Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - David McKeown

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 151
1
General discussion / Re: American Sports Thread
« on: January 05, 2020, 09:27:37 PM »
Wow.  Its like the Vikings are the Saint's Kryptonite in the last three years.

2
GAA Discussion / Re: Full Size Astro Pitch
« on: December 15, 2019, 11:59:20 PM »
Was involved in a soccer team building a small one a few years back. We were quoted 60k for just the carpet. It was a small enough pitch mind about 1/4 of a GAA pitch

3
General discussion / Re: Man Utd Thread:
« on: December 08, 2019, 05:19:51 PM »
I like utds re found principles based on youth academy, honest and sustainability. Sadly other clubs like city and pool are prepared to buy their way to the top. Ruins the game.

ďRefoundĒ?

United struck gold with a single group of youth players in the early 90s. Fair f**ks to them for it, but itís  hardly been a major foundation of the club outside of that outlying group anymore than any other club. Post class of 92, almost all of their superstars until Rashford have been bought for big money. Same as in the 80s (Whiteside excepted).  Time will tell whether the current players coming through make the grade.

How much are they still paying Alexis Sanchez each week?

To be fair Utd have a smattering of home grown talents all the time. Yesterdayís squad for example would have included off the top of my head, Rashford, Lingard, Perreria, McTominay, Tunazebe, Williams, Greenwood. In the squad as a whole Iím sure thereís more you could add including arguably Pogba.

Isnít there some kind of remarkable stat about Utd havenít included at least one former academy player in every squad for over 40 years. Throughout that time homegrown talents have been a major foundation. They certainly havenít always been the main superstars but they have more than simply made up the numbers.

Is that not the case with most clubs though? Problem at the bigger clubs is that with the higher standard most of them end up as part of the rotation rather than first choice or leave for lower clubs.

I donít think so certainly not to the same degree or as consistently. Certainly looking at the City squad itís not. Liverpool maybe had it to a level but not that same level. Also my earlier post should have said having not havenít.

4
General discussion / Re: Man Utd Thread:
« on: December 08, 2019, 08:14:53 AM »
I like utds re found principles based on youth academy, honest and sustainability. Sadly other clubs like city and pool are prepared to buy their way to the top. Ruins the game.

ďRefoundĒ?

United struck gold with a single group of youth players in the early 90s. Fair f**ks to them for it, but itís  hardly been a major foundation of the club outside of that outlying group anymore than any other club. Post class of 92, almost all of their superstars until Rashford have been bought for big money. Same as in the 80s (Whiteside excepted).  Time will tell whether the current players coming through make the grade.

How much are they still paying Alexis Sanchez each week?

To be fair Utd have a smattering of home grown talents all the time. Yesterdayís squad for example would have included off the top of my head, Rashford, Lingard, Perreria, McTominay, Tunazebe, Williams, Greenwood. In the squad as a whole Iím sure thereís more you could add including arguably Pogba.

Isnít there some kind of remarkable stat about Utd havenít included at least one former academy player in every squad for over 40 years. Throughout that time homegrown talents have been a major foundation. They certainly havenít always been the main superstars but they have more than simply made up the numbers.

5
General discussion / Re: Man Utd Thread:
« on: December 07, 2019, 06:30:00 PM »
I genuinely canít understand how Silva canít understand that thatís a penalty Following his foul on Rashford

6
General discussion / Re: Man Utd Thread:
« on: December 07, 2019, 06:28:22 PM »
A stunning half of football from United. Goal was coming as Martial, James and Lingard had good chances to score. Not sure how the ref didn't see the foul on Rashford for the Penalty. Rashford missed a sitter after it and hit the crossbar its no joke to say United could be leading 4-0 at the break.

DeGea hadn't a save to make when did that last happen in a Derby. City to be fair to them had good calls for penalties but VAR didn't think so.

The Lindelof one was never a penalty and I donít think the Fred one was either but as I stated recently I simply donít understand the handball rule anymore

7
General discussion / Re: Scammers
« on: November 21, 2019, 08:35:42 AM »
Used to get loads and loads of calls years ago from scammers about renewing my mobile phone contract I would always politely decline. After a few drinks one night though I decided to play along. As it got to the end of the call they began asking me for my bank details which I refused to give them. From there the conversation went like this.

