BlackBrian_7 wrote:
Most leagues have kick-off times listed on their fixtures too.
What leagues? And I meant AMATEUR leagues.
what you mean and what you say are obviously 2 different things, I have heard that Pt Pirie sometimes play their games on saturday nights.
I guess, I assumed for a topic in the amateur league forum, it would apply only to that.
Do Pirie play EVERY game on Saturday though?
Div 6 last year had 10 teams, 5 kicked off home games at 11.30 & 5 kicked off at 3pm. So depending on what game was away, you had a different start time (obv home games were the same every time).... and the league didn't announce it to clubs until after Round 1.
God is an Englishman wrote:come on black_brian, money where your mouth is time.
Happy to even let someone else hold the money for my side of the bet.
How about nice and simple - we have you guys in pre season. First beer on the loser!
Done!.
No PM's or anything like that, just so everyone is clear on this wager. If hawkesy's opening post is correct I will buy him a beer after the Modbury v Adelaide Uni pre-season game coming up.
A change of this magnitude would have to have had the necessary amount of notice. I know we have bought our new kits this year and many other clubs would be affected by this change.
The shinpads rule, how can they make a rule on this that is different to FIFA when it is unnecessary.
I can only assume that you heard this rubbish from a ref as I know they want to be the only ones to be allowed to wear any black on their kits.
This would not only affect us but other well established clubs in the amateur league like Salisbury Inter, Parafield Gardens, Fulham, Elizabeth Vale.
The financial burden alone (we would have to replace 8+ sets of kits) to facilitate this would dictate so.
so, do all 4 have to be correct for me to be right?
Remember you originally called the Barossa Pearl on my first point about shin pads.
As it now appears the black kits might have been relaxed for this year except for goalkeepers. This was apparently on the back of complaints from your team.
Taken below from FIFA.com
Shinguards
•are covered entirely by the stockings
•are made of rubber, plastic or a similar suitable material
•provide a reasonable degree of protection
This says nothing about 'the larger shin pads must be worn'.
re the keepers, I would have thought it make sense that a keeper should wear a uniform that is different from other players on the field. Our keeper wears blue so I would expect him to change it when we play you guys in a couple of weeks time.
BlackBrian_7 wrote:Taken below from FIFA.com
Shinguards
•are covered entirely by the stockings
•are made of rubber, plastic or a similar suitable material
•provide a reasonable degree of protection
This says nothing about 'the larger shin pads must be worn'.
re the keepers, I would have thought it make sense that a keeper should wear a uniform that is different from other players on the field. Our keeper wears blue so I would expect him to change it when we play you guys in a couple of weeks time.
That's the line they will use to state they are not changing any of the laws.
BlackBrian_7 wrote:By the way Hawkesy do you accept the terms of our wager?
I just want it to be clear so that you don't try and weasle out of it.
I asked an earlier clarification question, in regards to all 4 being correct. As I stated it looks like black kits might not be an issue this season after all, but the other 3 - 100% on.
BlackBrian_7 wrote:By the way Hawkesy do you accept the terms of our wager?
I just want it to be clear so that you don't try and weasle out of it.
I asked an earlier clarification question, in regards to all 4 being correct. As I stated it looks like black kits might not be an issue this season after all, but the other 3 - 100% on.
So you are 1 down on your four statements in less than a day. I think BB7 would get pretty good odds on at least one more going down before we play you in a month.
BlackBrian_7 wrote:By the way Hawkesy do you accept the terms of our wager?
I just want it to be clear so that you don't try and weasle out of it.
I asked an earlier clarification question, in regards to all 4 being correct. As I stated it looks like black kits might not be an issue this season after all, but the other 3 - 100% on.
So you are 1 down on your four statements in less than a day. I think BB7 would get pretty good odds on at least one more going down before we play you in a month.
You want in on the bet for the other 3 then?
How about a beer per statement?
I'll offer the same to BB as well, so it would appear both of you could even start a beer up.
BlackBrian_7 wrote:Taken below from FIFA.com
Shinguards
•are covered entirely by the stockings
•are made of rubber, plastic or a similar suitable material
•provide a reasonable degree of protection
This says nothing about 'the larger shin pads must be worn'.
re the keepers, I would have thought it make sense that a keeper should wear a uniform that is different from other players on the field. Our keeper wears blue so I would expect him to change it when we play you guys in a couple of weeks time.
