I was at a Slipknot gig on Friday so knew nothing of the result until I got out. From the sound of things me screaming along to âSurfacingâ was pretty much what I would have been screaming at the ref.
I'm a content writer. I make mistakes and some of them end up getting published, which is inevitable with a lack of dedicated subbing and quick turnaround times, but there's a vast difference between good writing with the odd error and writing that's just crap in general.
It's quite worrying that people are coming out of school unable to spell basic words or form sentences properly. The BFP are particularly bad for it, but you see ridiculous mistakes on the BBC all the time these days.
I once read something that was complaining about how stupid the youth were compared to the past. Can't remember the name of the article but it was written in the 1600's. Standards have been in decline for at least the last 500 years.
Having said that, the woman I recently met who thought 'anglophile' meant a person who was attracted to English children might indicate we have reached the end.
Looking at the highlights, we could have had a pen for handball and but for a great save a free kick from that poor Leahy might have won it. Didn't someone also bundle Fred over in the box?
Not seen a replay, but the possible foul on Fred in the 1st half looked a much better penalty shout than the handball (which was never a penalty in my opinion).
The "handball" was not a penalty in a million years.
The highlights I saw didn't show the other one. I don't actually remember it from being at the game.
For me, the disgruntlement with the referee stemmed from the fact the a key part of Bolton's tactics seemed to be to disrupt our play with little niggly fouls and shirt pulls, and it felt he was letting quite a lot of them go.
Three minutes added time at the end seemed way short as well
If you read back in this thread to the âliveâ gasroom punditry (always hilarious) there are âclearly a penâ and âclearly not a penâ comments, both from those at the game and those watching tv with the benefit of replays. In my recollection, the defender seemed to have two hands on Fredâs back, just inside the area with Fred moving away from the box, but was it really a penalty-conceding push, or all part of the physicality of the game? If there was a touch, did he go down to easilyâŠ?
Donât expect a decision from me, Iâm not a refâŠ
@Malone (a great guy who talks a lot of sense except when doing his fabled Professor Stanley Unwin impressions) and @mooneyman (a right card and no mistake) have made me careful over recent years not to be overly didactic.
i have just returned to the Gasroom after a short break and couldnât believe the quantity (?) of comments on the Matchday and Morley threads in particular. I saw @mooneymanâs comment about spelling and grammar being governed by my rules and decided against suggesting that @Maloneâs amount of people should (preferably) be the number of people.
The âruleâ (ie custom and usage) used to be that ânumberâ was applied to something which had countable components (eg the number of people attending an event) and âamountâ applied to things (eg sand, salt, granulated sugar) which could only be quantified by weight or volume.
However, the use of âamountâ to refer, for example, to the number of people has now become so widespread that I think us (we) pedants just have to grin and bear it.
Fred's was a penalty all day long. My theory is that because he was running towards the corner of the box instead of the goal, it was seen as "not as serious" subconsciously by the ref and lino. If the same shove happens with Fred bearing down on goal it would have been given.
Note to ref: It's even called the 'Penalty Area' to help you out.
Couldn't Ravs have produced another stunning bloke to referee the game?
Comments
Did no one spot this in the same article? đđ
I was at a Slipknot gig on Friday so knew nothing of the result until I got out. From the sound of things me screaming along to âSurfacingâ was pretty much what I would have been screaming at the ref.
It's going to be a long time before I forget that refereeing display
Someone will be on to soon say how it's OK because language evolves.
đ
I do find it amusing that the people who seem most put out by it seem to be the only ones who read it
and things like spelling and grammar are individual choices, not governed by some set of 'rules'.
I thought they were governed by @micra's rules!
I work in PR. A lot of national papers also aren't subbed.
Nonetheless, it's hard to fathom how someone gets this so wrong. I can't work out what they were even trying to say.
I'm a content writer. I make mistakes and some of them end up getting published, which is inevitable with a lack of dedicated subbing and quick turnaround times, but there's a vast difference between good writing with the odd error and writing that's just crap in general.
