The Culture Cup Round 6 - new but not really improved

by Rowley Tue Jul 01, 2014 10:26 am

First topic message reminder :

May be an age thing, but is Sean seriously saying he talks to people with his testicles out to see how long they take to notice? And that doing so is a laugh?

Never thought I would say this, but bring back National Service if so.

by **Union Cane** Thu Jul 03, 2014 10:34 am

seanmichaels wrote:
Union Cane wrote:You've missed the crucial point Sean, as he dived (spectacularly one would presume?), the usual rules don't apply.

He was in contact with the ball whilst a part of his body was over the line. Either the ball, or a body part touching the ball needs to touch the ground beyond the rope for it to be a 4 or 6.

So if, in the act of making a catch, part of the fielder touches the ground beyond the boundary, it should be 6 runs, is that right?

by **seanmichaels** Thu Jul 03, 2014 10:36 am

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:
seanmichaels wrote:
Mind the windows Tino. wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:People used to drive across the lake in winter.

I am a constant source of disappointment to my father in law as I have never landed a massive salmon or shot a living thing. Clay pigeons just don't cut it with him.

I suspect he'd prefer Galted as a son. At least he looks the part.

I very much doubt it. Galted is probably the only person on here less likely to have killed a wild animal than me.

He could take wingrove with him though?

by Guest Thu Jul 03, 2014 10:38 am

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:
seanmichaels wrote:
Mind the windows Tino. wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:People used to drive across the lake in winter.

I am a constant source of disappointment to my father in law as I have never landed a massive salmon or shot a living thing. Clay pigeons just don't cut it with him.

I suspect he'd prefer Galted as a son. At least he looks the part.

I very much doubt it. Galted is probably the only person on here less likely to have killed a wild animal than me.

Unless pigeons laughing themselves to death at the sight of him in his clothes can be counted as murder

by **seanmichaels** Thu Jul 03, 2014 10:40 am

Union Cane wrote:
seanmichaels wrote:
Union Cane wrote:You've missed the crucial point Sean, as he dived (spectacularly one would presume?), the usual rules don't apply.

He was in contact with the ball whilst a part of his body was over the line. Either the ball, or a body part touching the ball needs to touch the ground beyond the rope for it to be a 4 or 6.

So if, in the act of making a catch, part of the fielder touches the ground beyond the boundary, it should be 6 runs, is that right?

Yes. In the case of the Lyth/Finch catches, neither the ball nor Lyth (whilst in possession) touched the ground beyond the boundary.

Are you taking the pi55? Headscratch

by **Union Cane** Thu Jul 03, 2014 10:46 am

seanmichaels wrote:Yes. In the case of the Lyth/Finch catches, neither the ball nor Lyth (whilst in possession) touched the ground beyond the boundary.

Are you taking the pi55?

Lyth (if that be his name) touched the ground whilst in the act of making a catch, which as the rules state does not end until the fielder is in full control of his movement.

As a professional cricketer he should be aware of the rules of the game, and should have signalled that a six had been scored. Having not done so he is as much a cheat as your Indian friend.

by **JuliusHMarx** Thu Jul 03, 2014 10:52 am

Lyth (that be his name) didn't touch the ground whilst in the act of making a catch - he didn't attempt to catch it - just knock it back onto the field.

If he had jumped, swatted the ball back on the field of play, then landed outside the ropes and it had not been caught - it would not have been a six. The fact that someone else caught it before it hit the ground doesn't make him part of the catch.

Union - the catch issue - drop it.

by **Union Cane** Thu Jul 03, 2014 10:56 am

Ok, if he wasn't in the act of making a catch, he was in the act of fielding the ball.

The act of making the catch, or of fielding the ball, shall start from the time when the ball first comes into contact with some part of a fielder’s person and shall end when a fielder obtains complete control both over the ball and over his own movement.

Same principle applies.

by **seanmichaels** Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:03 am

Union Cane wrote:Ok, if he wasn't in the act of making a catch, he was in the act of fielding the ball.

The act of making the catch, or of fielding the ball, shall start from the time when the ball first comes into contact with some part of a fielder’s person and shall end when a fielder obtains complete control both over the ball and over his own movement.

