Posts by 3410
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
In my book, forfeit the game on the spot, ban the little shit for the rest of the tournament (not one game) and fine the team's management for good measure. If you wanted to go further, forfeit the rest of the tournament.
I say automatic goal, and automatic red card. At least that way you'd actually be costing the infringer more than the infringed against.
-
And again:...
What is this, Enter the Argudrome?
... how does this differ from hacking down an opposition player whom you're quite certain is going to score?
I'm not sure it does. Therefore, what?
-
So if "cheating" is defined as "commiting an offence", then he cheated, and so do most players in most games. But if it includes the notions of intentionally deceiving, and getting away with it, then clearly he didn't get away with it, and could hardly have expected to.
He did get away with it, in the sense that his actions created a situation where his team could only be better off than had he not (ie exchanging a guaranteed goal-against for a possible goal-against). Still, - as I said - that's FIFA's fault.
-
Really, guys, this is pretty basic stuff.
Whatever, bro. I'll happily listen to arguments against, but implications that I'm just too dim to understand?... C-ya!
-
"the democratic structure does not allow for selection on skill matched to job requirements"
The Herald's 'Attack on Democracy' series seems so long ago, doesn't it?
-
He broke the rules, but he broke them honestly.
Bullshit. He cheated because it was in his team's best interest to do so. That doesn't make it 'not cheating'.
In the end, blame FIFA. Any set of rules that encourages that - which it does - is in need of repair.
-
I did keep reading on, in the review of the NZFC, in the hope that I might encounter a hint of gratitude or some mild praise--but it generally is one long whinge..and some good, final recommendations.
It's a bit of a whinge, but warranted, I'd say. It seems clear that over time the NZFC has dfited away from doing what's most useful to the industry, and towards what works for the Commission, and most would, I think, agree that it needs some realignment.
Unfortunately, the review doesn't go as far as rewriting the rules, so the ideas will still need to be formalised by someone.
Overall, I think they're on the right track.
Talking of skating...I ran into this yesterday.
Damn! That's pretty much THE toughest downhills in Auckland City.
-
And at the risk of being bitchy, if Jackson wants to talk about "rewarding mediocrity" then I hope he got paid DGA scale for The Lovely Bones.
After skimming through the review, I've noticed that a number of the quotes attributed by the media to the review's authors - including the above - are in fact the comments of others quoted in the review.
-
if there was some fool-proof algorithm for determining which films would be artistic and commercial successes, everyone would be doing it.
Which is why, as I've always said, they need an entry-level funding stratum which funds a lot more filmmakers for cheap, less-than-commercial projects. That way they'd have a much better idea of the talent that should receive the real money, but I suppose that wouldn't be "professional" enough for them.
-
That link might need a warning.
Oh, no! But it's smiling!
Sorry.