Bolton Wanderers Forum The-Wanderer.co.uk

Look Cullum is not nasty lad, a lot worse tackles have been made by some of our players in the last few years alone and he certainly could not be considered as a dirty tackler compared to some of the players that have played for us over the years Wheater, Robbo, Stienson, K.D, Meite, Faye, Nobby etc. etc.

bwfcdan94 wrote:Look Cullum is not nasty lad, a lot worse tackles have been made by some of our players in the last few years alone and he certainly could not be considered as a dirty tackler compared to some of the players that have played for us over the years Wheater, Robbo, Stienson, K.D, Meite, Faye, Nobby etc. etc.

That was his debut on Saturday. Do you know him ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=590QoPqs ... r_embedded" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Oooof.

bobo the clown wrote:

bwfcdan94 wrote:Look Cullum is not nasty lad, a lot worse tackles have been made by some of our players in the last few years alone and he certainly could not be considered as a dirty tackler compared to some of the players that have played for us over the years Wheater, Robbo, Stienson, K.D, Meite, Faye, Nobby etc. etc.

That was his debut on Saturday. Do you know him ?

Have seen various Wigan youth games when he has played against us and no that was not his debut.

My apologies, it wasn't his debut. I thought they said that on MotD. It was his 18th appearance.

Mind you, how many Wiggin v Bolton youth games did you manage to get to in your teens, from Berkshire, without a car, usually at Leyland or wherever Wiggin play ?

bwfcdan94 wrote: Have seen various Wigan youth games when he has played against us.

bobo the clown wrote:My apologies, it wasn't his debut. I thought they said that on MotD. It was his 18th appearance.

Mind you, how many Wiggin v Bolton youth games did you manage to get to in your teens, from Berkshire, without a car, usually at Leyland or wherever Wiggin play ?

Just 2

Referee has said he saw the incident, therefore no retrospective accident can be taken, says the FA

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21849733" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Surely the idea of 'retrospective action' should consider events that have been seen at the time, anyway?

mrkint wrote:Referee has said he saw the incident, therefore no retrospective accident can be taken, says the FA

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21849733" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Surely the idea of 'retrospective action' should consider events that have been seen at the time, anyway?

The reason it doesn't currently is because the idea of re-refereeing games was not seen as a good thing by the FA.

They didn't want to have to effectively re-examine every contentious decision a ref made.

And rightly so.

Lad should have had a red and a 3 game ban, but no more.

And plenty deserve a red each Saturday but don't get one.

It's life.

Terrible for the Newcastle player of course. But these things happen in football....

What does the ref get for being a total plant pot?

BWFC_Insane wrote:

mrkint wrote:Referee has said he saw the incident, therefore no retrospective accident can be taken, says the FA

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21849733" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Surely the idea of 'retrospective action' should consider events that have been seen at the time, anyway?

The reason it doesn't currently is because the idea of re-refereeing games was not seen as a good thing by the FA.

They didn't want to have to effectively re-examine every contentious decision a ref made.

And rightly so.

Lad should have had a red and a 3 game ban, but no more.

And plenty deserve a red each Saturday but don't get one.

It's life.

Terrible for the Newcastle player of course. But these things happen in football....

Is it though?

Something along the lines of a citing commissioner would be a good thing, I think. We're talking about every contentious decision either, just those that would have constituted red-card offences.

It wouldn't undermine referees (if they would get off their infallible pedestal at some point). It's just common sense to make sure serious incidents aren't dismissed. The fact that McManaman won't get a ban for it over a technicality is ludicrous.

a1 wrote:

Always hopeful wrote: This reminds me of something that's puzzled me for a few years, namely, what shape would chairs be if your knees bent the other way?

some kinda letter J shape, but say how it looks in the arial font where the swash bit turns up again rather than tapers to nowt..

J

like that but more 'straight' to fit the 60-90 degree angle of bend of the leg with the wierd knees on the backs of our legs and yr toes pointing towards you..

maybe with legs on the bottom of the seat part to raise it off the floor.

Good effort, I like your thinking. Either I'm missing the irony, or what you've described is..........well..........how do I put this...........a normal chair?

