I’ve just finished reading the Harry Potter series. Here are some things I’d forgotten:
I'd forgotten how much I really do love these books.
I’d forgotten how action packed the seventh book is – it really is non-stop.
I’d forgotten how brave Snape is.
I’d forgotten how much I love Hermione.
I’d forgotten how strong the relationship between Dumbledore and Hagrid is.
I’d forgotten how idiotic the ‘Ron speaks parseltongue’ thing is.
I’d forgotten how dramatic the change in Kreacher is in book 7.
I'd forgotten how truly awesome Luna is.
I'd forgotten how much I disagree with the inclusion/exclusion of certain deaths.
There are probably many more I could mention, but those are some of them.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Diving
This is a blog about football, so if you were hoping for Tom Daley, feel free to stop reading now.
Last week, Eduardo won a penalty for Arsenal against Celtic by diving. The penalty was given, and scored, but replays showed no contact and clear simulation. UEFA have decided to charge the player with ‘deceiving the referee’, which could result in a two-game ban.
At the weekend, Arsenal played Manchester United. During the game, Wayne Rooney won a penalty for United. He was brought down by the Arsenal goalkeeper Manuel Almunia. Replays showed that there was a small amount of contact between Almunia’s hands and Rooney’s feet, but also that Rooney had begun to fall before the contact.
The difference between these two penalty incidents is this thing called ‘contact’. But, as replays clearly showed, the ‘contact’ in the second incident was insignificant because Rooney had already begun to tumble. In fact, had Almunia been able to withdraw his hands in time, Rooney would have tumbled without contact, in just the same way as Eduardo did a few days before.
It seems that referees make penalty decisions based on contact. Assuming the defending player doesn’t get the ball, if there is contact a penalty is given, and if there isn’t it is not given and the attacker is sometimes booked for diving.
This is flawed, because there are all sorts of ‘contact’ in penalty areas at set pieces and in open play. Imagine if players went down whenever there is contact – based on the current decision-making, referees would have to give penalties every few minutes.
The deciding factor shouldn’t be ‘contact’ but ‘significant contact’, i.e. ‘is the contact made sufficient to bring the player down?’ In the case of Rooney, the contact made wasn’t sufficient to bring him down, so the penalty should not have been given.
Of course, to make these decisions, video replays would be needed. Just as they are needed for goal-line and offside decisions. I still cannot see the problem with introducing this technology to football. In fact, a tennis-style challenges system could work, were the captain of the team has, say, three challenges per half which they can use to challenge penalty/goal/offside decisions. Critics would say that this would disrupt the flow of the game. Rubbish. The flow of the game is already disrupted by players protests about these decisions. Why not give them an appropriate system to challenge referees decisions?
Last week, Eduardo won a penalty for Arsenal against Celtic by diving. The penalty was given, and scored, but replays showed no contact and clear simulation. UEFA have decided to charge the player with ‘deceiving the referee’, which could result in a two-game ban.
At the weekend, Arsenal played Manchester United. During the game, Wayne Rooney won a penalty for United. He was brought down by the Arsenal goalkeeper Manuel Almunia. Replays showed that there was a small amount of contact between Almunia’s hands and Rooney’s feet, but also that Rooney had begun to fall before the contact.
The difference between these two penalty incidents is this thing called ‘contact’. But, as replays clearly showed, the ‘contact’ in the second incident was insignificant because Rooney had already begun to tumble. In fact, had Almunia been able to withdraw his hands in time, Rooney would have tumbled without contact, in just the same way as Eduardo did a few days before.
It seems that referees make penalty decisions based on contact. Assuming the defending player doesn’t get the ball, if there is contact a penalty is given, and if there isn’t it is not given and the attacker is sometimes booked for diving.
This is flawed, because there are all sorts of ‘contact’ in penalty areas at set pieces and in open play. Imagine if players went down whenever there is contact – based on the current decision-making, referees would have to give penalties every few minutes.
The deciding factor shouldn’t be ‘contact’ but ‘significant contact’, i.e. ‘is the contact made sufficient to bring the player down?’ In the case of Rooney, the contact made wasn’t sufficient to bring him down, so the penalty should not have been given.
Of course, to make these decisions, video replays would be needed. Just as they are needed for goal-line and offside decisions. I still cannot see the problem with introducing this technology to football. In fact, a tennis-style challenges system could work, were the captain of the team has, say, three challenges per half which they can use to challenge penalty/goal/offside decisions. Critics would say that this would disrupt the flow of the game. Rubbish. The flow of the game is already disrupted by players protests about these decisions. Why not give them an appropriate system to challenge referees decisions?
Saturday, August 15, 2009
False starts
In athletics, the false start rule used to be:
If you false start, you get a warning. If you do it again, you are disqualified.
From next year, the rule will be:
If you false start, you are immediately disqualified.
I am happy with either version - the old one made for more build-up and tension, but did mean things ran over.
However, the current rule is a joke. Currently:
If anyone false starts, the whole field gets a warning. Anyone who then false starts is disqualified.
For example, today, in a World Championship 100m quarter final, lane 6 false started. Everyone got a warning. Then, lanes 2 and 3 false started and were disqualified. Lanes 2, 3 and 6 all made the same mistake, but lane 6 wasn't disqualified because he did it first.
This is the number one stupidest rule in sport. I remember thinking this when they introduced it, and I am delighted to see it being changed for next year.
Rant over.
If you false start, you get a warning. If you do it again, you are disqualified.
From next year, the rule will be:
If you false start, you are immediately disqualified.
I am happy with either version - the old one made for more build-up and tension, but did mean things ran over.
However, the current rule is a joke. Currently:
If anyone false starts, the whole field gets a warning. Anyone who then false starts is disqualified.
For example, today, in a World Championship 100m quarter final, lane 6 false started. Everyone got a warning. Then, lanes 2 and 3 false started and were disqualified. Lanes 2, 3 and 6 all made the same mistake, but lane 6 wasn't disqualified because he did it first.
This is the number one stupidest rule in sport. I remember thinking this when they introduced it, and I am delighted to see it being changed for next year.
Rant over.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Anberlin
Today, a sixth band has joined British Sea Power, Delirious, Idlewild, Lifehouse and Mew in my ‘inner circle’ of favourite bands. This band is Anberlin.
I discovered Anberlin about a year ago when I got their third album ‘Cities’, which is one of my favourite albums of all time. I soon baought their other three albums which, while not quite at the level of Cities, are strong enough, I have decided, to merit Anberlin a place in my inner circle.
While listening to the four albums over the last few weeks, they simply have enough songs of a high enough quality to be ranked alongside Idlewild et al. For anyone who’s interested (probably just James), the songs that particularly catch my ear (other than the entirety of Cities) are Never Take Friendship, The Symphony of Blasé, A Day Late, Time and Confusion, The Feel Good Drag, Audrey Start the Revolution, Dance Dance Christa Paffgen, Foreign Language, Change the World, Cold War Transmissions, Glass to the Arson, Love Song, Cadence, The Resistance, Breaking, Blame Me, Retrace, Disappear, Breath, and Burn Out Brighter. Yeah, that’s a lot of quality songs, and that doesn’t include the 12 absolute monsters on Cities, and that is why they’re in the elite inner circle.
If you care enough, I’m sure you’re capable of Youtubing or Googling them to find out what Anberlin are like. The point of this post is mainly just to register their promotion to the elite.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)