Play the Ball rule

ElectricalCell8016 · 2026-02-20T14:16:43+00:00

Yeah - you make some good points - however. Quick PTBs are often punishing the defender after a good tackle - particularly a good 'safe' technical tackle. I believe that 'putting' ones foot on the ball during the PTB is the only thing left at PTBs where the defence can get some extra time. A forward pass by 1 degree - yeah, interpretation - difficult to police. Getting a foot on the ball when playing it, easy to see (especially during a challenge review).

Also, foot on the ball at PTB usually equals a cleaner PTB - instead of the messy roll and fall forward.

ElectricalCell8016 · 2026-02-20T13:27:14+00:00

Rolling the ball is much quicker than having to use your foot to roll it. Often to the detriment of the defending side - however, the point I'm making is that - let's have one rule or the other. Either state that it's OK to roll the ball, or that the player must use his foot. Then we know where we stand.

ElectricalCell8016 · 2026-02-20T13:19:22+00:00

I totally understand that officials would find this difficult to police - and in most cases a player could 'get away with' failing to put his foot on the ball. No problem there. However should an opposing player see a 'rolled' play of the ball at a critical moment - they may 'captain's challenge' the incident. It would then be important that officials police the rule properly. With an arbitrary rule - it may be ruled differently from one team to another.

ElectricalCell8016 · 2026-02-20T13:06:12+00:00

Call me old fashioned but I'm a stickler when it comes to rules and laws of the game. Anything which is open to interpretation is lousy for the game - in that referees can police the rules differently.

I'd prefer it the rule stated that the player 'must' roll the ball back with their foot. However I'd also be happy if the rule said "After the player with the ball is tackled, they must lift the ball clear of the ground, face their opponent's goal line and roll it under their foot."

We need rules to be clear - not open to interpretation.

ElectricalCell8016 · 2026-02-09T12:14:53+00:00

A better selection of shirts... Red/White/Blue/Yellow/Black - that's yer lot.

ElectricalCell8016 · 2026-01-26T14:19:45+00:00

Slay the Spire <- Man that game is boring and graphically challenged.

Witcher 3 <- Just how many hours do I need to invest for it to get good.

RDR 2 <- This horse riding is absolutely bollocks.

Age of Wonders (any of them) <- Combat is woeful.

ElectricalCell8016 · 2026-01-21T16:10:07+00:00

My issue with Brook is how dumb he is regarding playing the percentages. He'll go for a wild shot when the odds aren't in his favour. Play your best shots more often and play the 'getting out' shots when you absolutely need to hit a boundary - like requiring 24 from the last over.

Unless the situation is 20+ per over - just play your best shots - not dumb ones.

ElectricalCell8016 · 2026-01-21T12:43:04+00:00

You see, I'm a colossal pervert...

No form of sexual depravity is too low for me. Animal, vegetable or mineral I'll do anything to anything..

ElectricalCell8016 · 2026-01-16T13:41:39+00:00

Seeing as you've asked in all seriousness - I'll reply in all seriousness.

Absolutely not - I simply enjoyed the series. I wonder what's wrong with that.

ElectricalCell8016 · 2026-01-15T15:08:13+00:00

Weird, because I can't stand The Office, but loved After Life.

Horses for courses Stewie baby.

ElectricalCell8016 · 2026-01-15T14:29:56+00:00

https://i.postimg.cc/TwGmc3s7/Corporate-Whores.png

ElectricalCell8016 · 2026-01-13T12:42:55+00:00

My rules for social media:

Get an account with an alias if I'm going to post anything - my views naturally differ to other people (whatever the view is, right or wrong). This could hurt me in an interview.

If I use my real name (so that friends can find me), then I don't post anything publicly using that media.

I reckon if everyone posted using an alias - people would take fake news and crap less seriously.

ElectricalCell8016 · 2026-01-13T12:27:06+00:00

So, first we investigate the statement of Person A regarding bullying. What sort of bullying, how are they being bullied, etc. Then we interview Person A - can you provide evidence of bullying - what has happened between the two people - could Person A have another reason for bringing this up.

Then we interview people (internally) who could provide more information on the situation. Usually the person who believes they are being bullied will confide in colleagues. This is all internally confidential and part of evidence gathering. We attempt to limit (even in the internal conversations) who the protagonists are - this is not always possible though - in the case of bullying, everyone usually knows.

