Cod Eye

Just been reading Nasser Hussain's take on the bad light issue with first class cricket. He makes a good point too. Why do we only try to make up time lost for weather/bad light at the end of a days play, when the light is deteriorating? Why not start an hour earlier(when it's not pissing it down) instead? It doesn't make sense.

One change to the game the powers that be have made that do like, is the TV umpire calling no-balls. The amount the standing umpires were missing prior was taking the piss.

42 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

STOP CALLING HIM BUTCH!

Genuinely made me laugh that! Well played, mate!

2 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

One thing to remember is that the awards are based over the whole year so it’s a decent indicator of who is having a bad month and who is just an arsehole constantly. You fuckers moaning are the reason we don’t have downvotes anymore. Bring back downvotes. 

#GetDownVotesDone!

1 minute ago, Uncle Zeb said:

But you wouldn't ever be tempted to suggest to the team or fellow supporters, "Hey, I really like the idea of attending a match, but could do without the fish slapping thing"?

"It's always been this way, so like it or lump it" is one response they could give, but it's not the only response.

I'd suggest it, but I wouldn't expect anything to be done if 99% of the attendees think being slapped by a fish is something they want at games.

Like I say, I'm glad the conversation has come up, as the more talk about mental health issues the better. But I've always said that social media and online forums exasperate peoples issues a lot of the time, and encouraging people to step away for a while and relying on it less should always be the first step if someone is suffering(unless it is a dedicated mental health forum, and even they can cause negative effects sometimes). 

2 minutes ago, Uncle Zeb said:

I'm sorry to hear about your condition. You might concede, though, that if your physical pain was being exacerbated at these grounds by a team mascot slapping you with a wet haddock rather than anything to do with the match itself, it would be reasonable to at least question the value of such antics before deciding it's a you problem.

Of course. If I was going to the ground to watch football, but someone randomly smacked me with a fish I'd question what was happening! But If I knew that the ground had a thing were folk were smacked with the fish, I'd be daft to go then complain I didn't like it. 

The awards(negative and positive) have been here for years and years. When I first signed up, I went through all the forums trying to get the lay of the land and pick up any unique posting etiquette the place may have and saw the award threads. So I knew before I ever typed a word that there was a chance I could be labeled a "Dolt". I'm not saying everyone will do that, but it's not like the awards are a top secret thing that is sprung on us at regular occasions. 

21 minutes ago, Chris B said:

That's quite a lot of responsibility to place on people. A quick example of how that could go wrong: A poster is dealing with a mental health crisis and requests to remove posting rights. The poster then dies from suicide. Was agreeing to remove the posting rights just removing their ability to ask for help in the mental health thread or similar? 

I think it puts people into too much of a position of wondering if they did the right thing. And that's tough for mental health professionals, let alone a bunch of dicks on a wrestling forum.

It was just something I thought of off the top of my head.We had a similar person on another forum I used(I filled in for them for about a month while they were unable to perform their duties) and seemed to work ok from what I can gather. You obviously need someone that has some training, so is not suitable for every forum.

6 minutes ago, Chris B said:

The thing is, with mental health, the 'wise' decision isn't always easy (or even possible) to take. It can be compulsive, even if it is clearly harmful. And questioning things that can cause harm is absolutely a valid and fair conversation to have. Responding to any suggestions of changes with what amounts to 'hey, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen' isn't particularly constructive.

I'd agree with Butch that the last year or so has been about the smoothest and friendliest that I've seen this forum, as we all move towards middle/pension age and mellow in our dotage. Personally, I think there's still a space for the negative awards, and now the punishments no longer exist, it doesn't amount to much more than pointing out a 'cop on'. However, I'm aware what a lifeline this place can be for some people, and there can be connections in here that are lacking elsewhere. So if it's potentially driving people away, that's an issue too.

If there was a vote, I'd vote to keep them, but I wouldn't be upset if that option lost.

I did admit, I didn't word it right in my original post. 

It's not a case of if you don't like it, fuck off somewhere else. It's more like, if something is not healthy for you, then wouldn't it be wise to minimise that thing?

2 minutes ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

This was me. I didn't realise I was in a bad place mentally at the time. I had never really had depression or anxiety and this place didn't create it, that was outside issues, but it made it worse. And because I had been visiting this place since 2002ish very regularly, I found it hard to take a break. I accused people of bullying me. I have apologised, and some people have accepted it, others haven't. 

I don't agree with them being scrapped. But I would suggest that if people will be upset, or potentially triggered by being nominated in the negative awards, maybe one way of not making it so public is to not tag them in the nominations/wins? This would have absolutely upset me some years ago, and it really did. It was unfortunate that was going on when I had a lot of other mental health issues, some are still there, but I think I have a better understanding/control now to cope. Or the only other way to do it is to move Negative awards to Paid Members only, and maybe that would boost numbers?   

