Well, the penalty...?

There is, carrying the ball to the corner flag feels wrong to me too, it's nothing to do with football, it's a new game involving a man hopping around by a little flag trying to keep a ball until two other men take it, at which point he falls over. Rubbish values, rubbish spectacle, rubbish.

Pass or run with the ball, try to score. That's the game.

It's like padding up in cricket. You can't change the rule because bowlers like Warne would be literally unplayable, teams would be out for about 9. But at the same time the spectacle of batsmen playing ball after ball by sticking their leg out and letting it hit the pad is nothing to do with cricket and just rubbish.
 
Plechazunga said:
There is, carrying the ball to the corner flag feels wrong to me too, it's nothing to do with football, it's a new game involving a man hopping around by a little flag trying to keep a ball until two other men take it, at which point he falls over. Rubbish values, rubbish spectacle, rubbish.

Pass or run with the ball, try to score. That's the game.

It's like padding up in cricket. You can't change the rule because bowlers like Warne would be literally unplayable, teams would be out for about 9. But at the same time the spectacle of batsmen playing ball after ball by sticking their leg out and letting it hit the pad is nothing to do with cricket and just rubbish.
Click to expand...

I can't say I agree at all.

The lbw leg-side rule is in cricket for obvious reasons; to stop a bowler going round the wicket and bowling from ridiculously wide on the crease.

The reason I like football, aside from the great displays of skill and camaraderie, is the use of tactics and strategy. And this strategy includes 'spoiling tactics' and 'gamesmanship' such as playing defensively when you're 1-0 up in the dying minutes. The reason why the game is so enthralling is because of the need to overcome such obstacles. If the game was just an idealistic version where each team is obliged to recklessly attack the goal at every opportunity it would not be anyway near as enjoyable a spectacle. Test match cricket is infinitely better than 20-20.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
I can't say I agree at all.

The lbw leg-side rule is in cricket for obvious reasons; to stop a bowler going round the wicket and bowling from ridiculously wide on the crease.
Click to expand...

I know why the rule's there, as I said I don't think you can change it. Nevertheless the result, like the offside trap in football, is a kind of loophole which provides for a poor spectacle that's very far removed from the basic concept of the game. In this case, a batsman deliberately hitting the ball with his pad rather than trying to score runs with his bat; in the case of the offside trap, four defenders standing in a line and then simultaneously running up the pitch claiming a free-kick. Both require a certain skill, but both are basically shit.

The reason I like football, aside from the great displays of skill and camaraderie, is the use of tactics and strategy. And this strategy includes 'spoiling tactics' and 'gamesmanship' such as playing defensively when you're 1-0 up in the dying minutes. The reason why the game is so enthralling is because of the need to overcome such obstacles. If the game was just an idealistic version where each team is obliged to recklessly attack the goal at every opportunity it would not be anyway near as enjoyable a spectacle. Test match cricket is infinitely better than 20-20.
Click to expand...

How about tampering with the ball? Tactical, widely done... acceptable?

It's funny, 'gamesmanship' used to be a dirty word, now we've got to point where people invoke it approvingly. Moral standards in football have really slipped in this sense, though back when 'playing for a penalty' was a pejorative term, things like 'putting in the reducer' were validated, so some things have improved. These days most of us think going out to foul the other team off the park is morally wrong, except against Arsenal obviously.
 
I see you've stepped it up to multi-quote. Big man.

Plechazunga said:
I know why the rule's there, as I said I don't think you can change it. Nevertheless the result, like the offside trap in football, is a kind of loophole which provides for a poor spectacle that's very far removed from the basic concept of the game. In this case, a batsman deliberately hitting the ball with his pad rather than trying to score runs with his bat; in the case of the offside trap, four defenders standing in a line and then simultaneously running up the pitch claiming a free-kick. Both require a certain skill, but both are basically shit.
Click to expand...

The thing with the offside trap is that it creates a situation which needs to be overcome. The striker needs to time his runs and the defenders run the risk of allowing an unchallenged run on goal. The thing with football is that every strategy has risks and rewards, and every strategy has a counter strategy.

