Lush Vlad Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 How much time is wasted over throw ins and stoppages in play in general. This was something I noticed last night. I have never seen a team take so long to throw the f***ing ball man. They didn't seem to have any ball boys. Potter over to the touch line, pick the ball up, look about for a bit, steal about 10 yards, then throw it. This went on all game. I'd be surprised if the ball was in play for more than about 20 minutes a half. Elaborating on the above. But players taking the throw about 5-10 yards away from where it went out. It rarely gets pulled up on and makes a big difference if you're on the front foot trying to box a team in. Again, regarding my first point. You'll often see someone down injured and getting treatment for at least a couple of minutes. 3-4 subs. The ref deciding he's going to give players a 1 minute lecture for a foul. All the f***ing about when the ball goes out of play or there is a set piece. "There will be an additional 3 minutes of added time" Obstruction. Why are players allowed to shield the ball and block a player off when it's going off for a goal kick? If you did that anywhere else on the pitch. I'm pretty sure you'd get pinged for it. Ehm, Stoke under Pulis? Yeah I may have forgot about them and overexagerated slightly. It was annoying either way. Because the shielding player has the possession of the ball. You can shield anywhere on the pitch, it just doesn't make sense in many occasions. Grey area to me. If the pass is played and both players are running for the ball. How does the defensive player have possession? You'll often see the defender step across, obviously without talking a touch and then just cut off any attempt by the attacking player to reach the ball. You're obstructing the player from reaching the ball and you have no intention of playing it. If you're stood in the middle of the park and you actually have possession, holding a player off Tiote style. Then it's totally different surely? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pata Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 But the clear obstructing usually only happens when they get close to the ball? Sure it should be a freekick (and usually is) if Stephen Carr is obstructing HBA miles away from the ball. But yeah, it is a bit grey area. In my mind the defensive player always has possession justifying the shielding. One thing I keep wondering is that you can't foul a player after he gets a shot off. You see late slides nowhere near the ball go unpunished all the time as the tackled player has already shot. In midfield it's always a freekick and usually a yellow. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 One thing I keep wondering is that you can't foul a player after he gets a shot off. You see late slides nowhere near the ball go unpunished all the time as the tackled player has already shot. In midfield it's always a freekick and usually a yellow. This is a good one, the amount of times an attacker gets absolutely cleaned out after getting a shot away. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lush Vlad Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 But the clear obstructing usually only happens when they get close to the ball? Sure it should be a freekick (and usually is) if Stephen Carr is obstructing HBA miles away from the ball. But yeah, it is a bit grey area. In my mind the defensive player always has possession justifying the shielding. One thing I keep wondering is that you can't foul a player after he gets a shot off. You see late slides nowhere near the ball go unpunished all the time as the tackled player has already shot. In midfield it's always a freekick and usually a yellow. Was talking about the bottom one just the other day. Great point. If it's a pass or a heavy touch, usually because the player is anticipating the challenge. It's always a foul. If you've had a shot 'no sorry, you had your chance and fucked it. Goal kick.' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Keepers getting away with anything. The slightest touch on a keeper and they get the decision, but for example, if they punch the ball clear then follow through and punch the striker's head, nowt given. Surely that should be considered dangerous play in the same way you can win the ball but if it's dangerous, it's a foul? Similarly with the 'keeper being allowed to jump with his knee at chest/head height. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exiled in Texas Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Because the shielding player has the possession of the ball. You can shield anywhere on the pitch, it just doesn't make sense in many occasions. The difference between shielding the ball and plain obstruction, is that that the ball needs to be in playable distance to shield the ball. The defender allowing the ball to run out for a GK is in fact playing the ball without actually touching the ball. As long as they are able to reach the ball with their feet, then the ball is considered to be being played by them and shielding is legal. You could not shield the ball that was 5 yards away from the defender...that would be plain obstruction, but you can shield a ball that is within playing distance. (Of course the definition of "playing distance" is determined by the referee and no one else ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