This would have made it worse when I was struggling. I've always been quite paranoid anyway, but when I was in the depths of my depression the paranoia was as debilitating as my physical problems. It would have drove me mad checking all the time to see if I'd been nominated. At least if I knew the "winners" were tagged, I knew I would just have to wait for the notification.

I'm glad this conversation has cropped up though, as I think there needs to be something done to help posters that are struggling. As you have said, when checking the forum and posting is part of your routine, it's nigh on impossible to stop. I wonder if the mods would be willing to have a system of some kind where someone is allocated a position where one of them(or any trusted user)as the designated mental health "contact", and give them the ability to remove a users posting rights for a few weeks if they request it(rather than an out and out ban or the usual "just stop posting")?

2 minutes ago, Uncle Zeb said:

That's a bit harsh. I think while drawing on his own experience to speak from an informed position, RedRooster's been quite clear about his concern for others in all this.

You're right, Zeb. That didn't come out the way I wanted it to. 

My point still stands though. If a user is going to have their condition triggered by something on a wrestling forum, then it would be wise to take a step back until they are in a better position. I mean, I'm virtually fully (physically)crippled now. A major part of what kept me going was attending things like cricket and football matches. But I was always in mega-pain when I got home, so decided that going to those events were not worth the pain for what I was getting out of them. Same thing here...

The forum still gets accused of being cliq-y and run by the cool kids. But as Butch pointed out it hasn't actually been the case for a long time. 

I think the point here though is that someone want's a long standing, user favourite feature scrapping to help their needs. It's similar to the poster who gets arsey with people if a "fact" is not 100% accurate in a post, then blames it on their Asperger's when challenged. If an online forum or fake "award" can trigger your condition, then maybe an online forum isn't for you until you gets things under control?

99% of posters on these forum seem like cracking people. You have Butch, Devon and Lion, all of who's post I look forward to reading when I see them in the cricket thread, add to those Tiger Rick, Bacon Max Power and Keith in the Football thread. I really wish I had more to post, so I could join in more!

10 minutes ago, RedRooster said:

The thing is though, that everyone’s experience of mental health is different and it’s not particularly safe to say ‘it wouldn’t have bothered me, so...’

While that obviously works two ways, I don’t think it’s breaking news to say that for a lot of people dealing with mental health issues it’s hard to rationalise things in the way that you suggest, and if you have low self worth, having people vote in a public poll to confirm your worst fears could be quite damaging. 

In a world where a bad day at work and abuse from strangers can trigger downward spirals or episodes of self-harm, I don’t think it’s a stretch to suggest that this could be damaging to someone.

We'll have to see what the more regular posters say. I usually only post things when I have something I feel strongly about or I have something specific I want to add to a conversation, so my opinion on the matter obviously isn't that important. 

I do get where you are coming from though, but I think the awards do serve a purpose sometimes...

40 minutes ago, RedRooster said:

I don’t know how much agreement I’ll get with this viewpoint, but I think the UKFF Awards should drop the negative awards aimed at posters, even though I’m well aware that they’re meant in good humour.

This year I’ve dealt with some mental health issues, specifically depression. Thanks in part to advice and encouragement from some fantastic people on this board I actually reached out to a GP for the first time and it’s wound up being life-changing for me.

But I do feel like when I was at my lowest ebb, picking up an online award telling me I was a dolt or that I spoke a lot of crap would have had a really severe impact on me.

I know it’s the online world versus the real world and most people will take it for what it is, but when you’re feeling depressed - certainly when I was - it becomes really hard to rationalise things and your opinion of your worth plummets, even if there’s no logical reason for that. 

I think in 2020, with all we know about depression and mental health, the potential negatives, for me, outweigh any arguments in favour of keeping them. Even a prat deserves good mental health.

No, keep them. The vast, vast majority of folk on here are great people who can usually tell the difference between someone going through a shit time(I have mental health issues , as do many others)and someone who is a shit poster. 

I know if I was posting crap posts constantly, I'd want people to tell me so I can take a step back and think about if I want to continue posting on here or not, and if I do I could change my posting style up.

Edit:

Sorry to hear you're having a tough time mentally. The "Mental Health" thread on here is a big help to those that are happy to post their issues(totally understand if you don't feel happy to post on a public forum). Also, I've done a bit of work with Mind in the past and I'm happy for anyone to PM me if they want a totally unattached stranger to talk to, or even just to vent to!

9 hours ago, Michael_3165 said:

Shit worker, fantastic gimmick. I suspect that gimmick isn't likely in 2020 though!! 

Bless him I know his health was shit. Rip

What makes hime a shit worker? He wrestled a style that was believable and fit his gimmick. I can't ever think of reading or hearing about a time he hurt anyone in the ring either. His time in the UK as the Mississippi Mauler and with promotions around the world also show that he could adapt to working different styles too.

