It feels like it but it's probably more about which teams will generate highest

TV viewing figures to maximise sponsorship and revenue. Not that I am suggesting any kind of fixing but the cards fall kindly...think it's almost at the ideal...Us, Watford and Burnley to go down. Fulham (big spending fashionable London club), Bournemouth (has a Russian billionaire) and probably a Midlands club, so Forest (with their Billionaire risk-taker) or a Sheffield club (a populous area for more subscribers) would be the ideal replacements.

Posted By: Maillot Jaune on March 14th 2022 at 12:20:57

Message Thread

Having watched the highlights, the offside law is a joke. (NCFC) - canary_wharf, Mar 14, 11:37:30
- surely a striker next to a defender is interfering even if he doesn't touch the ball (n/m) (NCFC) - Farkeball, Mar 14, 14:18:55
- Lots of issues with offside (NCFC) - Jester, Mar 14, 12:37:00
- Sometimes I think the powers that be don't want us in the Premier League. (n/m) (NCFC) - DrDublin, Mar 14, 12:02:50
  - It feels like it but it's probably more about which teams will generate highest (NCFC) - Maillot Jaune, Mar 14, 12:20:57
    - Totally this - it's all about subscriber numbers, and we're small beer. (n/m) (NCFC) - Under soil heating, Mar 14, 12:47:14
    - every other multibillion industry is fixed so why not football? (n/m) (NCFC) - Garboldisham, Mar 14, 12:44:45
  - Because Delia refuses to join their party of foreign billionaire investors (n/m) (NCFC) - NorskyNormann, Mar 14, 12:12:05
- No Bamford and Kabak would’ve let the ball carry on to Krul, easy peasy (n/m) (NCFC) - NorskyNormann, Mar 14, 11:59:28
- I've noticed in 2 or 3 of our recent games linesmen have given offsides against us without (NCFC) - Jim, Mar 14, 11:49:45
  - Yep. We get flagged they don’t (n/m) (NCFC) - NorskyNormann, Mar 14, 11:59:48
    - Yes, so we don't even then get the benefit of VAR because the decision can't be changed (n/m) (NCFC) - Jim, Mar 14, 12:24:17
- Looked tighter than a yard for me (NCFC) - SCC 28, Mar 14, 11:40:33
  - Insane rule that needs changing (NCFC) - jamesward, Mar 14, 11:59:19
    - problem is where do you draw the line? (NCFC) - CWC, Mar 14, 12:18:59
      - If the ball is played towards that player, they are offside (n/m) (NCFC) - SimonOTBC, Mar 14, 12:45:18
      - I suppose it would just be a different subjective decision (NCFC) - jamesward, Mar 14, 12:23:13
        
        I personally think if any player is offside in the build up to a goal and that player then (NCFC) - Jim, Mar 14, 12:26:47
        
        Yep these resetting phases need to fuck off (NCFC) - SCC 28, Mar 14, 12:33:03
      - I think you could subjectively judge it (NCFC) - SCC 28, Mar 14, 12:23:10
        
        I think that if you're offside (NCFC) - paulg, Mar 14, 14:11:56
    - Yep just said the same thing (n/m) (NCFC) - SCC 28, Mar 14, 12:01:58
    - VMT (n/m) (NCFC) - NorskyNormann, Mar 14, 12:00:09
  - I still think its offside under the current rules as bamford for me is attempting to play (NCFC) - Jim, Mar 14, 11:51:16
    - For me, he challenged for the ball by running after it (NCFC) - SimonOTBC, Mar 14, 12:08:00
      - He definitely didn’t try to not interfere (NCFC) - SCC 28, Mar 14, 12:19:56
        
        Correct (NCFC) - SimonOTBC, Mar 14, 12:22:54
      - Or if not that, he attempts to play the ball (NCFC) - SimonOTBC, Mar 14, 12:09:20
    - I think with this wording they can get away with it (NCFC) - SCC 28, Mar 14, 12:00:12
      - What about this wording though (NCFC) - Jim, Mar 14, 12:19:32
        
        Yep they should get rid of the clearly (NCFC) - SCC 28, Mar 14, 12:26:16
        
        One thing is for sure, if we score that goal they find a way to cancel it out (n/m) (NCFC) - Jim, Mar 14, 12:28:07
      - He impacted Kabak’s decision to even attempt to play the ball in the first place though (n/m) (NCFC) - NorskyNormann, Mar 14, 12:00:57
        
        Yes but not his ability to play it (NCFC) - SCC 28, Mar 14, 12:04:04
        
        Yes but his run "impacted on an opponant" which is another means of interfering (n/m) (NCFC) - Jim, Mar 14, 12:23:10
    - Yeah I agree with this. So our CBs are meant to judge which strikers are onside (NCFC) - Only1Doherty, Mar 14, 11:56:43
- Looked tighter (n/m) (NCFC) - SCC 28, Mar 14, 11:38:44

Reply to Message

In order to add a post to the WotB Message Board you must be a registered WotB user.

If you are not yet registered then please visit the registration page. You should ensure that their browser is setup to accept cookies.