50 on Portugal, please.
Printable View
50 on Portugal, please.
The Ukraine ball over the line was a mistake, but they also missed the offside that preceded it as the player got the ball. On that basis, the outcome was fair, though it rarely ever is in most games. The number of times the refs and linesmen make terrible decisions in the Premiership is beyond belief. In Rugby League, they have the video ref who can make an independent decision. It won't always work, but i'm surprised they put up with the complete uncertainty of refereeing decisions. Have we not got goaline tech just because FIFA are fogies? The tech has been around for years.
It works very well in American Football. I cannot think of many who would want to reverse the replay review rule.
It's funny to watch the Euro Cup on US channels, a mixture of Europeans and a few American broadcasters and the Europeans are really sticky about change, whereas the Americans are open to changing to a replay rule.
Ah, well that would imply that you see them as two components of the same event. I'd argue that they're separate events, and that once the offside has not been flagged, it's over and no subsequent event can depend on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
This came up recently in something I read about semantics. Was the second plane hitting the other tower of the WTC on 9/11 a separate event to the first plane hitting the first tower, or were both planes components of the same event?
It's not a theoretical question. Billions of dollars depend on it - because the WTC was insured against disastrous events.
If the first plane hitting was one event and the second plane hitting was another event, then the insurance company has to pay up twice. If it was one event, then they only have to pay up once - and there's a ceiling on the money they have to pony up for one event.
The argument for the 'independent events' view is "Well, if the second plane hadn't arrived, you'd pay us for the first one, up to the limit, right? So that's a single insured event. Therefore the second plane was a second insured event, and you have to pay us up to the limit on that one too."
The insurance company's argument is that the 'event' was the entire attack, and that both planes were part of that one attack, so they only have to pay up once.
Yes, even this comes down to an argument about money. Though quite an intriguing one.
It's true - both events are dependant equally on if.
Interesting about the WTC. I suppose a compromise is out of the question.
How did the insurers asses the premium and the risk, one building or two? It Sounds like one side is trying to underpay and the other trying to get overpaid, so compromise would be a good idea, though not in the lawyers' interest.
In a way the offside was part of the same move that led to the goal not given. I think a game has "moves" and passages of play that can't be defined exactly, but every one knows what they are. On the otherhand a missed offside has less significance than a missed goal.
It can depend on a number of factors but the interpretation of 'Event' comes down to 2 things:Quote:
Originally Posted by prendrelemick
- the policy wording (as you can define 'Event' how you wish), and
- the doctrine of proximate cause which will consider any event which is an 'unbroken chain of events leading to the loss' as being caused by and part of a single event.
So in this way a building which burns to the ground as a result of an earthquake damaging its electrical systems will be considered to have been damaged by earthquake rather than fire (in principle. In practice you would have to check the wording). This is a big issue where inner limits are applied to catastrophe perils (such as earthquake, windstorm, flood), where the insurance is on a named perils basis (e.g. third party, fire and theft) or where an insured has selected to limit their policy exposure based on the maximum amount they think they are likely to incur any one event. So in the WTC example, the owners of WTC may have elected to set a maximum event limit of, say, $100m representing the value of a single building on the assumption that they were not likely to lose both buildings in a single event. In this scenario they'd be thinking of fire, or vehicle impact or explosion which would be unlikely to transfer and cause damage to the adjacent building. It's quite a common approach. No one, of course, would have been considering this scenario, but it is arguable that there was an unbroken chain of events from the conspiracy to commit terrorism to the destruction of the two towers.
So it's not a simple question, and the vast sums involved and impact on other similar cases mean it's unlikely to be settled out of court.
20 on Czech Republic
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonywalt
Our football is a continuous game, which makes it more difficult. There is the question of when do you stop the game to look at the replay and how do you restart the game after it, also how far back can you look? The other night would it have given a goal to Ukraine or denied them one for the offside?
However for the moment I think FIFA is only looking at ball crossing the line technology.
Footie is a great egalitarian sport, everyone can play it whatever their ability, and at the moment everyone plays to the same rules.
30 on Portugal.
I am rooting for the Czechs but I will put my 100 on Portugal for the game's sake.
Incidentally, I am pretty sure our Czech resident does not even know about the game... Right, Jay?
It's true that there's the problem of when to stop in open play, but the most important decisions are usually penalties in the box when the ball goes out. I'm thinking of Young's dive for Manchester UTD towards the end of the season which potentially put them in a winning position. If they had gone on to win it, it would have been by a blatant cheat. I think it would be useful there to assist decisions beause the goalmouth is so crowded.Quote:
Originally Posted by prendrelemick
The Czech Republic looked more threatening in the first half, but in the end it was mainly Portugal. Without Ronaldo though, they weren't that good.
Mick - 300
Paul - 300
Snow - 320
Papaya - 121
Scher - 200
Doc - 150
Neely - 320
Mark - 200
Tomorrow:
Germany v Greece
21 on Germany
Greece - what can I say. They weren't rated, but they are here on a wild card. Germany, one of the strongest teams in the tournament. They shoud win, but Greece shouldn't be here.
So on that basis er............ 50 on Greece. It would put the Hellenic cat among the pigeons if they did.