His style of work may not be one that appeals to you personally, but "shit worker" is really wide of the mark...

5 hours ago, Uncle Zeb said:

Would you then have to separate them on opposite sides of the arena like at football games? Careless WCW fans getting battered by a rival mob for walking into the wrong pub in their purple and gold outfits? The odd Raw taking place without a crowd not because of a pandemic, but because last week three eejits powerbombed a lad through the merch table during the divas match and spraypainted letters on his back.

Definatly!  Imagine the arena split in two with each half going mad for the "brand" they liked best(except when X-Pac was wrestling, obviously!).

It would have only worked if they had scooped up most, if not all of the talent on the big Time Warner contracts, but I'd have liked them to not present either side as face/heel, and just let the fans gravitate to one or the other. In an ideal world, you would have had a crowd split 50/50. The crowd interaction would have been great! 

5 hours ago, Statto said:

IIRC there is some Carrow Road yellow net nostalgia on here so come on lads, help us out...

https://www.alongcomenorwich.com/articles/the-return-of-yellow-nets-you-decide/

Three options is too much in this sort of thing. You run the risk of ending up with a choice that almost two thirds of the fans didn't want(if for example 34% vote for yellow, but the other two options get 33% each). It's WAY too important a vote to risk it happening...

So Russia say they have a vaccine , and that soldiers from the Russian military "volunteered" to be human test subjects(and Putin has given it to his daughter too). Can't see folk queuing up for it myself...

Just seen that Anderson is averaging 44 with the ball this summer. Is it a series too far. for him, or just a bad spell?

1 hour ago, JakeRobertsParoleOfficer said:

Totally agree. 

Had charisma, the working ability, the look, the hair and what a physique!! 

Here he is rocking a body that prime BIG Poppa Pump would envy! 

Such a shame with the MH, drugs and foot issue. Guy was only 33 when he passed. Shoulda been an utter megastar. 

 

There is a parallel universe somewhere where he got Warrior's mega push!  Such a tragedy what happened with him(and the rest of his family too, to be fair.)...

27 minutes ago, SaitoRyo said:

It's a shame the Tornado had the foot problem and mental issues, as he just looked like a mega-star! He was insanely likeable, and even with only one foot was good enough in the ring to hold the big title and carry the company for a while. 

The way he went balls deep into the Kamala gimmick made me a believer. Even when things clicked inside my head that wrestling was all a show, I I refused to believe that Kamala wasn't some savage they found in the middle of a jungle. 

Big loss that many of the current and next generation of wrestlers should study to teach themselves how to commit to a gimmick.

17 hours ago, Shy Dad said:

To my knowledge % of turnover was the previous agreement, and it meant realistically it should have been easier for more sponsor friendly and bigger stadium teams to get out the lower leagues and let those at the same level financially fight it out, instead it caused issues like Sunderland, Bolton etc being a cash project for someone to get rich quick and leave them a shambles when they didn't go up.

The entire lower league system in England is just both exhausting and a joke, and its all too little too late trying to make the league fairer now, because all that's going to happen is clubs like Portsmouth, Ipswich and co stockpiling money until the league balks at the idea backtracks and then they go and blow it all in one summer, especially if the rules aren't enforced for relegated clubs.

That is the big issue. The bigger teams will either stockpile the money, like you say, or the owners will use the club as a cash cow and pocket absolute fortunes which will get the attention of crooks wanting to do the same...

7 minutes ago, PowerButchi said:

Why has Robinson been called up? Seamers aren't out problem

It's a fairly quick turnaround. Maybe the selectors think Anderson can't play this many games in short succession.

I can't think of a time I've seen Robinson play. Is he any good?

2 minutes ago, Mr_Danger said:

Would a salary cap based on turnover not prevent smaller teams competing though? I get that it’s shit that a big team like Sunderland are forced Into financial parity with a much smaller team like Accrington Stanley but it’s great for Accrington Stanley and teams of that ilk. It means success will be based on sporting merits more than financial superiority. Also, could Sunderland not just offer a big signing on bonus to make it up? Are they not paid in instalments anyway?

Not really(in my opinion). You have to allow the bigger team with the bigger fanbase reap the rewards, otherwise there is no point any club trying to develop their stadiums or market their clubs. It's similar to years ago, where the gate receipts were split 50/50 every match. Teams like Man Utd and Liverpool were who had huge stadiums and fan bases were losing out financially(as 50% of their gate receipts were much more than what they got when they played away at a, say 20,000 seat stadium).

As a Barnsley fan, a club that will be in the bottom 4 or 5 Championship clubs in terms of attendances and income, I'm fine with it. At least if everyone could only spend what they have, it would be fair. 

Brilliant test to watch that! 

It was good to see him get some important runs, but it doesn't change the fact that the target would have been closer to 200 should Buttler have done his job behind the stumps.