Same principle applies.

You may be on to something there union.

by **seanmichaels** Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:05 am

But then again by tossing the ball back is that not deemed control of the ball?

by **JuliusHMarx** Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:07 am

So - a player leaps over the boundary ropes, swats a ball back into the field of play, after it's gone over the ropes, but not landed. Then another fielder picks up the ball and throws it to the keeper. Is that a six or not?

by Mind the windows Tino. Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:07 am

seanmichaels wrote:But then again by tossing the ball back is that not deemed control of the ball?

It's all semantics. The umps were happy. They are the sole arbiters of the rules on the field of play.

No maximum. Catch was valid.

by **Union Cane** Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:08 am

seanmichaels wrote:But then again by tossing the ball back is that not deemed control of the ball?

Possibly, but he also requires control over his own movement. Open to interpretation I suppose, but the fact that he fell over suggests that he wasn't in control.

by **rIck_dAgless** Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:13 am

He may have meant to fall over... Like Thomas Mueller during that free kick, or Robben always.

by **Union Cane** Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:13 am

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:The umps were happy. They are the sole arbiters of the rules on the field of play.

They should get it right then.

by Mind the windows Tino. Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:16 am

Union Cane wrote:
Mind the windows Tino. wrote:The umps were happy. They are the sole arbiters of the rules on the field of play.

They should get it right then.

We haven't conclusively proven that they didn't. The finest minds of the Culture Cup have looked at it most of the morning and we can't come to agreement so lets just accept it for a thing of beauty and move on.

It's about entertainment, after all.

by **seanmichaels** Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:19 am

The finest minds in the culture cup! Laugh

by Mind the windows Tino. Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:20 am

seanmichaels wrote:The finest minds in the culture cup!

Spoiler:

by **JuliusHMarx** Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:22 am

There never was a finer spoiler.

by Mind the windows Tino. Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:29 am

JuliusHMarx wrote:There never was a finer spoiler.

I really am spoiling you today.

by **seanmichaels** Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:39 am

I've managed to locate the assistant optician on facebook.....

by Mind the windows Tino. Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:40 am

seanmichaels wrote:I've managed to locate the assistant optician on facebook.....

SLW.

by **seanmichaels** Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:42 am

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:
seanmichaels wrote:I've managed to locate the assistant optician on facebook.....

SLW.

Guilty. Is it true you can check who looks at your profile. Scared to have another look now.

by Mind the windows Tino. Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:44 am

seanmichaels wrote:
Mind the windows Tino. wrote:
seanmichaels wrote:I've managed to locate the assistant optician on facebook.....

SLW.

Is it true you can check who looks at your profile.

No idea. Stupid invention.

I prefer the old fashioned way of hiding in bushes and rooting through bins.

by **seanmichaels** Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:47 am

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:
seanmichaels wrote:
Mind the windows Tino. wrote:
seanmichaels wrote:I've managed to locate the assistant optician on facebook.....

SLW.

Is it true you can check who looks at your profile.

No idea. Stupid invention.

I prefer the old fashioned way of hiding in bushes and rooting through bins.

Obviously helps if you are fond of spinach / lime attire.

by Mind the windows Tino. Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:48 am

seanmichaels wrote:
Mind the windows Tino. wrote:
seanmichaels wrote:
Mind the windows Tino. wrote:
seanmichaels wrote:I've managed to locate the assistant optician on facebook.....

SLW.

Is it true you can check who looks at your profile.

No idea. Stupid invention.

I prefer the old fashioned way of hiding in bushes and rooting through bins.

Obviously helps if you are fond of spinach / lime attire.

Only in Spring and Summer.

by **seanmichaels** Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:50 am

She is so fit. Her nose is beautiful......

by **JuliusHMarx** Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:53 am

How do I find her on facebook sean?

by **seanmichaels** Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:55 am

JuliusHMarx wrote:How do I find her on facebook sean?

I could PM you her name but why do you want a butchers?

by **Pal Joey** Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:56 am

Come on sean, give us a link please.

by **JuliusHMarx** Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:57 am

seanmichaels wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:How do I find her on facebook sean?