That's the line they will use to state they are not changing any of the laws.
So in line with that then anyone who has brought a shinguard that does not provide a reasonable degree of protection will be entitled to a full refund from place of purchase due to it being not fit for purpose?
BlackBrian_7 wrote:So in line with that then anyone who has brought a shinguard that does not provide a reasonable degree of protection will be entitled to a full refund from place of purchase due to it being not fit for purpose?
that that up with the manufacturer and retailer - not me!
BlackBrian_7 wrote:Jesus Hawkesy already you have tried to weasel out of it. All four must be correct as per your opening post.
I am glad I have made sure this wager is out in the open so you don't try and dodge your way out of it.
how can you weasel out of something that was never agreed? Remember you're the one who started with the shin pads being bullshit and even asking me to confirm my acceptance.
BlackBrian_7 wrote:Jesus Hawkesy already you have tried to weasel out of it. All four must be correct as per your opening post.
I am glad I have made sure this wager is out in the open so you don't try and dodge your way out of it.
how can you weasel out of something that was never agreed? Remember you're the one who started with the shin pads being Barossa Pearl and even asking me to confirm my acceptance.
There was no acceptance.
Happy to accept that bet on any of the other 3.
There's no point you will just try and get out of it and frustrate the point of the wager.
BlackBrian_7 wrote:So in line with that then anyone who has brought a shinguard that does not provide a reasonable degree of protection will be entitled to a full refund from place of purchase due to it being not fit for purpose?
that that up with the manufacturer and retailer - not me!
Ok, If you're shinpads are stamped with the relevant AS/NZS quality standard who are the refs to say that they don't provide the reasonable degree of protection that is outlined in FIFA Law 4?
Since when are the refs above the law of the land?
BlackBrian_7 wrote:So in line with that then anyone who has brought a shinguard that does not provide a reasonable degree of protection will be entitled to a full refund from place of purchase due to it being not fit for purpose?
that that up with the manufacturer and retailer - not me!
Ok, If you're shinpads are stamped with the relevant AS/NZS quality standard who are the refs to say that they don't provide the reasonable degree of protection that is outlined in FIFA Law 4?
Since when are the refs above the law of the land?
take that up with the manufacturer and retailer and the AS/NZS quality standards - not me!
God is an Englishman wrote:The larger style shin pads must be worn.
Referees will wear black, teams cannot.
Home team will be reported if shorts clash.
Match will not go ahead is socks clash.
I like the idea of the beer per statement, but we aren't going to know for sure what refs are going to enforce until well into the season, when shorts and socks clash, and even then, some refs will let it slide and some will be hard ar$es.
Either way, they aren't going to enforce these in pre-season, are they?
God is an Englishman wrote:The larger style shin pads must be worn.
Referees will wear black, teams cannot.
Home team will be reported if shorts clash.
Match will not go ahead is socks clash.
I like the idea of the beer per statement, but we aren't going to know for sure what refs are going to enforce until well into the season, when shorts and socks clash, and even then, some refs will let it slide and some will be hard ar$es.
Either way, they aren't going to enforce these in pre-season, are they?
Simple way to settle it, if one of us is able to provide a directive from the SAASRA or SAASL stating one or the other to be the case then they will have won the bet. I am even prepared to allow that level of proof to be in my court, if I cannot provide that document by then, then I will agree to have lost the best and pay up.
Bearing in mind I have effectively given up on the black kits argument, then you would already be owed one beer. Agreed?
blackout wrote:
I like the idea of the beer per statement, but we aren't going to know for sure what refs are going to enforce until well into the season, when shorts and socks clash, and even then, some refs will let it slide and some will be hard ar$es.
Either way, they aren't going to enforce these in pre-season, are they?
Simple way to settle it, if one of us is able to provide a directive from the SAASRA or SAASL stating one or the other to be the case then they will have won the bet. I am even prepared to allow that level of proof to be in my court, if I cannot provide that document by then, then I will agree to have lost the best and pay up.
Bearing in mind I have effectively given up on the black kits argument, then you would already be owed one beer. Agreed?
