“de jure” being misused in that way makes my lawyer butt itch

It’s garbage, and yes gamesmanship is annoying to watch. Of course when FIFA tries to fix it by cracking down on bullshit diving and fouls in the box, people complain that there are too many penalties. But I think the review system is a good thing that will help cut down on shenanigans.

Is your employer John Snowball

Goals are never awarded automatically. If the foul by the GK stops an “obvious goalscoring opportunity” then it is a red card for the GK, and a penalty.

So it’s not just bad sound engineering then? Those are actually crickets I’m hearing after every joke?

Ozmataz...Buckshank

That poor goalkeeper...

NM that’s the vice chair not this goofball

Mr. Walther received his J.D. from Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California, Berkeley. He received his undergraduate degree, with a major in Russian, from the University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana.

Because the coach scam is alive and well, my friend.

As a lawyer (not in Tennessee) I think the argument that “This MOU, which specifically states by its terms that it is a binding contract, is not binding on us because of our own internal policies, which are nowhere in the contract” is weak. Depending on Tennessee’s agent/principal laws, a third party (Schiano) may be…

Better than the original joke, 10/10

So short answer: if a player’s “dramatic embellishment” is intended to deceive the referee by making what is actually ordinary contact appear to be a foul (careless, reckless, or with excessive force) then it’s a dive.

Part of the issue is that soccer is a physical game and contact is allowed. Fouls are subjective and the referee’s judgment is final. There is no definition of “embellishment” that I know of in the rules. These are fouls according to the relevant laws of the game:

Your team wore baseball shoes to play soccer?

It’s 100% this

Not sure that there was actual litigation pending or that court approval was otherwise necessary for the settlement. People can settle claims before filing suit, especially if they want to keep things quiet.

He’s holding it in a center axis relock stance, which is a means of maintaining the ability to shoot quickly and accurately in close quarters, without needing to look down the sights. He has it held close so as to retain the gun in case the guy in the car tries to grab it. Not that I agree with anything this officer…

Could probably do away with all the other dumb rules too, like no biting, eye gouging, or groin shots. Protect yourself at all times!

I understand, and honestly I didn’t realize Deadspin had done another article about the report. Just seemed weird to leave that detail out of the article.