Jump to content

Still not worthy of a thread


Yorkie

Recommended Posts

 

 

 

 

Until now, in 25 years of supporting football I've never heard of anyone saying shootouts are unfair because they have gone 1st or 2nd. Where has this come from?!

 

Someones arse. You have coin toss for the winner of that to decide whether they go first or second, as fair as it can ever get.

 

How is a coin toss to give one team a 60% chance of winning as fair as it can ever get?

 

The coin toss is a 50/50 isn't it. Then the winner of that can go 1st or 2nd, that's as fair as you can get.

 

Fucking about with a straight forward penalty shootout, something no team has ever complained about when they've gone second is utter nonsense. It's fiddling with rules that are ok, instead of changing the ones which are dumb as feck.

 

But a coin toss isn't fair. It's nothing to do with how good a team is at football [emoji38]

 

Aye, but once this rule comes into force what happens if there is a statistic somewhere that says the team going second wins 60.3743% of the time? Do we now say it's unfair for the team going first and we now need to revert back to the old method?

 

Professional footballers not being able to cope with the stress of going second in a shootout, give me fucking strength - no wonder people say they are wrapped in cotton wool.

Tbf I don't really feel passionately one way or the other about changing the shootout system. It was more the fact that bimpy couldn't see anything more fair than a coin toss I had issue with

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only 100% 'fair' way would be simultaneous penalties, one keeper each end, when the ref blows both players take their penalties  :lol:

 

Ridiculous.

What if it's more windy at one end though.  Need to swap ends after each pen imo

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Until now, in 25 years of supporting football I've never heard of anyone saying shootouts are unfair because they have gone 1st or 2nd. Where has this come from?!

 

Someones arse. You have coin toss for the winner of that to decide whether they go first or second, as fair as it can ever get.

 

How is a coin toss to give one team a 60% chance of winning as fair as it can ever get?

 

The coin toss is a 50/50 isn't it. Then the winner of that can go 1st or 2nd, that's as fair as you can get.

 

Fucking about with a straight forward penalty shootout, something no team has ever complained about when they've gone second is utter nonsense. It's fiddling with rules that are ok, instead of changing the ones which are dumb as feck.

 

But a coin toss isn't fair. It's nothing to do with how good a team is at football [emoji38]

 

Aye, but once this rule comes into force what happens if there is a statistic somewhere that says the team going second wins 60.3743% of the time? Do we now say it's unfair for the team going first and we now need to revert back to the old method?

 

Professional footballers not being able to cope with the stress of going second in a shootout, give me fucking strength - no wonder people say they are wrapped in cotton wool.

Tbf I don't really feel passionately one way or the other about changing the shootout system. It was more the fact that bimpy couldn't see anything more fair than a coin toss I had issue with

 

Of course i could see it was more than ffs. Whatever you say.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just saying the coin is the fairest way imo to decide who goes 1st, after that it's down to the players to not buckle under the pressure.

 

Did they factor in when a team wins the coin toss for which end the penalties will be taken, if it's in front of their fans or the away fans, are they at home, are they away ? There's a few different factors that could affect things than just who goes 1st imo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You could have the side that wins the coin toss either choose the end the penalties are taken or go first or second. Then the loser of the coin toss gets whatever options left.

 

No you couldn't, fuck me that's retarded even by my standards. Just do away with the shootout and have the coin toss decide the game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Players will receive retrospective two-match suspensions for diving this season in a rule change that the FA hopes will deter them from deceiving match officials.

 

The bans, which come into effect from Friday night when the Sky Bet Championship begins, are only set to apply to incidents that result in a penalty being awarded or the dismissal of an opponent.

 

(article behind a paywall)

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/sport/fa-will-ban-divers-for-two-matches-dqldd7hbc

 

Good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only 100% 'fair' way would be simultaneous penalties, one keeper each end, when the ref blows both players take their penalties  :lol:

 

Ridiculous.

What if it's more windy at one end though.  Need to swap ends after each pen imo

 

Good thinking...might have to alternate ends too  :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally forgot about that rule, recall it being a bit flawed at times with Beckham (iirc) not wanting the ball moved forward as it would make it harder for him to dip it over the wall.

 

I thought it was a great rule and iirc the initial response was almost all positive. In the Beckham situation it wouldn't have been too difficult to modify so the attacking team could decline the ball being moved. And years later abusing refs is still an issue.

 

The flaw was that if the kick was to be moved, the referee had to book the offending player. I think it would have been more effective if the moving of the free kick was simply added to yellow and red cards as options available to referee.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally forgot about that rule, recall it being a bit flawed at times with Beckham (iirc) not wanting the ball moved forward as it would make it harder for him to dip it over the wall.

 

I thought it was a great rule and iirc the initial response was almost all positive. In the Beckham situation it wouldn't have been too difficult to modify so the attacking team could decline the ball being moved. And years later abusing refs is still an issue.

 

From an article back in 2005. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/2361805/FIFA-scrap-10-yard-rule.html

"FIFA have opted to abandon the experiment due to the confusion in non-rugby playing nations, who do not understand the logic behind the rule."

 

Eh, what?  :idiot2:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally forgot about that rule, recall it being a bit flawed at times with Beckham (iirc) not wanting the ball moved forward as it would make it harder for him to dip it over the wall.

 

I thought it was a great rule and iirc the initial response was almost all positive. In the Beckham situation it wouldn't have been too difficult to modify so the attacking team could decline the ball being moved. And years later abusing refs is still an issue.

 

From an article back in 2005. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/2361805/FIFA-scrap-10-yard-rule.html

"FIFA have opted to abandon the experiment due to the confusion in non-rugby playing nations, who do not understand the logic behind the rule."

 

Eh, what?  :idiot2:

That explanation is shit but its a rule that only really works in high scoring sports where fouls are regularly punished by scores

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know we moved past the hate, but...

 

 

All matches reffed by either Martin Atkinson, Steve Martin, Bobby Madley, Lee Mason or Roger East.

 

 

I would have thought Uriah Rennie would have made this list

 

I believe he prefers the name Ice Judge Rennie these days.

 

CLf86bzWgAAlXct.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

John Terry and Chelsea will face no further action from the Football Association (FA) regarding the former club captain's substitution in his final game at Stamford Bridge.

 

The 36-year-old arranged to leave the field against Sunderland in the 26th minute - matching his shirt number.

 

Thousands of pounds were won in bets predicting the timing of the change last season, prompting the FA's Integrity Department to investigate.

 

It decided there is no case to answer.

 

I'm glad that they reacted in exactly the same way to their treatment of that non-league goalkeeper.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...