Plechazunga said:
How about tampering with the ball? Tactical, widely done... acceptable?
Click to expand...

Direct tampering with the ball (such as sandpapering it) is rightly against the rules and unacceptable. However, bouncing the ball into the wicket keeper to scuff it up is fine with me.
 
Plechazunga said:
There is, carrying the ball to the corner flag feels wrong to me too, it's nothing to do with football, it's a new game involving a man hopping around by a little flag trying to keep a ball until two other men take it, at which point he falls over. Rubbish values, rubbish spectacle, rubbish.
Click to expand...
I've never understood why this isn't considered timewasting.
 
peterstorey said:
I've never understood why this isn't considered timewasting.
Click to expand...

Because how can a referee dictate to a team how it uses the ball? The players would just say they're taking it to the corner to stretch the defence and draw defenders out of position for example.

If a team has the ball they can do whatever they want with it.
 
Brophs said:
I've always assumed it was because the ball was in play. If you went down that route playing it across the back could conceivably be considered time-wasting.
Click to expand...

And who's time-wasting when the GK has the ball at his feet in open play and noone is closing him down and he's not going to pass it or launch it upfield until the striker closes him down

Is it the GK wasting the time, or is it the strikers for not attempting to close down the GK.
 
EdWeatherall said:
And who's time-wasting when the GK has the ball at his feet in open play and noone is closing him down and he's not going to pass it or launch it upfield until the striker closes him down

Is it the GK wasting the time, or is it the strikers for not attempting to close down the GK.
Click to expand...

I'd just book everyone in that instance and send off John Terry.
 
what gets me with all this is that it's not so much United, but the very rules of the game are being brought into question the minute they don't suit l'arse, a club who have always been thuggish, anti-football (up until recent years) myopic and full of cheating cnuts. Now, they are actually lecturing everybody that beats them, on what they perceive to be the morals of the game. You just can't believe the arrogance of these cnuts.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
I see you've stepped it up to multi-quote. Big man.
Click to expand...

Jog on

Mike said:
The thing with the offside trap is that it creates a situation which needs to be overcome. The striker needs to time his runs and the defenders run the risk of allowing an unchallenged run on goal. The thing with football is that every strategy has risks and rewards, and every strategy has a counter strategy.
Click to expand...

Yeah I kind of agree, it's resulted in a certain added richness in that sense. Still, I suppose auditors see a certain beauty in their techniques for catching out tax evaders, but I'd rather people just didn't evade tax in the first place...

Mike said:
Direct tampering with the ball (such as sandpapering it) is rightly against the rules and unacceptable. However, bouncing the ball into the wicket keeper to scuff it up is fine with me.
Click to expand...

But surely your principles should encode some kind of values, not just be predicated on whatever laws happen to have come to pass.
 
The offside rule is fundamentally stupid because it's usually physically impossible for a linesman to see the ball being played and the position of the attacker/defender in one moment.
 
Plechazunga said:
But surely your principles should encode some kind of values, not just be predicated on whatever laws happen to have come to pass.
Click to expand...

Not really. I believe you set the laws as best you can to fit to the sporting principals, and then let the teams work within the rules as best they can. You naturally reach limits of what rules can achieve.

The cricket ball tampering rule is a good example. The principal is that the ball shouldn't be artificially tampered with and you set the rule for that. But you cannot, nor should, outlaw bouncing the ball to the wicket-keeper, because that is an aspect of play that is needed. And I don't think teams should feel they have to work within a set of unofficial rules to compensate. Mainly because the teams that chose not to, the 'ball bouncers' if you will, would win in the long term. Basically the ones not playing by the idealistic principals would win and no one wants that.

So long as the laws are equal for all teams, and the rules are applied consistently, it's not a massive problem whatever they are.
 
Didn't you ever play in the street where some annoying little cnut would hang around the goal doing feck all until he nipped in to score from two yards?
 