Scammer: why wonít you provide those sir?
Me: why would you need those I donít pay the bill myself.
Scammer: Do you use the phone mainly for business or leisure.
Me: neither,
Scammer: what did you mean neither?
Me: itís for governmental work
Scammer: why what do you do
Me: Iím a double 0
Scammer: oh so you wouldnít make the decision on the new phone?
Me: No
Scammer: oh who would sir?
Me: Well Q looks after all of our technology but youíd probably be better speaking to M sheís the one in charge.
Scammer: Click

That was about 16 years ago and whilst not particularly funny or clever Iíve never been phoned by scammers since. I hope theyíve added me to their list of time wasters.

8
General discussion / Re: VAR? For or against
« on: November 12, 2019, 07:28:48 PM »
I read somewhere that the decision was that the liverpool handball didn't meet the definition of deliberate.  If that's true, then you'd have to wonder about a number of the handball decisions made already this year.

This is what I mean about the new rules. Did the handball not result in a goal?  If it did is whether or not itís intentional not a moot point?

9
General discussion / Re: VAR? For or against
« on: November 11, 2019, 12:38:51 PM »
They should bin it for these close calls and just go with on field decision. Salah clearly off side for his goal yesterday, not to mention the blatant handball by TAA. It's hard to believe but VAR has actually caused more controversy.

Nobody is disputing the Salah call. It was tight but the onfield decision was right and VAR confirmed it.




Is that blue line adjusted for the fact the camera is not square on. I mean it looks like Salah is closer to the line on the grass than the City defender. Again though that goes back to what I was saying earlier.

10
General discussion / Re: VAR? For or against
« on: November 11, 2019, 12:29:36 PM »
Exactly. VAR seems to have removed that advantage entirely.

Is it not stated in rules anyway that the attacker should get the benefit of the doubt?

Definitely Firmino's goal and McGoldrick's goal would have stood with advantage to attacking player. (Not to mention McGoldrick's goal was 100% onside while Firmino's had a little bit of grey but not much).

It clearly was nt 100% onside hence the debate. The VAR pictures would indicate he was offside.

I actually agree with you Tommy on having a tolerance level  and giving the benefit to the attacker. But setting that margin depends on the League agreeing what the error margin is on those lines and communicating it. If they have determined that those lines can be drawn with 100% accuracy then ever decision should be  solely based on these lines.

On David's point earlier on the two aspects of VAR, I am not sure if VAR can determine on the interfering with play call. Possibly its covered under the "clear and obvious error" provision as it is subjective. It would actually help if the refs were miked up like in Rugby so the crowd know what is being checked. This could have made a big difference yesterday e.g. "I saw ball hit No 66 hand but i judged it was not deliberate" compared to "Could you check if the ball hit the arm". The first scenario is unlikely to be overturned while the second would in all likelihood have been a penalty awarded.

I think youíve hit another flaw in the way VAR is currently used. Take the Sterling Ďpushí as (poor) example. The Premier League do not want the VAR official refereeing the game hence the clear and obvious rule. The difficulty though comes in fouls like that. Did the referee see it and adjudge it not a foul or did he simply not see it.  Does VAR ask the ref why he didnít award a penalty?  If he saw it and didnít award a foul then VAR shouldnít get involved if he didnít see it then VAR has to make the call was it a penalty or not. The situation gets worse if that question isnít asked. Then VAR has to decide has the ref made a wrong call here. If he did why did he make it.

The net consequence of it all is that in the majority of scenarios VAR is actually rerefereeing the game (which was supposed to be avoided) but is doing so with one hand tied behind its back.

11
General discussion / Re: VAR? For or against
« on: November 11, 2019, 08:56:07 AM »
The  line is drawn as soon as contact is made by the boot to ball, at 50 frames per second when the line was drawn the sheff utd player was 2mm offside but that does not constitute a reason to reverse an officials decision never mind using 5 minutes to scrutinise. I think the MLS VAR procedure works much better, the video ref has a quick review of an incident to look for an obvious error by the officials, meanwhile for the most part, the game proceeds.

Whats the margin of error then? 5mm? 10mm? You have said it yourself, he was offside. Clear and Obvious error does not apply to offside decisions, its a matter of fact.
The clear and obvious error applies to the decision the officials made before the VAR intervention. Personally I believe they should have introduced VAR intervention gradually, rather than landing like a full blown Spanish Inquisition.

But thats my point. The premier league guidance states that "VAR can be used to overturn a subjective decision if a "clear and obvious error" has been identified. "



"Factual decisions such as whether a player is onside or offside, or inside or outside the penalty area, will not be subject to the clear and obvious test."

