Football pet hates

[Kaizero]

Vuvuzelas. Watching FC Vuvuzela vs. Norway. Horrible, and not just because of the teams playing.

[Dave]

How whenever a smaller club gets a chance at cup glory there's always some cunt playing the guitar and signing a stupid fucking song.

[Guest bimpy474]

A team who get absolutely battered but fluke a win or draw with their only chance. Then they reckon they deserved it, what by the other team missing a hatful and you doing nothing but defending virtually the whole game.

[basjen]

Vuvuzelas. Watching FC Vuvuzela vs. Norway. Horrible, and not just because of the teams playing.

 

Amen, and as you say, Norways second string isn't actually worthy of prime time.

[Mole_Toonfan]

A team who get absolutely battered but fluke a win or draw with their only chance. Then they reckon they deserved it, what by the other team missing a hatful and you doing nothing but defending virtually the whole game.

 

Aye that pisses me off as well.

[Ikon]

A manager that spends more time talking to the media than managing the team.

[Mole_Toonfan]

A manager that spends more time talking to the media than managing the team.

 

going to be "what i hate most about Pardew thread" soon.

[Guest benge23]

the chant 'were by far the greatest team the world has ever seen' usualy sung by every lower league club

[Guest tollemache]

"Later in the game, I think he sees yellow/red there"

 

See Marin the other night.  So leg breakers are acceptable, as long as it's in the first 5-10 minutes? 

 

Also, the horrendous inconsistencies with second yellows.  I know common sense can be applied in certain instances.  But the amount of times players escape an obvious second yellow does my head in.  Take Valencia against us for example.  Already booked for an awful tackle on Simpson.  With about 15 minutes remaining, he not only pulls back Santon for about 10 yards, he then clatters into him from behind.  Just a foul, not even a warning from Dean.  He then crunches Anita and brings his trailing leg through in a nothing area of the pitch and again f*** all happens the same as before.

 

It happens too often for me.  I don't want games being ruined by players getting 2 yellows every week.  But there are so many instances where refs just seem to ignore the rules because the player has already been booked.

 

Sometimes I think there's a case for making it 3 yellows = red and just applying the rules properly. With 2, the margin between being a little bit unlucky and being sent off and being a violent monster who escapes out of a sense of politeness is too small. You have to be that bit more unlucky to wind up sent off for 3 harshly judged offences.

 

A pet hate of mine is penalty plus a red for a foul in front of goal. Too harsh, i reckon... it should be either / or or something. A red outside the box and a penalty inside? As it is a lot of referees bend the rules in that direction anyway by giving yellows where they technically should've sent the defender off, out of a sense that it's insanely harsh otherwise (see Wigan the other week). So make the rules better and apply them properly

[Lush Vlad]

Imagine the carnage if you increased it to 3 yellows though!  Tiote would have a field day

 

Atheltico, instead of Atlético really irritates me for some reason.

 

Agree on the pen/red card thing as well.  A dead ball from 12 yards with just the keeper to beat is a pretty clear goalscoring oppourtunity!  Still, that helped us out this season.  Wouldn't have beaten Wigan otherwise!

[AyeDubbleYoo]

The problem is that without the red card there would be absolutely loads of deliberate fouls to stop goals.

[Ryan_Taylor]

The problem is that without the red card there would be absolutely loads of deliberate fouls to stop goals.

 

It'd be like having 3 goal keepers to beat from corners. Hands everywhere

[Optimistic Nut]

Everytime there's a good goal. - 'There's a goal of the season contender'

Everytime there's a poor performance. - 'That's the worst I've ever seen us'

Everytime someone has a good game. - 'That was his best game in an xxxx shirt'

 

Etc.

[Disco]

^N-O's favourite superhero:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_zVtYH6joAqA/S8ObJBAWHmI/AAAAAAAAAI8/W2Wu2VRgfLQ/s1600/captainhype.jpg

[Optimistic Nut]

[Incognito]

The problem is that without the red card there would be absolutely loads of deliberate fouls to stop goals.

 

You've misunderstood this again, in exactly the same way as it was last discussed.