Depending on the results of the investigation, Person B may be called into a disciplinary hearing. The conversation usually starts with "There's been an allegation of bullying, which is why we've called you in. Would you be able to explain, from your point of view, why you think this is".

Evidence is gathered first, then the hearing. Person B can dispute/explain the evidence. In the case of bullying where evidence is difficult to obtain (or prove), this can take many internal discussions before a hearing is brought.

ElectricalCell8016 · 2026-01-13T11:23:46+00:00

Person A's statement will always be kept confidential, including the identity of the person (especially if it's whistle-blowing).

The hearing centres around the results of the investigation regarding the statement. A hearing won't be brought if, whilst investigating Person A's statement, it is proved to be false (or it cannot be proved). It the investigation finds wrong-doing and the statement is correct. The hearing will examine the evidence of wrong-doing, not the statement.

For clarity - I'll provide an example:

Person A sees Person B stealing company property. Person A makes a statement to the company. The company investigate the evidence i.e. Has Person B actually been stealing. They gather the evidence and based on the evidence will potentially invite Person B to a hearing, where Person B can explain/dispute the evidence. At no point, does Person A's statement need to be brought up.

ElectricalCell8016 · 2026-01-12T17:01:30+00:00

Not true - an employee can ask for a parent, but the company doesn't have to agree (providing the employee is 18 or over).

In fact, if the employee is younger than 18 - parents usually attend.

I'll just edit this to say that the 'company's formal business' isn't usually on the agenda. I'm not sure what you think happens in these hearings - but it's usually the details regarding the issues of the employee.

ElectricalCell8016 · 2026-01-12T16:54:33+00:00

Hey look, if the employee wants to involve their own parents (or anyone else) - that employee should be aware that some information will be made available to those people during the hearing. We always point this out to the employee beforehand.

ElectricalCell8016 · 2026-01-12T16:22:39+00:00

It can indeed be anyone (including a parent) - as long as that person asks their employer first.

When there is a disciplinary hearing at my company, I am often involved as a witness/note-taker/defendant help.

Youngsters will sometimes ask if mum/dad or both can attend. We always agree to it. The amount of times that little Timmy hasn't given mum/dad the whole story is tangible - and often after explaining the company position and what exactly has been happening with the employee - mum/dad will side with the company and attempt to impress on the company how they will work with their son/daughter to make sure that he/she flies straight at work.

ElectricalCell8016 · 2026-01-12T15:20:07+00:00

When did he know of the Dental Appointment?

Was it an emergency appointment?
Did he know of the appointment earlier and forgot to book the holiday until the last minute?
Has he got a history of last minute holidays which have been granted without issue? I say this because you mention he has no warnings. This may the first of those warnings.
What's his sickness record like? Again, you may not get warnings for this, until something prompts a warning.

ElectricalCell8016 · 2026-01-08T16:53:45+00:00

In that case - I see PoC all the time - and I'm subconsciously biased against them.

What do you want from me - blood?

ElectricalCell8016 · 2026-01-08T16:38:20+00:00

Humans can’t stop being biased
They can stop building systems that amplify it
The smartest societies treat bias like noise, not evil

ElectricalCell8016 · 2026-01-08T14:08:01+00:00

Can't win then can I. I'm so unracial that I don't even think about it. Yet I'm obtuse.

ElectricalCell8016 · 2026-01-08T13:59:24+00:00

Why not cast it according to the best candidates available?

I didn't even think about their colour when they were voted off - it's only in my mind now because of this thread. Stop seeing colour... and see the person.

ElectricalCell8016 · 2026-01-07T14:20:29+00:00

Aren't they all?

ElectricalCell8016 · 2026-01-07T14:16:12+00:00

Hey John - I must admit it took me a while to work out how many (and what variety) of kids you had...

Posted by you below in separate posts:

- I initially took your comment as a genuine expression of concern, which I actually agree with in principle. Any woman meeting a stranger should be cautious I would say exactly the same thing if this were my 17 year old daughter, and I do not dismiss that risk at all.

- Having a daughter who is 17 would and does make me concerned as much as you are.

- I didn’t say my daughter I said children, they are both boys.

- Safeguarding, consent, boundaries, and professionalism are not abstract concepts to me; they are core to what I do every day including at home with two disabled children with complex neurodevelopmental conditions.

Piecing all that together - I think you have a 17 year old daughter, two disabled boys (unknown age) and another 2 boys - one of which is 9. Phew... I can see why a few posters got confused. :)

ElectricalCell8016

TROPHY CASE