With knees bending the other way, how do you lower yourself onto the chair, or get off it for that matter?

Sit on it backwards, boy-band style. It'd squash your nads like, but you're standing up at the key change anyway.

Dave Whelan's response was the most shocking thing for me. Bad tackles happen, referees and governing bodies have their moments... but defending that tackle... not apologizing because there's nothing to complain about... not DW's finest moment. There's protecting your assets and all that, but...

Always hopeful wrote: Good effort, I like your thinking. Either I'm missing the irony, or what you've described is..........well..........how do I put this...........a normal chair?

With knees bending the other way, how do you lower yourself onto the chair, or get off it for that matter?

no, no, i werent being ironic or owt, i always thought the 'knees bending the other way' is kinda a stock joke . but if you think about it you could solve it.

you'd probably have to get in from the side then swive round. kinda like how lady types get in and out of car doors where the hinge is on the back (like a taxi or rolls royce or whatever) and it carnt have no arms or owt (maybe one would be ok)

yr backside and hamstrings would be against the seat as normal, your back would be against the tall backrest part as normal , but the front of the chair would have a upwards 'lip' about half as tall as the backrest that your calf muscles would rest against vertically (the ,erm, 'popliteal height' part of sitting on a chair, is now vertical). it would also result in your toes pointing at you. all kinda like how the letter J looks.

because of this (the wierd frontwards bend of the knee) the chair legs would be optional, you could just have the seat on the floor as the 'calf rest' part points up now whereas on a normal chair (well not chair , more like a on a couch or this throne , it stands on the floor usually.. (instead of having individual front legs) .

the sitting is easy , it's the walking that'd take some figuring out.... i'd assume you'd walk backwards , while leaning forwards to counterbalance falling over.

... i'ma just gonna run to the patent pending place, in case some evolutionary progression / curse from god results in the wierd backward knee thing , so i can make scrilla when the day comes.

:/

Have a look at this tackle in an Aussie Rules match

Lethal Leigh Matthews Vs. The Behind Post


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n06QDjD64n4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yeah but Dave Whelan's a cock.

a1 wrote:

Always hopeful wrote: Good effort, I like your thinking. Either I'm missing the irony, or what you've described is..........well..........how do I put this...........a normal chair?

With knees bending the other way, how do you lower yourself onto the chair, or get off it for that matter?

no, no, i werent being ironic or owt, i always thought the 'knees bending the other way' is kinda a stock joke . but if you think about it you could solve it.

you'd probably have to get in from the side then swive round. kinda like how lady types get in and out of car doors where the hinge is on the back (like a taxi or rolls royce or whatever) and it carnt have no arms or owt (maybe one would be ok)

yr backside and hamstrings would be against the seat as normal, your back would be against the tall backrest part as normal , but the front of the chair would have a upwards 'lip' about half as tall as the backrest that your calf muscles would rest against vertically (the ,erm, 'popliteal height' part of sitting on a chair, is now vertical). it would also result in your toes pointing at you. all kinda like how the letter J looks.

because of this (the wierd frontwards bend of the knee) the chair legs would be optional, you could just have the seat on the floor as the 'calf rest' part points up now whereas on a normal chair (well not chair , more like a on a couch or this throne , it stands on the floor usually.. (instead of having individual front legs) .

the sitting is easy , it's the walking that'd take some figuring out.... i'd assume you'd walk backwards , while leaning forwards to counterbalance falling over. ... i'ma just gonna run to the patent pending place, in case some evolutionary progression / curse from god results in the wierd backward knee thing , so i can make scrilla when the day comes.

:/

Thanks. I hadn't realised that it was a stock joke, but doing a bit of Googling shows you might be right.

I now see what you're getting at now and mostly agree. I think you'd need legs to raise it off the floor however, otherwise I can't see how getting up and out of the chair would be possible without putting your hands on the floor to assist (and that would be rather ungainly).

Walking? Yes, now there's the challenge. The concept of walking backwards whilst leaning forward cracked me up! However, given several million years, evolution would eventually turn our heads around to face the right way, problem solved!

This must be the worst tackle ever, I mean just look at Adryan's sheer pain and distress here.