Jump to content

Football pet hates


Guest JonnyRogers

Recommended Posts

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

This is one of the most ridiculous and nonsensical posts in the entire history of my duration on this forum.

 

I have no idea what it means, so I can't comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

This is one of the most ridiculous and nonsensical posts in the entire history of my duration on this forum.

:lol:

 

Mike's usually something of a wordsmith, but I've read that 4 times now and I still have no idea what's going on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a basketball rule. If you have a clear path to the basket, meaning usually a dunk and two points, and someone fouls you from behind, you are given two free throws (one point each) and then one free possession (in a sport where good teams score 1 point per possession.

 

He wants to apply this to football, where teams score on 1 percent of possessions rather than 50 percent. He also wants to replace free throws with penalties, which are inherently much more difficult.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Players are getting redded for non deliberate fouls though...that's the crux of my argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

Now here's a thing. I've seen situations where the keeper gives away a penalty but doesn't get a red because there's a defender on the line behind him so he's not "the last man". Yet swap defender and goalkeeper in that same situation and suddenly the defender is "the last man". Wtf is that about? The 'keeper's got a much better chance of saving a goal than a defender. Are goalkeepers not "men"? Is it implied that they're useless in one-on-ones? :dontknow:

 

Not that there's a fucking "last man" rule anyway any more than there has to be "daylight" between players on offsides. Stupid commentators and pundits.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

This.

 

In answer to below, not actually 100% but there are many instances where the penalty is a more difficult chance than the hindered opportunity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

This.

 

In answer to below, not actually 100% but there are many instances where the penalty is a more difficult chance than the hindered opportunity.

 

Yes but why does it have to be so black and white. The one that really irks me is when the attacker catches the defender's feet in their stride and naturally, at that pace, goes over. The defender hasn't even attempted a tackle yet still gets redded virtually every time.

 

It cannot always be the right action to send someone off. Years ago referees used to officiate at their own discretion and not have FIFA dictate what they must be doing. FIFA has really taken the personal side we used to see with refs away, by preaching these ridiculous dictats. I believe it started when an injured player HAD to leave the field of play before re-entering the game. To stop the play acting. Has it worked? Of course it hasn't.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Papers in the January window, normally they're not good for getting things right but there seems to be a collective insanity that takes over in this window (and to a lesser extent late august part of summer window) where they'll publish any bullshit (eg linking QPR with anyone competent) and everyone everywhere just laps it up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Football.

 

Becoming really disillusioned with it all but i can't live without it either( Ok that might be a bit much)  :okay:

 

I'm really getting fed up with it now like. One of the reasons I thought I could never live abroad is because I'd miss going to matches too much. Haven't been to a single away game this season apart from Brugge (mainly due to unforeseen circumstances) but I haven't really missed it that much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Every time something like this happens (e.g. Carroll going) I tell my self that I must remember that no player has much genuine affection for a club and almost all would leave immediately given a better option. But then time passes and I start to care about them again. Depressing really.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest firetotheworks

It's impossible to not feel anything towards the players. For me, without that it takes away a big part of my love for Newcastle. I don't want to watch 11 nameless, faceless players represent my city, but if that's the reality then it's horrible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest bimpy474

People who div up with this shit " i know something from within the club but i just can't say"

 

Fuck off you bullshitting cock teasers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...