It's quite worrying that people are coming out of school unable to spell basic words or form sentences properly. The BFP are particularly bad for it, but you see ridiculous mistakes on the BBC all the time these days.
Letâs hope none of the BFP reporters ever look on hear. Itâs not very constructive for them
We have a little chuckle on here at little errors or grammatical gufferations but they don't really matter in an informal setting.
But the amount of people you deal with professionally who don't know the basics is worrying.
I once read something that was complaining about how stupid the youth were compared to the past. Can't remember the name of the article but it was written in the 1600's. Standards have been in decline for at least the last 500 years.
Having said that, the woman I recently met who thought 'anglophile' meant a person who was attracted to English children might indicate we have reached the end.
Surely for professionals it's never been easier to look things up online, probably some over reliance on the spell checker.
I think that happened a while back when that lynch mob went after that paediatrician.
That was in (checks notes)....Portsmouth
It should be, "the number of people' not 'the amount of people'.
Looking at the highlights, we could have had a pen for handball and but for a great save a free kick from that poor Leahy might have won it. Didn't someone also bundle Fred over in the box?
Exciting stuff.
Not seen a replay, but the possible foul on Fred in the 1st half looked a much better penalty shout than the handball (which was never a penalty in my opinion).
Donât forget that amazing bloke that Rav produced too.
The "handball" was not a penalty in a million years.
The highlights I saw didn't show the other one. I don't actually remember it from being at the game.
For me, the disgruntlement with the referee stemmed from the fact the a key part of Bolton's tactics seemed to be to disrupt our play with little niggly fouls and shirt pulls, and it felt he was letting quite a lot of them go.
Three minutes added time at the end seemed way short as well
The ref spent 2 minutes wittering at the players before every corner and long throw. Three added on was absolute bollocks.
If you read back in this thread to the âliveâ gasroom punditry (always hilarious) there are âclearly a penâ and âclearly not a penâ comments, both from those at the game and those watching tv with the benefit of replays. In my recollection, the defender seemed to have two hands on Fredâs back, just inside the area with Fred moving away from the box, but was it really a penalty-conceding push, or all part of the physicality of the game? If there was a touch, did he go down to easilyâŠ?
Donât expect a decision from me, Iâm not a refâŠ
Yeah was surprised when I only seen 3 minutes on the board.
Then today at the end of the Everton v Chelsea game they only added 2 minutes on.
I thought it was a pen as did Fred...but we are biased. đ
I never understand this. The players know the rules, if there is a foul just give a free kick or a penalty, don't need lectures at every set piece.
I was one of those watching at home, with the benefit of replays... we should've had 2 penalties
Thank you @LDF.
@Malone (a great guy who talks a lot of sense except when doing his fabled Professor Stanley Unwin impressions) and @mooneyman (a right card and no mistake) have made me careful over recent years not to be overly didactic.
i have just returned to the Gasroom after a short break and couldnât believe the quantity (?) of comments on the Matchday and Morley threads in particular. I saw @mooneymanâs comment about spelling and grammar being governed by my rules and decided against suggesting that @Maloneâs amount of people should (preferably) be the number of people.
The âruleâ (ie custom and usage) used to be that ânumberâ was applied to something which had countable components (eg the number of people attending an event) and âamountâ applied to things (eg sand, salt, granulated sugar) which could only be quantified by weight or volume.
However, the use of âamountâ to refer, for example, to the number of people has now become so widespread that I think us (we) pedants just have to grin and bear it.
Fred's was a penalty all day long. My theory is that because he was running towards the corner of the box instead of the goal, it was seen as "not as serious" subconsciously by the ref and lino. If the same shove happens with Fred bearing down on goal it would have been given.
Note to ref: It's even called the 'Penalty Area' to help you out.
Couldn't Ravs have produced another stunning bloke to referee the game?
Et tu Brute.