 

The point is about penalties and red cards being too harsh together and that the penalty should be punishment enough.

[matta]

Thats pretty good

[AyeDubbleYoo]

The problem is that without the red card there would be absolutely loads of deliberate fouls to stop goals.

 

You've misunderstood this again, in exactly the same way as it was last discussed.

 

The point is about penalties and red cards being too harsh together and that the penalty should be punishment enough.

 

I know what the point is. But it isn't punishment enough, because the penalty could be missed. Therefore it would be in defenders' interests to deliberately foul to stop goals.

 

It seems like I'm missing your point, but I can't see how.

[Hughesy]

The problem is that without the red card there would be absolutely loads of deliberate fouls to stop goals.

 

You've misunderstood this again, in exactly the same way as it was last discussed.

 

The point is about penalties and red cards being too harsh together and that the penalty should be punishment enough.

 

But why is a penalty punishment enough?  What if a player has an open goal from a yard out and the defender fouls him and thus prevents an absolute 100% certain goal?  The chances of scoring from a penalty are far lower so the defender would benefit from this action.

 

That is why a sending off is needed.

[Incognito]

The problem is that without the red card there would be absolutely loads of deliberate fouls to stop goals.

 

You've misunderstood this again, in exactly the same way as it was last discussed.

 

The point is about penalties and red cards being too harsh together and that the penalty should be punishment enough.

 

But why is a penalty punishment enough?  What if a player has an open goal from a yard out and the defender fouls him and thus prevents an absolute 100% certain goal?  The chances of scoring from a penalty are far lower so the defender would benefit from this action.

 

That is why a sending off is needed.

 

Firstly, is there such thing as an absolute 100% certain goal ?

 

Secondly I think its harsh to penalize a player/team twice for one error.  Penalties should be scored at the end if the day, but if they aren't tough shit.

[Hughesy]

Well there probably isn't something as 100% certain goal.  What I am trying to say is that it is conceivable that there are chances that are more likely to be converted than a penalty.  Surely it is unfair that a defender is able to exploit this situation by preventing an attacker from scoring and the attacking team having to then rely on converting a harder chance ie a penalty?

 

Haven't look in any detail but it seems as if roughly 70-80% of penalties are scored.  That isn't that high a percentage.

 

There needs to be some sort of punishment to prevent this from occurring.  Hence the sending off.

[Nobody]

So it should be deliberate foul to stop a clear goal scoring opportunity = penalty and sending off

Just a foul = Penalty and no sending off.

 

We already have intention there for hand balls, so might as well have them for other fouls as well. Basically, this would mean that eg a keeper rushing out in a 1v1 who misses the ball but accidentally catches the player doesn't get sent off and the defending team doesn't get tripled punished (penalty, a man down and forced to make a sub).

 

Obviously two footed challenges, studs up etc are still punished the same way inside the area as outside with a red card.

[Incognito]

Well there probably isn't something as 100% certain goal.  What I am trying to say is that it is conceivable that there are chances that are more likely to be converted than a penalty.  Surely it is unfair that a defender is able to exploit this situation by preventing an attacker from scoring and the attacking team having to then rely on converting a harder chance ie a penalty?

 

Haven't look in any detail but it seems as if roughly 70-80% of penalties are scored.  That isn't that high a percentage.

 

There needs to be some sort of punishment to prevent this from occurring.  Hence the sending off.

 

 

I understand it if there's an open net and the striker is taken out by a defender before tapping the ball into the empty net, but sometimes a striker could be free on goal in the area and the last man could bring him down,  but the keeper could be on top of the action and have a reasonable chance of stopping the goal when the foul took place....that in today's terms would still be a penalty and a sending off...obviously it's a penalty but a red card too? There's not enough discretion in the law for referees to use in such situations.

[Mike]

Adapt the Clear path foul to the game. Penalty and the kick off. Even if it's outside the box.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Obviously in some cases the 'double punishment' seems too much, but it is a necessary price to pay for stopping the deliberate fouling.

 

Obviously it could be left to the referees decision to spot the deliberate ones and the genuine attempts to play the ball, but that would probably cause more problems than it would solve.