I was a neutral watching a great game on Weds and it was wrecked by a sending off. Now the sending off wasn't malicious or a professional foul it was just a fairly honest mistake. It was a sin bin incident with a peno for me but to send him off for the whole game was harsh for me and killed the game as a spectackle. The rule I thought was introduced to stop professional fouls and not decent efforts at tackles.
Yeah, imagine the goalkeeper going away and leaving the goal open, because the team decided conceding is better, but then the penalty taker, facing an empty goal, kicks the ball into the sky, because his team decided that the sending off is better. Awesome idea
If I was a Bayern fan I would agree with you but as I didnt mind who won I wanted an entertaining game.
The hand-ball rule is largely based on interpretation and people moan about that every game. Why would we want more rules based on interpretation? You deny a goal-scoring opportunity and you're off - simple and easy to understand. If you don't want to be sent off, then don't take the risk. Which is exactly what defenders don't in most cases, and that would change dramatically if the rules were changed I'm sure. No defender in his right mind wouldn't try challenging for the ball if he wasn't sent off for it, even if he knew the chances of him actually getting the ball was incredibly low. Defenders would get a massive advantage compared to now.
It's even more complicated than that, because the goal scoring opportunity is already an interpretation! (the ref can decide that if he saw a defender coming back, then there wasn't a clear goal scoring opportunity, or if the control of the ball is bad, etc.) So basically, it's a double interpretation, but the second one (the cynicism, or absence of) being highly subjective (at leat the goal scoring interpretation can be based on quite tangible facts). I agree that the idea of introducing the idea of cynical fouls is too complicated in this instance.
Isn't this down to interpretation too. Why didn't Boateng go for the foul on Ozil. Ozil had side stepped him and was in for a shot on goal but Boateng only saw yellow.
But wasnt this rule brought in just for this measure? To stop the professional foul thwarting the attacker. I don't think it was meant to stop the goalie trying to legitmately challenge for the ball. I think it was a double punishment but the rules are clear and he had to go.
Nah I don't think it was a double punishment, I agree with Balu's take on it. I don't really think there should be a difference between the goalie 'legimately' challenging for a ball and other circumstances, as it would become too difficult to define. I don't know why the rule was brought in, but I think that how it's drafted is fine. You deny a clear goalscoring opportunity (whether cynically or not), you're off. It's simple.
That's where there is a grey area though. I don't doubt that Robben's chance was definitely a clear cut goal scoring opportunity but why wasn't Ozil's viewed the same. He checked in on his right foot when the last man in Boateng took him out. Is that not a red card?
Ok but in fairness I wanted to make it even easier. Don't do anything until after the peno is taken. Miss and you send the keeper off regardless and score and he stays on with a yellow.
Yep it's not uninteresting but then you have the problems some talked about. And would it only apply to keepers?
Yeah it definitely needs work. Leave it with me! I was just pissed off because I finally got to sit down with a beer to watch a game and then the bugger gets sent off and ruins it as a contest.
fair enough!My Leffe Brun never tasted so bitter!
Like Pogue (and others in previous threads discussing this) has already said, the opens up for some things many of us wouldn't really like to see. Say we're fighting for the title (or 4th) with Chelsea and we're up 3-0 (hypothetical, people!) when Cech denies one of our strikers a goal-scoring opportunity towards the end. Chelsea got a few tough games coming up, so would United rather score and win 4-0 or make sure Chelsea play their next game without Cech? In that case, it would be in United's best interest to put Jones on the job and make sure the ball went out of the stadium. Likewise, it would be in Chelsea's best interest if Cech just did his best to avoid saving the ball. You could come up with plenty of other examples like this.
Yes, what I meant was that the rule is clear. Trying to differentiate between cynical foul and honest attempt to win the ball isn't always clear-cut - particularly not at full speed.
Great TV!
Football is about considering the risks. If you have a very little chance of getting the ball - don't try to. If you have a decent chance, try to. That's exactly what all good defenders do every game. There's plenty of times where you think "the defender could've tried something there", but you understand that he didn't because it wasn't worth the risk. Likewise, there's plenty of times where you see a defender grabbing an attacker, but then letting go because he figures staying on the pitch is more important than potentially giving away a penalty and being sent off. I genuinely don't see any reason at all to remove this aspect from the game. The alternative is that defenders will do everything in their power (kick, grab shirt etc.) to stop a striker through on goal - does anyone actually want to see that?
Should the same apply if it had happened in the last minute of the game?
Actually I think they illustrate two different ends of the spectrum: Demichelis brought Messi down deliberately to prevent the goal whereas Szczesny was just too slow in making a genuine attempt to win the ball. I think the penalty goal award could be a worthwhile rule change ie red for Demichelis and a penalty goal irrespective of inside or just outside the box and yellow for Szczesny and a penalty goal.
