Colemanballs

His hand is above his shoulder which, as far as I am aware, is never considered to be in a natural position.

The contact was initiated / caused by Gordon. Ergo, he is the one who should be penalised. If the laws provide otherwise, the laws lack any common sense.

Fair point.

Sorry, I was distracted by De Ronde van Vlaanderen on Sunday and was too hungover yesterday to respond. I am not American and hadn't noticed that it was in the American section. How careless of me. Nevertheless, this is not a question of British English versus American English. The oldest meaning of "disinterested" is that which you ascribe to "uninterested" (See Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed., 1989), “disinterested,”) and is still a perfectly valid meaning of the word, albeit frowned upon by the verbally discriminating. Given that there was no ambiguity (cf. "the barrister is disinterested in the proceedings.") I really don't see your issue with the original poster's usage, particularly on a football forum containing far more heinous grammatical faux pas.

Although language pedants would have you believe that 'many people' consider it to be incorrect, the reality is that most people don't give a fig. From the same page of the Cambridge dictionary... disinterested adjective (NOT INTERESTED) not interested: Unlike most boys his age, he was totally disinterested in cars or girls. (Definition of disinterested from the Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary © Ca Incidentally, you will no doubt be aware that the two words have changed meaning over the years and that for a true traditionalist, they mean the opposite to that which you would have us believe.

I think you will find that 'disinterested' can have the meaning he intends.

You may well be right. In fact, I am sure you are. But, if that is a penalty under the current laws of the game, the law is an ass.

This is one of the most worrying things for me. Manning doesn't influence whether we are going to play well or not, the opposition do

And they've succeeded in derailing yet another thread.

You have been sucked into a Manning vs Pearson debate which is a (deliberate) distraction from the issue at hand, namely whether Manning should be given more time. What Pearson did or not do and what challenges he faced are irrelevant to the decision we are faced with now which I think boils down to how one answers the following questions. Is the current squad suited to the style of play Manning prefers? My opinion: No. I think pretty much everyone agrees on this whether in the pro or anti Manning camps. Will Manning change style to a more pragmatic approach to suit the squad? My opinion: No. He has made it abundantly clear that he is wedded to this possession football. Can the current squad be easily transformed (bearing in mind our likely budget) into a squad that is suited to the style of play Manning prefers? My opinion: No. The squad has been built to play a fast, counterattacking style of play, the antithesis of the possession based style Manning favours. Transitioning to such a style would require a significant revamp of the existing squad requiring serious investment and excellent transfer dealings. Is the style of play Manning prefers likely to see us challenging for promotion? My opinion: No. To work, possession based football requires that you have players who are significantly better than the opposition. I cannot think of a single club that has been promoted from the Championship playing possession based football that has not had the benefit of parachute payments. Of the clubs that have not had the benefit of parachute payments that have been promoted from the Championship, they have generally played some kind of pragmatic style. Is the style of play Manning prefers likely to see us playing more attractive football? My opinion: No. I find all that sideways passing tedious. I appreciate that many appreciate that style of football though. I don't like to see anyone fired, but based on my answers to the questions, I believe he should go now. Otherwise, the very real fear is that we waste substantial money rebuilding the squad over the summer and at best end up mid table and at worst are in a relegation battle. Obviously, my answers are all opinions and it may be that others would answer yes to some or all of them and therefore come to a different conclusion. Based on the evidence we have before us though, it is difficult for me to see how they would do so.

They were doing that day. Horrid, it was.

I was there that day. Along with a plague of ladybirds!

Thanks. Great post. Responses above in bold.

Genuine question, because I really don't follow other teams much at all, but what teams have been promoted from the Championship in the last 10 years playing that brand of football without the benefit of parachute payments?

Excellent thread this.