You kidding? The SAASRA is going to make those calls (if they haven't already - which is no doubt where you are getting this all from) and the SAASL is going to say "not practical" and quietly not put them into practice. And we will end up in your favourite place, argueing over shades of grey.
Jay Slowly Running wrote:The larger style shin pads must be worn. - Probably fair enough but I've seen players play without shinpads I know but they shouldn't
Referees will wear black, teams cannot. - Good move I agree
Home team will be reported if shorts clash. - Reported to whom or for what? reported to saasl
Match will not go ahead is socks clash. - Seems excessive. As long as the shirts don't clash with the opposition or referee, who really cares I agree.
BlackBrian_7 wrote:I don't believe the SAASRA have any authority as to how the competition is run.
Anything provided by them would be heresay.
For arguments sake, I reckon if they could enforce one, it would be the shinguards rule, under the premise of it being a safety issue and what constitutes "adequate protection"
blackout wrote:
I like the idea of the beer per statement, but we aren't going to know for sure what refs are going to enforce until well into the season, when shorts and socks clash, and even then, some refs will let it slide and some will be hard ar$es.
Either way, they aren't going to enforce these in pre-season, are they?
Simple way to settle it, if one of us is able to provide a directive from the SAASRA or SAASL stating one or the other to be the case then they will have won the bet. I am even prepared to allow that level of proof to be in my court, if I cannot provide that document by then, then I will agree to have lost the best and pay up.
Bearing in mind I have effectively given up on the black kits argument, then you would already be owed one beer. Agreed?
You kidding? The SAASRA is going to make those calls (if they haven't already - which is no doubt where you are getting this all from) and the SAASL is going to say "not practical" and quietly not put them into practice. And we will end up in your favourite place, argueing over shades of grey.
SAASRA put the laws of the game into practice on match day, not SAASL.
BlackBrian_7 wrote:I don't believe the SAASRA have any authority as to how the competition is run.
Anything provided by them would be heresay.
For arguments sake, I reckon if they could enforce one, it would be the shinguards rule, under the premise of it being a safety issue and what constitutes "adequate protection"
The shorts and socks would also be covered in Law 4. So, they have every right to enforce shorts and socks as well as kit colour as well.
BlackBrian_7 wrote:I don't believe the SAASRA have any authority as to how the competition is run.
Anything provided by them would be heresay.
so, the people who are going to administer the laws of the game on match day have no authority on the laws of the game.
Do you not realise they have more power than SAASL, without SAASRA a first team game does not happen.
Looks like you're the one backing out! I've even offered as part of the bet something I expect to have to pay out on.
The league/association administer the competition not the referees or you. Are you suggesting that if they decided to change 3 points for a win to 2 that the league would have to follow suit? Stop playing with size 5 match balls and play sith size 4 instead?
No-where in the laws of the game does it say that teams can't wear black. The SAASRA can't pick and choose which laws that they apply.
Hawkesy this extends even your penchant for bullshit.
BlackBrian_7 wrote:The league/association administer the competition not the referees or you. Are you suggesting that if they decided to change 3 points for a win to 2 that the league would have to follow suit? Stop playing with size 5 match balls and play sith size 4 instead?
No-where in the laws of the game does it say that teams can't wear black. The SAASRA can't pick and choose which laws that they apply.
Hawkesy this extends even your penchant for Barossa Pearl.
It states in the laws that teams cannot clash with the referee. So quite obviously if the ref is wearing black, teams cannot.
As for 3 points for a win, referees merely record the score and have nothing to do with that side of it.
The size of the ball - well that would go against the laws of the game.
They can't pick and choose which laws to apply, hence in these "statements" everything is covered by the laws of the game.
The league administers the competition but the referees administer the laws of the game on match day. I thought that was obvious.
BlackBrian_7 wrote:By the way Hawkesy do you accept the terms of our wager?
I just want it to be clear so that you don't try and weasle out of it.
I asked an earlier clarification question, in regards to all 4 being correct. As I stated it looks like black kits might not be an issue this season after all, but the other 3 - 100% on.
So you are 1 down on your four statements in less than a day. I think BB7 would get pretty good odds on at least one more going down before we play you in a month.
I would probably get pretty rubbish odds as he is almost certain to try and weasel out of more of it.
