....not sure of the sums but he must be close to doubling his salary with the new deal. Think little Naisy is more likely to get the real thing than a scalextric.
- Status
....not sure of the sums but he must be close to doubling his salary with the new deal. Think little Naisy is more likely to get the real thing than a scalextric.
....I always think of the impact on betting market, more specifically folk back 1st and/or last scorer. As own goals don't count anybody who backed Naismith wouldn't have won and last goal would have been Mirallas had QPR not eventually grabbed the last goal.
Seamus Colemole
Previously deathbyropeandglass
We got lucky yeah.
More though lucky deflections rather than gash defending that helped the rs.
roydo
in memoriam - 1965-2024
Made a nice change
toffeejack
Player Valuation: £100m
yep, said at the time, it wasn't going in at the end of the day after the keeper saved it. it is a bit of a joke system though, surely mirallas' should be an OG - i understand if it's going in and takes a slight deflection, but for his, vargas headed it in totally different corner of the goal.
but the worst of this is that they have a team dedicated to look at deflected goals - yet they stupidly don't have a team in place to analyse all the cheating that is going on in the game. i mean, who the [Poor language removed] employs morons like this at the head of football? i'm sure fans are more concerned with if it was an OG or not over a player diving to rob their team of a win
but the worst of this is that they have a team dedicated to look at deflected goals - yet they stupidly don't have a team in place to analyse all the cheating that is going on in the game. i mean, who the [Poor language removed] employs morons like this at the head of football? i'm sure fans are more concerned with if it was an OG or not over a player diving to rob their team of a win
On the basis of this news, can we terminate his new contract?
Technically it's correct but harsh IMO, the rules are stupid really, Mirallas' free kick wouldn't have gone in without the wicked deflection but because it was on target then he gets the goal. Naisy's header was on target and ended up in the net via a double ricochet, but because the first ricochet took it away from goal then he doesn't get it!
Technically correct according to the rules, but harsh!
Technically correct according to the rules, but harsh!
mrb85
Player Valuation: £35m
I'd say Mirallas's effort was on target, in which case just as it would be the strikers goal if the goalie had got a hand to it before it went in, so it is correct to give it to the striker if it hits a defender before going in.
I think with Barkley's the panel decided, quite rightly, that since balls move so much these days when struck the way Barkley hit it then Barkley should be given the benefit of the doubt. Again, quite right. They also got the Naisy one right. So, 3 out of 3 called correctly in my mind.
Jeff Jones
Player Valuation: £35m
You could be right, but are you dead sure? Unless you saw it with a different camera angle from me, it's hard to tell.
There's doubt, so, Barkley gets the goal.
JAYTALITY
Player Valuation: £30m
bizzaro
LOVE GOT JUST THE WAY IT IS #ALWNV
Reported
Jamo Martinez
Player Valuation: £70m
Great point.
And they should have a dubious ref's panel.
Thinking about it, this whole thing should probably be discussed in the match thread.
I'm going to form a dubious threads panel.
- Status