morla84 Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 No doubt already been mentioned, but when a decision goes against a team and the players all run up to the ref with their arms behind their backs while they shout abuse. Is it meant to look less threatening or something? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 Shola and Sammy being lumped together in the same bracket because they share the same surname. They couldn't be more different in their styles of play. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 Shola and Sammy being lumped together in the same bracket because they share the same surname. They couldn't be more different in their styles of play. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pata Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 Seriously can't we just treat them as different people, just call them Shola and Sammy? One is 6ft 3, 32 years old, about 23 stone of muscle and can't move. The other is just short of 6ft 5, 21 years old, about 6 stone of bone (with a little flesh) and runs around like a whippet. They are not in any way comparable! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
triggs Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 Seriously can't we just treat them as different people, just call them Shola and Sammy? One is 6ft 3, 32 years old, about 23 stone of muscle and can't move. The other is just short of 6ft 5, 21 years old, about 6 stone of bone (with a little flesh) and runs around like a whippet. They are not in any way comparable! Its ridiculous. I have seen Sammy have some really good cameos for us yet every time he warms up or starts everybody says he's shit Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smal Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 My point was more that they're both poor footballers, without the necessary ability to succeed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pata Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 My point was more that they're both poor footballers, without the necessary ability to succeed. Sammy has potential to be a decent PL player, as he showed against Norwich. He may need to change his name to succeed though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smal Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 Yeah, he had a pretty good first half against Norwich but then completely disappeared in the second. Certainly had more performances that would suggest he won't make it at this level than performances that suggest he will. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 I admit I have a shit memory but most of my memories of Sammy have been decent to good performances. Some of his best have come against lower league sides but then he has outclassed most of his team mates and made something happen. He is young, he is a winger/wide attacker so will often drift out of games (like Hatem God Arfa) does but he has shown to have pace, good/skil close control 'for a big man' and is always looking to attack rather than getting forward then panicking and waiting for someone to rescue him like we have seen a fair bit from others. He wouldn't get half the stick he does if he was called Sammy Okadigbo or something. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 Yeah, he had a pretty good first half against Norwich but then completely disappeared in the second. Certainly had more performances that would suggest he won't make it at this level than performances that suggest he will. 1. He has barely played this season but you expect him to not fade a bit? Even though the rest of the side did. 2. How many games has he had at this level? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smal Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 He's had plenty of opportunities to show something for us. Didn't hear about him doing particularly well at Boro either. I'm not going to get carried away because he's had one good half vs Norwich. Of course I'd love to be proven wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 He's had plenty of opportunities to show something for us. Didn't hear about him doing particularly well at Boro either. I'm not going to get carried away because he's had one good half vs Norwich. Of course I'd love to be proven wrong. Plenty of opportunities You are getting carried away, just not in favour of him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest snoopythewriter Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 Everybody suddenly saying "we bossed them" or "they're bossing the game". I'm sure we've got Pardew to thank for bringing that word into the game. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smal Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 He's had plenty of opportunities to show something for us. Didn't hear about him doing particularly well at Boro either. I'm not going to get carried away because he's had one good half vs Norwich. Of course I'd love to be proven wrong. Plenty of opportunities You are getting carried away, just not in favour of him. He's made 35 appearances for us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 He's had plenty of opportunities to show something for us. Didn't hear about him doing particularly well at Boro either. I'm not going to get carried away because he's had one good half vs Norwich. Of course I'd love to be proven wrong. Plenty of opportunities You are getting carried away, just not in favour of him. He's made 35 appearances for us. How many starts and how many for a few minutes? Marveaux has made 32 league appearances, has he had enough chances? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
loki679 Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 He wouldn't get half the stick he does if he was called Sammy Okadigbo or something. The fuck? Why not Sammy Rooney or Sammy Smith or something. Racist imo, always suspected you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRD Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 People reading and quoting SDNews as a credible source for football-related news when it's just a cheap extension of the SD publicity machine getting the SD name into the media. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 Calm the f*** down man, its newcastle related. 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