 "Factual offside decisions will be based on the evidence provided by fully calibrated offside lines."

This is where I have a problem with VAR being used for offsides as what you have quoted doesnít tie up with what constitutes an offside. Thereís two parts to an offside. 1. Where you in an offside position? 2. Did you interfere with play?

VAR looks only at 1 there so even within one rule itís created a hierarchy. Did this not cause an issue recently with a City game where I think Sterling was offside but as he hadnít touched the ball VAR couldnít comment on whether he had interfered?   If thatís right surely VAR doesnít actually improve decision making it just leads to greater injustice.

In addition I would like to know do we see these fully calibrated lines?  Do the lines take into account the height off the ground of the players body parts etc? As we know from how cameraís work as we usually arenít looking at an exactly square on pictures our eyes will be easily deceived if for example we try to compare someoneís foot at the far side to someone elseís shoulder on the near side.

12
General discussion / Re: VAR? For or against
« on: November 10, 2019, 06:32:29 PM »
I dont understand the handball law anymore.

What is the natural silhouette?  How wide do arms have to be to extend that?

If City should have had a penalty then does that mean you have to retrospectively punish the Silva handball because it then resulted in a clear chance or goal as per the new rules?

I have said for years VAR would be a disaster, I have seen nothing to change my mind on that.

13
General discussion / Re: Lorry Tragedy
« on: November 01, 2019, 02:50:13 PM »
The level of tracking available on the units & lorries will lead to convictions against the Hughes brothers if they are in anyway responsible for this horrific tragedy & the previous smuggling...

Assuming of course itís accurate enough to stand up to court scrutiny which it hasnít always been in the past.

Itíll more than likely help them build a picture very quickly of all related parties & movements - I really do think this is the tip of the iceberg to a horrific network being further uncovered.

Oh I donít dispute that but our courts have in recent years not allowed a lot of tracking data to be placed before juries because when analysed itís proven to not be reliable enough. Donít know if courts across the water take a different view

14
General discussion / Re: Lorry Tragedy
« on: November 01, 2019, 02:29:43 PM »
The level of tracking available on the units & lorries will lead to convictions against the Hughes brothers if they are in anyway responsible for this horrific tragedy & the previous smuggling...

Assuming of course itís accurate enough to stand up to court scrutiny which it hasnít always been in the past.

15
General discussion / Re: The OFFICIAL FAI Thread.....Roll on France 2016
« on: November 01, 2019, 02:27:46 PM »
He wasn't  sacked initially, he, was given the offer of reduced wages while out injured , declined, so they sacked him. Why would Derby pay his full wages for over a year in a injury which happened when he was drunk? At least Lawrence can contribute on the field and is an asset. As is the other fella.

Injury wasnt caused by him being drunk. This is a clear black and white case of unfair dismissal but its probably cheaper to pay for the inevitable losses in court rather than pay his wages.

I presume he can sue the driver(s) for the lost wages?

Any claimant has a duty to mitigate their loss and the loss would have to be a direct result of the injury. So in this case he may find it difficult. I imagine Derby are claiming the reason he was dismissed was his actions, staying late, getting into a car with someone who had been drinking etc rather than the injury so it may be difficult for Keogh to prove that certainly he will likely have to fight his dismissal first. On top of that assuming what Iíve read is true and he knew the driver was drinking then he will be at least 20% contributorily liable.

David, you are missing a major point in that argument. There were 3 people involved here. 2 of them committed more serious offences - 1)Driving the cars while pissed 2)Racing each other on the road when pissed 3)Crashing the cars 4) Leaving the scene of an accident they caused and leaving a team mate for dead in the back of the car.

The other guy was asleep in the back of the car and a apart from being drunk and staying out later than he should off, did little wrong in comparison to the other 2.

The guy in the back of the car gets sacked, the other two don't. Its a stonewall certainty he will win an unfair dismissal case.

No I get that and itís something the Tribunal will factor in but the argument against that will be, what happened the others is immaterial if they should have been dismissed as well. Simply because they got the benefit of a wrong decision doesnít mean Keogh should too. The courts tend to say. If there is any honour amongst thieves they should revel in the good fortunes of their brethren, or words to that effect. I think for the tribunal the issue of the other two will be much less significant than the offer of reduced wages.

That said Keogh may try and make an age discrimination case based on the difference in treatment but again that might be easily refuted on the basis that age was immaterial as they other two didnít get potentially career ending injuries. 

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 151