Yes, Peter MacShane, and he was a fecking good finisher too, the little twat

Denis' cuff said:
what gets me with all this is that it's not so much United, but the very rules of the game are being brought into question the minute they don't suit l'arse, a club who have always been thuggish, anti-football (up until recent years) myopic and full of cheating cnuts. Now, they are actually lecturing everybody that beats them, on what they perceive to be the morals of the game. You just can't believe the arrogance of these cnuts.
Click to expand...

Who are you actually talking about Denis'? The only one really talking about the inadequacies of the rules here is me, and I'm a United fan.

MikeUpNorth said:
Not really. I believe you set the laws as best you can to fit to the sporting principals, and then let the teams work within the rules as best they can. You naturally reach limits of what rules can achieve.

The cricket ball tampering rule is a good example. The principal is that the ball shouldn't be artificially tampered with and you set the rule for that. But you cannot, nor should should not, outlaw bouncing the ball to the wicket-keeper, because that is an aspect of play that is needed. And I don't think teams should feel they have to work within a set of unofficial rules to compensate. Mainly because the teams that chose not to, the 'ball bouncers' if you will, would win in the long term. Basically the ones not playing by the idealistic principals would win and no one wants that.

So long as the laws are equal for all teams, and the rules are applied consistently, it's not a massive problem whatever they are.
Click to expand...

Right. Personally I think players should try to be sporting. And many feel the same way. Witness the communal jizzing session when Sieg Heil di Canio caught that ball.
 
Game theory dictates that they shouldn't be sporting.
 
However, I am all in favour of drafting new rules if improvements can be made.

For example, you could make the 18 yard line continue to the edge of the pitch and stipulate that if the ball remains in the area enclosed by the penalty area, goal-line, sideline and 18 yard line (i.e. the corner) for more than 5 seconds then the ball is declared dead and a goal kick is awarded.
 
Grinner said:
The offside rule is fundamentally stupid because it's usually physically impossible for a linesman to see the ball being played and the position of the attacker/defender in one moment.
Click to expand...

Is correct. Technology should be able to sort that fairly easily soon, mind. And I've never seen a better solution to goalhanging.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
However, I am all in favour of drafting new rules if improvements can be made.

For example, you could make the 18 yard line continue to the edge of the pitch and stipulate that if the ball remains in the area enclosed by the penalty area, goal-line, sideline and 18 yard line (i.e. the corner) for more than 5 seconds then the ball is declared dead and a goal kick is awarded.
Click to expand...

That would be rubbish, most of our moves down the left would be ruined, plus people would just start doing the same thing at the edge of the touchline and extended area line, probably with another player next to them to cut off the angle.
 
Plechazunga said:
That would be rubbish, most of our moves down the left would be ruined, plus people would just start doing the same thing at the edge of the touchline and extended area line, probably with another player next to them to cut off the angle.
Click to expand...

:lol: Yeah you're right; it was just an example.
 
One change I would like to see is an end to that situation where a defender jumps in front of an attacker and shields the ball out for a goal kick; that's just obstruction.

I would change the rule so that you are only deemed to be 'in possession' of the ball if you have touched it, and any attempt to shield the ball if not 'in possession' is deemed obstruction and an indirect free-kick is awarded.

Warning: I may not have thought this through properly, and it may be as flawed as my last suggestion.
 
Plechazunga said:
I don't really want to change the rules, I just want to moan about them incessantly on the internet
Click to expand...

I like this thread because I know it has shed the caf of at least 3 months worth of posts praising Liam Miller.
 
Alll of these and the running it into the corner can be dealt with under the existing rules if the refs weren't such dickheads.
 
Grinner said:
It already can but the cnuts that count aren't utilizing it.
Click to expand...

FIFA have always been against technology for fear of dividing the game between the elite club level (e.g. the Premiership) who can afford to implement it, and the less well off (e.g. the Conference, or most leagues around the world) who can't afford the goal-line technology/offside cameras/etc. Obviously you can argue that the game is already divided, but in terms of what happens - 22 men, 1 ref and 2 linesman - on the pitch it remains intrinsically the same at professional and amateur levels.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
One change I would like to see is an end to that situation where a defender jumps in front of an attacker and shields the ball out for a goal kick; that's just obstruction.

