Posts by giovanni tiso
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
No, that's not what I was saying at all -- quite the opposite. I assume that you're just messing with my brain now?
I thought you said you accepted that they did in fact protect the cyclist. If you don't, why do you wear one?
But cycling (with or without helmet) just isn't that dangerous.
I know, I wasn't siding with the doctor in question. I think the case that helmet laws make cycling seem more dangerous than it is are more tenable than "OMG! Bad hair!"
So if a car runs into you, and the passengers suffer head injuries, and they weren't wearing crash helmets (and, by the way, the evidence that crash helmets reduce injuries in motor accidents is overwhelming -- that's why racing-drivers wear them), would you feel the same way? That the irresponsibility of the passengers in not wearing helmets has done you harm?
You make a very good point. Has anybody talked about making cyclists wear crash helmets? They seem less protected than people in cars somehow. But maybe actually they are not. And then why not car passengers? It might turn people off cars, so think of the health benefits!
(Compulsory safety belts didn't do the trick. Although I always like to note that in Naples when the law was passed they sold t-shirts with a fake safety belt drawn across it.)
(I love Naples.)
-
Isn't that why we have referees - to police the game? And as far as I can tell, they seem to do a pretty good job on that score.
And yet apparently they are so easily deceived by the players' theatrics. Make up your mind.
-
Actually, they agree with me on Cahill too. Thefore I like that blog and find it very knowledgeable and good!
-
I guess I'm just being driven spare by a game where it seems that any contact between players followed by a dive, no matter how incidental or unintentional, is awarded at least free kick.
As I was trying to say earlier, there are circumstances in which it is okay to dive - for instance the Mexico penalty - and it's still a foul. I frankly don't think that Suarez even accentuated the effects of that incident very much at all. Had he stayed on his feet, he would have scored an easy goal. So I don't really see the logic of the criticism.
I think by far the greater problem in football than simulation is the fouling in midfield, a-la Cahill. Some time in the 90s they introduced this rule that a tackle from behind triggered an automatic red card - I'm not sure if they've actually rescinded that, but it was never seriously applied, which is really too bad.
-
but that's what they hand out yellows for, right?
No. There was nobody else standing between Suarez and the open goal, so that was an automatic red card. That's just the rule.
Cahill could have got away with a yellow card - there was some discretion there - but I personally would have sent him off. That was just a reckless tackle, and I'm not convinced he did enough to pull away from it. At any rate, it was hardly a grievous injustice - it had to be either yellow or red.
-
Somebody told me recently about a surgeon who tastefully referred to cyclists as "donors". Was it here?
-
I wouldn't dream of conflating radical feminism with that blog post, let alone feminism in its broader sense.
-
I don't know what replays you and Hadyn have seen. In the ones on my telly, there's contact between the tip of the goalkeeper's foot and Suarez. Unless the goalie's foot has a mysterious spasm or something. Here's YouTube, until FIFA takes it down:
It's a clumsy challenge and a blatant foul, not to mention an automatic red card. The referee has no discretion there.
-
I loved that film and still think about the woman who just wanted to make a beautiful wrought iron gate.
'Was that so much to want?' Breaks my heart every time.
That has to be one of my favourite films of all time. I love Weixel's last line: 'We were a really smart-looking group of ladies, and we all loved one another. I hope for that feeling in this country again - but not for a war.'
-
Ah! Now you are clearly being sarcastic! Right....?
Nope. Loved Strange Days, me.