Guest dogbeak Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 I'm sure the reasoning behind the shirtlifter rule is to avoid offending foreign cultures where it's socially unacceptable to do such a thing. Farcical really. source? sounds like nonsense to me (though i do like the term 'shirtlifter rule'). can't think of owt i would change off the top of my head, though i would burst with joy if refs started booking and sending people off for being gobby twats. if it takes micing up the ref, all the more fun. in fact i would fuck off the crowd noise for broadcasts and have one mic on the ref and one equidistant between the coach's technical areas. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiresias Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 the bosman rule I think Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 The six seconds for a goalkeeper to hold the ball is a daft one as well. Must have been enforced about twice, ever. Does some twat really sit there and count? Thats a good rule, nowt worse when teams are beating you or getting a valuable point and they start taking forever, especially if it's a team who start doing it as early as they can into the game. When was the last time you saw the rule enforced though? Is it not meant to be an indirect freekick? Keepers get booked for timewasting all the time on goal kicks, pretty sure Krul has had a few. I can only ever remember seeing it enforced once and that was for us, can't remember which game it was but Shearer dispatched the free kick. He also appealed to the ref to get the kick -- he'd been counting. It wasn't long after the rule came in, though I can't remember which game it was either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeletor Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Not being able to punish atrocious tackles after the game simply because 'the ref saw it'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbandit Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 not really a rule as such but when it's obvious someone has dived or forced a sending off when nothing really happened. They should do everything they can to instate bans for these offenders. If it continues like right now, people are going to push the boundaries further all the time. Cheating is the worst thing about football, it's a joke Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 The six seconds for a goalkeeper to hold the ball is a daft one as well. Must have been enforced about twice, ever. Does some twat really sit there and count? Thats a good rule, nowt worse when teams are beating you or getting a valuable point and they start taking forever, especially if it's a team who start doing it as early as they can into the game. When was the last time you saw the rule enforced though? Is it not meant to be an indirect freekick? Keepers get booked for timewasting all the time on goal kicks, pretty sure Krul has had a few. I can only ever remember seeing it enforced once and that was for us, can't remember which game it was but Shearer dispatched the free kick. Jussi weren't it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 the bosman rule I think Aye. Can't happen though I guess, with it being a EU court ruling. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 The six seconds for a goalkeeper to hold the ball is a daft one as well. Must have been enforced about twice, ever. Does some twat really sit there and count? Thats a good rule, nowt worse when teams are beating you or getting a valuable point and they start taking forever, especially if it's a team who start doing it as early as they can into the game. When was the last time you saw the rule enforced though? Is it not meant to be an indirect freekick? Keepers get booked for timewasting all the time on goal kicks, pretty sure Krul has had a few. I can only ever remember seeing it enforced once and that was for us, can't remember which game it was but Shearer dispatched the free kick. Jussi weren't it? Yeah, Bolton rings a bell. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SGSC Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Not being able to punish atrocious tackles after the game simply because 'the ref saw it'. Spot on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 As Wullie says the shirt rule is entirely to do with sponsors. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 http://www.nufc.com/html/2002-02-02bolton-h.html 23 mins Keeper Jaaskelainen held onto the ball for nine seconds and was penalised by ref Elleray. Bolton claim he was impeded by Shearer but Al never got closer than three or four yards. A harsh decision, perhaps, but if you're going to have a rule.... Solano touched the ball to Shearer who thumped it through a gap in the wall and into the corner. 1-1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Yep, I was thinking Bolton too - http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_prem/1795086.stm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 As Wullie says the shirt rule is entirely to do with sponsors. Arguably makes it even more annoying to me, like the sponsors don't get enough coverage as it is. And as though the sponsorship is more important than emotion of the game. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeletor Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 As Wullie says the shirt rule is entirely to do with sponsors. Arguably makes it even more annoying to me, like the sponsors don't get enough coverage as it is. And as though the sponsorship is more important than emotion of the game. To be honest has any one thought 'I need that brand's products' when seeing a goal celebration? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 As Wullie says the shirt rule is entirely to do with sponsors. Arguably makes it even more annoying to me, like the sponsors don't get enough coverage as it is. And as though the sponsorship is more important than emotion of the game. Absolutely. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beren Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Is that why shirts need to be changed when blood is on them - or is that a health/hygiene issue? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Only time you should be booked for celebrating is deliberately antagonising the opposition supporters, Adebayor-style. In front of your own, you should be able to do what the fuck you like. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginola Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Is that why shirts need to be changed when blood is on them - or is that a health/hygiene issue? That's a health issue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGuv Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Wish they'd bring the dissent rule back. If you complain the free kick is moved 10 yards further forward Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beren Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Is that why shirts need to be changed when blood is on them - or is that a health/hygiene issue? That's a health issue. Do rugby have the same rules? I only mention it because in UFC the Octagon has blood from previous bouts everywhere Though, of course, that's UFC. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Is that why shirts need to be changed when blood is on them - or is that a health/hygiene issue? Any player bleeding from a wound must leave the field of play. He may not return until the referee is satisfied that the bleeding has stopped. A player is not permitted to wear clothing with blood on it. Probably sheer paranoia regarding diseases etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beren Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 The referees conduct clotting tests pre-match do they? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginola Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Is that why shirts need to be changed when blood is on them - or is that a health/hygiene issue? That's a health issue. Do rugby have the same rules? I only mention it because in UFC the Octagon has blood from previous bouts everywhere Though, of course, that's UFC. I think so. If a player's bleeding they have to be subbed off, although it's a free substitution, so I'd guess that have to change shirt before coming back on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Did Taylor change his shirt yesterday, can't say I noticed him doing so? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ritchie Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 I thought the shirt rule was to do with it being offensive to the Arabs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now