I would change the rule so that you are only deemed to be 'in possession' of the ball if you have touched it, and any attempt to shield the ball if not 'in possession' is deemed obstruction and an indirect free-kick is awarded.

Warning: I may not have thought this through properly, and it may be as flawed as my last suggestion.
Click to expand...

I agree, it's a particularly shit sight that. The only problem I can think of with your solution is when you let the ball run across you without touching it to turn your man...

MikeUpNorth said:
I like this thread because I know it has shed the caf of at least 3 months worth of posts praising Liam Miller.
Click to expand...

Hehe, I've run out, I'm on to David Jones and may soon be reduced to Floribert Ngalula.

Grinner said:
It already can but the cnuts that count aren't utilizing it.
Click to expand...

It could be expensive... one way would be transmitters in everyones' boots, and one on the ball, so a computer could track exactly where the three players concerned were when the ball was (more or less) touched...
 
Gio said:
FIFA have always been against technology for fear of dividing the game between the elite club level (e.g. the Premiership) who can afford to implement it, and the less well off (e.g. the Conference, or most leagues around the world) who can't afford the goal-line technology/offside cameras/etc. Obviously you can argue that the game is already divided, but in terms of what happens - 22 men, 1 ref and 2 linesman - on the pitch it remains intrinsically the same at professional and amateur levels.
Click to expand...

Yes, shite.

In that case, why are they happy to use video evidence to retroactively punish players?
 
Plechazunga said:
It could be expensive... one way would be transmitters in everyones' boots, and one on the ball, so a computer could track exactly where the three players concerned were when the ball was (more or less) touched...
Click to expand...

Oh do this one! Imagine the fun Andy Gray would have with the data output and his graphics!
 
Plechazunga said:
It could be expensive... one way would be transmitters in everyones' boots, and one on the ball, so a computer could track exactly where the three players concerned were when the ball was (more or less) touched...
Click to expand...


I always though that having four linesmen might cut down the errors.
 
Too many cocks spoil the broth. Technology is the way forward; every sport but football has realised it.
 
Plechazunga said:
I agree, it's a particularly shit sight that. The only problem I can think of with your solution is when you let the ball run across you without touching it to turn your man...
Click to expand...
If a defender has his back to another player and is only looking at the ball, he can do what he likes. Its just plain good defending and often a good show of strength.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
Too many cocks spoil the broth. Technology is the way forward; every sport but football has realised it.
Click to expand...

Yank football has shedloads of refs and technology and they generally capture everything. Trouble is it takes 4 hours to play a game that's supposed to take 60 mins.

I wouldn't mind the extra time it took for video replays for really important calls. Perhaps you could have the coach's challenge rule in gridiron where you only get a couple of chances to challenge a ruling and suffer a penalty if you are unsuccessful.

None of that gay yellow hanky throwing though.
 
The Victorians knew exactly what they were doing when they said the ref is the sole judge and what he says is the 'truth' - we should go back to that position.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
One change I would like to see is an end to that situation where a defender jumps in front of an attacker and shields the ball out for a goal kick; that's just obstruction.

I would change the rule so that you are only deemed to be 'in possession' of the ball if you have touched it, and any attempt to shield the ball if not 'in possession' is deemed obstruction and an indirect free-kick is awarded.

Warning: I may not have thought this through properly, and it may be as flawed as my last suggestion.
Click to expand...

This is one of my gripes as well, if you're not going to play the ball and there's an opponent who would and could and you block them until the ball goes out of play; then it should be a clear obstruction. The only problem is if it happens quickly, the defender may claim that he was trying to get the ball but just couldn't reach it.

These situations would then become the interpretation of the referee, like back-passes and handballs, and would cause more arguments on the internet. But I'm sure this can be resolved because it's very irritating when it's against you.
 
Ummmm if you take on a player in the box its a peno, or am i to american fors ya
 
You must log in or register to reply here.