessment?
One can argue that there should be no honours at all: people do a job and get paid, people have an obsessive drive and get financial or other rewards, so why do we give them honours as well? But that's abroader point: given we have various grades of honours, in my view there is a slot for players who have achieved something exceptional, which these women undoubtedly have after years of practice and toil.

Arb.

Arborbridge wrote:Handful of hours? You must be joking. Would anyone here really believe that a "handful of hours" is a valid assessment?
Arb.

Before the 10 hours they played at the Euro finals how many players had anyone except a die hard fan heard of
Yes of course they played before that, but were not in the public consciousness

pje16 wrote:

Arborbridge wrote:Handful of hours? You must be joking. Would anyone here really believe that a "handful of hours" is a valid assessment?
Arb.

Before the 10 hours they played at the Euro finals how many players had anyone except a die hard fan heard of
Yes of course they played before that, but were not in the public consciousness

This is not the place to have an in depth discussion of the honours system but I think it is ridiculous the way they are handed out for success in doing a job.

If it is for some long term voluntary matter that might be different. I would like to have been offered an honour for the huge pleasure I would have in turning it down.

Dod

pje16 wrote:

Arborbridge wrote:Handful of hours? You must be joking. Would anyone here really believe that a "handful of hours" is a valid assessment?
Arb.

Before the 10 hours they played at the Euro finals how many players had anyone except a die hard fan heard of
Yes of course they played before that, but were not in the public consciousness

Presumably you also apply that criteria to the majority of all honours recipients each time the majority have never heard of, but also presumably have put in 1,000s of hours to rise to the top of their industries or professions?

I accept that point
I have put in well over 1000 hours helping a charity, I don't expect anything for it
a large number of honours are just given out too easily these days.
Don't get me started on actors

pje16 wrote:

Arborbridge wrote:Handful of hours? You must be joking. Would anyone here really believe that a "handful of hours" is a valid assessment?
Arb.

Before the 10 hours they played at the Euro finals how many players had anyone except a die hard fan heard of
Yes of course they played before that, but were not in the public consciousness

And how many ordinary people who receieved honours were in the public consciousness? Many people would not have heard of a quarter of those honoured, until they had the award announced. That isn't a prerequisite for an honour. The lollipop lady would only be known to diehard fans too.

I think you have a dodgy case.

BTW, you keep undermining these achievers by thumping on about a number of hours played. That is absurd as you are writing off their training as not worth a light. It also is so transparently absurd that it exposes the weakbess of your own case.

Arb.

Arborbridge wrote:I think you have a dodgy case.

Try comparing who has got them in the last 5 years or so with those who did 20 or so years ago - when it meant something

pje16 wrote:

Arborbridge wrote:I think you have a dodgy case.

Try comparing who has got them in the last 5 years or so with those who did 20 or so years ago - when it meant something

Investors know a thing or two about hindsight bias

This part of the discussion seems to have bored the rest into silence, so I suggest we wind up and agree to differ.

Arb.

It did go off track- my fault
Done deal

pje16 wrote:
Before the 10 hours they played at the Euro finals how many players had anyone except a die hard fan heard of

Well I'm as big a John McClane fan as the rest of them, but I'm not quite sure how relevant that all is to this particular discussion...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

simoan wrote:

... really, Stanway should have been sent off for two bookable offences in the first half for nasty mistimed tackles.

I was going to let this go, but having gone back to the thread, I don't think I can.

Stanway was booked in the first half for a mis-timed, but genuine attempt at a, tackle. She was a fraction of a second late; it was certainly not "nasty". Under the rules, that was never a booking. Fouls do not (or should not) automatically attract yellow cards, especially when they are not deliberate. Neither could the referee have used the excuse that Stanway was "out of control" - she wasn't. I saw a number of incidents of shirt-pulling and deliberate tripping by the Germans where free kicks were admittedly awarded, but the yellow card was not brandished. It should have been - the whole purpose of the yellow card is to prevent deliberate, or persistent, fouls.

If you believe that yellow cards should be handed out like confetti, then maybe that's the Tottenham viewpoint . I realise that the rules (or Laws) of football are drawn up by "bears of very little brain": cf the one for "denying a goal-scoring opportunity" inside the penalty area - red card plus penalty kick. What is a penalty kick if not a "goal-scoring opportunity"? And often a better one than the one denied! And don't get me started on the latest crazy off-side rule!

I haven't posted on this board for ages, apart from inviting entries to the Premier Fantasy Football League (and come on, simoan, not scared, are you?) and I'm still not sure that I understand the system. But I recognise a lot of names from TMF and send my best regards to all.

Alan

garfsuncle wrote:
But I recognise a lot of names from TMF and send my best regards to all.

What fun that TMF football board was in it's heyday...

The battles with Winker were legendary, riding that United wave as he did at the time.

If only his phone hadn't auto-corrected his Motley Fool account application...

I miss him enormously, and do wish he was still around...

:O)

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

garfsuncle wrote:

simoan wrote:

... really, Stanway should have been sent off for two bookable offences in the first half for nasty mistimed tackles.

I was going to let this go, but having gone back to the thread, I don't think I can.

Stanway was booked in the first half for a mis-timed, but genuine attempt at a, tackle. She was a fraction of a second late; it was certainly not "nasty". Under the rules, that was never a booking. Fouls do not (or should not) automatically attract yellow cards, especially when they are not deliberate. Neither could the referee have used the excuse that Stanway was "out of control" - she wasn't. I saw a number of incidents of shirt-pulling and deliberate tripping by the Germans where free kicks were admittedly awarded, but the yellow card was not brandished. It should have been - the whole purpose of the yellow card is to prevent deliberate, or persistent, fouls.
Alan

Yes I spotted that and another England player was booked shortly after for another tackle, again not a foul
You know when the ref has got it wrong, it's when the whole crowd spots it as they must have done by sounding an ironic cheer when the first German got booked

pje16 wrote:

garfsuncle wrote:

simoan wrote:

... really, Stanway should have been sent off for two bookable offences in the first half for nasty mistimed tackles.

I was going to let this go, but having gone back to the thread, I don't think I can.

Stanway was booked in the first half for a mis-timed, but genuine attempt at a, tackle. She was a fraction of a second late; it was certainly not "nasty". Under the rules, that was never a booking. Fouls do not (or should not) automatically attract yellow cards, especially when they are not deliberate. Neither could the referee have used the excuse that Stanway was "out of control" - she wasn't. I saw a number of incidents of shirt-pulling and deliberate tripping by the Germans where free kicks were admittedly awarded, but the yellow card was not brandished. It should have been - the whole purpose of the yellow card is to prevent deliberate, or persistent, fouls.
Alan

Yes I spotted that and another England player was booked shortly after for another tackle, again not a foul
You know when the ref has got it wrong, it's when the whole crowd spots it as they must have done by sounding an ironic cheer when the first German got booked

The referee was quite wayward, in my view - unlike those in the semi-finals. It wasn't a though she was deliberately biassed, but just a bit, well, random. I wonder if some of the events we saw were just not visible to her or her assistants. Hopefully, it evened out in the long run, and thank goodness she didn't award any penalties, but I do despair when a free kick is awarded incorrectly in a goal threatening position.

Arb.