I could PM you her name but why do you want a butchers?

I'm interested in your taste in women and to see if she can possibly live up to the hype.
Also I want to message her to warn her about you.

by **Union Cane** Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:58 am

seanmichaels wrote:She is so fit. Her nose is beautiful......

I'd like to have a shufty too, if only to see what the man previously smitten by the smouldering allure of Sonia from Eastenders considers to be a beautiful nose.

by **seanmichaels** Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:58 am

What happens if I end up with her? My anonimity is gone! And it may be illegal?

by **seanmichaels** Thu Jul 03, 2014 12:00 pm

Ok, I'll PM her name as long as you nothing comes back on here. Who's in?

by **Union Cane** Thu Jul 03, 2014 12:00 pm

You could save a photo to your computer then post it on here, we'd never find out Hazel's name that way.

by Rowley Thu Jul 03, 2014 12:03 pm

Got to be honest Sean, I am intrigued as well.

by **Pal Joey** Thu Jul 03, 2014 12:03 pm

seanmichaels wrote:What happens if I end up with her? My anonimity is gone! And it may be illegal?

We'll all act stumm.

However, if it ever gets to the Courts we promise to testify that you are in no way related to Rolf or Jimmy.

by **JuliusHMarx** Thu Jul 03, 2014 12:05 pm

seanmichaels wrote:What happens if I end up with her?

I don't think we need to worry about that.

by **seanmichaels** Thu Jul 03, 2014 12:05 pm

Union Cane wrote:You could save a photo to your computer then post it on here, we'd never find out Hazel's name that way.

no chance. surely it is illegal to do that?

by **JuliusHMarx** Thu Jul 03, 2014 12:06 pm

Just post a picture of her nose.
I'm sure it's nothing to be sneezed at.

by **Union Cane** Thu Jul 03, 2014 12:08 pm

seanmichaels wrote:
Union Cane wrote:You could save a photo to your computer then post it on here, we'd never find out Hazel's name that way.

no chance. surely it is illegal to do that?

If she was brutally murdered, the picture of her that appeared on the news behind Fiona Bruce would be one that the BBC have ripped from Facebook. Nothing wrong with it.

by Rowley Thu Jul 03, 2014 12:09 pm

Being nice to Sean is clearly not working, so it is time to go good cop bad cop on this. If you don't give us her full name by either PM or the means of the culture cup I am going to ban you.

You have ten minutes to comply

by **Pal Joey** Thu Jul 03, 2014 12:11 pm

Reminds me of this quite attractive Moldovan girl I knew pretty well. She had a tiny little mole near the bridge of her nose. She was quite conscious of it and tended to look at me askance or sit on a particular side of the sofa. Always made sure I approached her from an oblique angle... and didn't stare at it for more than half a second at a time.

by **JuliusHMarx** Thu Jul 03, 2014 12:23 pm

Pretty enough I guess. Not sure I'd leave my missus for her though. You should've gone to Specsavers.

by **Union Cane** Thu Jul 03, 2014 12:26 pm

Do I need to be logged in to see anything?

by **Pal Joey** Thu Jul 03, 2014 12:28 pm

Had a quick look at her small photo in the search field. She looks really sweet, mate.

by Mind the windows Tino. Thu Jul 03, 2014 12:31 pm

Thanks for the PM sean, but can someone please help me? I genuinely don't have ****book so I can't see her.

Could someone send me a picture?

by **Union Cane** Thu Jul 03, 2014 12:33 pm

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:Thanks for the PM sean, but can someone please help me? I genuinely don't have ****book so I can't see her.

Could someone send me a picture?

I have the same 'problem'.

by **rIck_dAgless** Thu Jul 03, 2014 12:41 pm

I am up for cyber-stalking...

Or am I too late to this creepy little party?

by Mind the windows Tino. Thu Jul 03, 2014 12:44 pm

You do realise that none of you bastards can ever call me a little stalkerish w*nker ever again after this!

by **seanmichaels** Thu Jul 03, 2014 1:05 pm

I know she's not 10/10 but that's what I like. Anyway fantasy over. What was for lunch?

by Sponsored content