
Random Funny Images
-
- Posts: 12089
- Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:10 pm
Re: Random Funny Images
I want cassette boy to mock up Trumpt saying those exact words.BBD wrote:
- rowan
- Posts: 7750
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:21 pm
- Location: Istanbul
- Buggaluggs
- Posts: 1251
- Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 2:50 pm
Re: Random Funny Images
At fucking last. Something funny.rowan wrote:
- rowan
- Posts: 7750
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:21 pm
- Location: Istanbul
- belgarion
- Posts: 267
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:25 pm
- Location: NW England
Re: Random Funny Images
And back to formrowan wrote:
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent
-
- Posts: 12089
- Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:10 pm
Re: Random Funny Images
I don't quite get why this thread has become a target for you, Rowan? I don't beleive for a second you actually laugh at any of these. A thread of political/satirical wouldn't be an awful idea, though if you genuinely believe the rhetoric of these posts then surely they're not funny, they're quite depressing?
- morepork
- Posts: 7524
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 1:50 pm
Re: Random Funny Images
It's like watching the world's worst political cartoonist try and save a career using Google images.
- rowan
- Posts: 7750
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:21 pm
- Location: Istanbul
Re: Random Funny Images
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
- Stones of granite
- Posts: 1638
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 9:41 pm
Re: Random Funny Images
Must be an old clip, back heels are now a knock-on.rowan wrote:
- Lizard
- Posts: 3810
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 11:41 pm
- Location: Dominating the SHMB
Re: Random Funny Images
Under which Law?Stones of granite wrote:Must be an old clip, back heels are now a knock-on.rowan wrote:
______________________
Dominating the SHMB
======================
Dominating the SHMB
======================
- Stones of granite
- Posts: 1638
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 9:41 pm
Re: Random Funny Images
It's an odd one. It doesn't come under a specific law, but in the definitions.Lizard wrote:Under which Law?Stones of granite wrote:Must be an old clip, back heels are now a knock-on.rowan wrote:
Kick: A kick is made by hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel,
from the toe to the knee but not including the knee; a kick must move the ball a visible
distance out of the hand, or along the ground.
I can't remember exactly when it was changed, but it was a fair few years ago now.
- rowan
- Posts: 7750
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:21 pm
- Location: Istanbul
Re: Random Funny Images
Didn't Carlos Spencer get penalized several times in a game once (v SA??) for kneeing the ball forward as a tactic to get beyond a particularly flat defence? The referee in that game adjudged it a knock-on or lost forward or something.Stones of granite wrote:It's an odd one. It doesn't come under a specific law, but in the definitions.Lizard wrote:Under which Law?Stones of granite wrote:
Must be an old clip, back heels are now a knock-on.
Kick: A kick is made by hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel,
from the toe to the knee but not including the knee; a kick must move the ball a visible
distance out of the hand, or along the ground.
I can't remember exactly when it was changed, but it was a fair few years ago now.
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
-
- Posts: 244
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 12:23 pm
Re: Random Funny Images
Paul Turner used to do that. Can't remember him getting pinged for it.rowan wrote:Didn't Carlos Spencer get penalized several times in a game once (v SA??) for kneeing the ball forward as a tactic to get beyond a particularly flat defence? The referee in that game adjudged it a knock-on or lost forward or something.Stones of granite wrote:It's an odd one. It doesn't come under a specific law, but in the definitions.Lizard wrote: Under which Law?
Kick: A kick is made by hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel,
from the toe to the knee but not including the knee; a kick must move the ball a visible
distance out of the hand, or along the ground.
I can't remember exactly when it was changed, but it was a fair few years ago now.
- Stones of granite
- Posts: 1638
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 9:41 pm
Re: Random Funny Images
I don't remember that, but it's possible. Kneeing the ball for a quick penalty was quite fashionable for a while, and I think I was still playing when the change in the definition took effect, so that would make it before 2008.rowan wrote:Didn't Carlos Spencer get penalized several times in a game once (v SA??) for kneeing the ball forward as a tactic to get beyond a particularly flat defence? The referee in that game adjudged it a knock-on or lost forward or something.Stones of granite wrote:It's an odd one. It doesn't come under a specific law, but in the definitions.Lizard wrote: Under which Law?
Kick: A kick is made by hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel,
from the toe to the knee but not including the knee; a kick must move the ball a visible
distance out of the hand, or along the ground.
I can't remember exactly when it was changed, but it was a fair few years ago now.
Edit: Just found a 2003 edition of the laws, and the definition of the Kick is the same, so it goes back further than I thought.
- rowan
- Posts: 7750
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:21 pm
- Location: Istanbul
Re: Random Funny Images
I think I was still in NZ at the time, so we're probably talking late 90s. As I recall the consensus was the ref had got it right, though it had seemed a little pedantic.Stones of granite wrote:I don't remember that, but it's possible. Kneeing the ball for a quick penalty was quite fashionable for a while, and I think I was still playing when the change in the definition took effect, so that would make it before 2008.rowan wrote:Didn't Carlos Spencer get penalized several times in a game once (v SA??) for kneeing the ball forward as a tactic to get beyond a particularly flat defence? The referee in that game adjudged it a knock-on or lost forward or something.Stones of granite wrote: It's an odd one. It doesn't come under a specific law, but in the definitions.
Kick: A kick is made by hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel,
from the toe to the knee but not including the knee; a kick must move the ball a visible
distance out of the hand, or along the ground.
I can't remember exactly when it was changed, but it was a fair few years ago now.
Edit: Just found a 2003 edition of the laws, and the definition of the Kick is the same, so it goes back further than I thought.
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
- Stones of granite
- Posts: 1638
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 9:41 pm
Re: Random Funny Images
Think you're right. Late 90s. I was definitely back in Scotland, so after 96. No idea why it was changed.rowan wrote:I think I was still in NZ at the time, so we're probably talking late 90s. As I recall the consensus was the ref had got it right, though it had seemed a little pedantic.Stones of granite wrote:I don't remember that, but it's possible. Kneeing the ball for a quick penalty was quite fashionable for a while, and I think I was still playing when the change in the definition took effect, so that would make it before 2008.rowan wrote:
Didn't Carlos Spencer get penalized several times in a game once (v SA??) for kneeing the ball forward as a tactic to get beyond a particularly flat defence? The referee in that game adjudged it a knock-on or lost forward or something.
Edit: Just found a 2003 edition of the laws, and the definition of the Kick is the same, so it goes back further than I thought.