I agree to a degree. But what if someone goes down in the six yard box... or the keeper goes down? Or its a bit more serious.
Stoppages will still occur. Do you then stop time?
What would you change in the game?
- Thread starter Admiral Huddy
- Start date
I agree to a degree. But what if someone goes down in the six yard box... or the keeper goes down? Or its a bit more serious.
Stoppages will still occur. Do you then stop time?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
the offside rule. it makes no sense and is implemented badly most of the time.
of course no lines man can watch 2 places at anyone time i.e if the ball is hoofes by a defender in his 18 yard box and a striker is just over the half way line how can you expect any human to consistently get the decision right? I think it is physically impossible to get it correct and each one is a pure judgement call.
then we come into the active/non active play mode. chelsea exemplified this last night there were 2 chelsea players offside in the 6 yard box defenders push up slightly then ssuddenly chelsea move the ball down the right hand side of the box bringing 2 chelsea players onside from an unactive to active position but one which is completely undefendable ?!
of course no lines man can watch 2 places at anyone time i.e if the ball is hoofes by a defender in his 18 yard box and a striker is just over the half way line how can you expect any human to consistently get the decision right? I think it is physically impossible to get it correct and each one is a pure judgement call.
then we come into the active/non active play mode. chelsea exemplified this last night there were 2 chelsea players offside in the 6 yard box defenders push up slightly then ssuddenly chelsea move the ball down the right hand side of the box bringing 2 chelsea players onside from an unactive to active position but one which is completely undefendable ?!
lot of quality suggestions, but fifa/fa are to stupid to implement anything likely to improve the game.
iirc there was mention of giving the attacker the advantage if there wasnt clear air between him and the defender when it came to offside, then they came up with the new offside rule which no one can agree on.
sort out all this crap at corners.
hands on the opposition gets you a warning, next time for the defenders yellow/penalty, attack yellow card/goes to a goal kick.
watching defenders now a days they dont even know where the ball is.
definitely go for the cards if anyone other than the captain approaches the ref, shame the FA didnt have the bottle to back up there plans with it when they introduced the "respect" campaign.
after they've had chance to review the game, enforce refs to come out and explain there decisions.
yeah it gives the advantage to the defence, sneaky little pulls/tackles to give away a free kick rather than the chance to get a shot off, doesn't take a lot spoil a chance.
iirc there was mention of giving the attacker the advantage if there wasnt clear air between him and the defender when it came to offside, then they came up with the new offside rule which no one can agree on.
sort out all this crap at corners.
hands on the opposition gets you a warning, next time for the defenders yellow/penalty, attack yellow card/goes to a goal kick.
watching defenders now a days they dont even know where the ball is.
definitely go for the cards if anyone other than the captain approaches the ref, shame the FA didnt have the bottle to back up there plans with it when they introduced the "respect" campaign.
after they've had chance to review the game, enforce refs to come out and explain there decisions.
yeah it gives the advantage to the defence, sneaky little pulls/tackles to give away a free kick rather than the chance to get a shot off, doesn't take a lot spoil a chance.
Last edited:
Sneaky little pulls/tackles happen all the time even with the current penalty system; refs are constantly having to weigh up whether they're so bad as to warrant a penalty.
Obviously they decide it's not worth it, or we'd be seeing many more penalties per game. So they're letting defender shenanigans go unpunished because the only punishment they can give under the current system is disproportionately harsh.
Remove penalties, remove this all-or-nothing punishment. Let the yellow/red cards and suspensions do the punishing.
EDIT: Don't wish to sound card-happy, but I do agree with you about carding players other than captains who approach the ref too assertively or repeatedly.
Last edited:
Does anyone else remember the days when it actually had to be a foul in the box as opposed to there being contact for it to be a penalty!?!?! 
Nothing annoys me more than the commentators saying a player has "won" a penalty - No! You don't win a penalty, you are awarded one because of a foul or infringement by the other team!!!!!
Nothing annoys me more than the commentators saying a player has "won" a penalty - No! You don't win a penalty, you are awarded one because of a foul or infringement by the other team!!!!!
I would actually quite like indirect freekicks for pulls and stuff inside the box. Carry on with penalties, but for proper fouls in the box. That way I think the pulling for set pieces and the like would cut down a lot.
Also, maybe it would be worth trying out the Basketball system, so when play stops for injury time, stop the clock.
Also, maybe it would be worth trying out the Basketball system, so when play stops for injury time, stop the clock.
I know this would never happen because of costs and other contraints but I would like to see knockout matches to be decided in 3 matches. Home, away and Neutral grounds. To see which team truly is the better team. Apart from the obvious 1 goal margin what really is the difference between a 2-0 home and a 3-0 home win? Both teams won comfortably at home. A third game at a neutral ground would determine the better team.
when defenders "shield" the ball going out for a goal kick, they make no attempt to play the ball but make every attempt to stop the opposition getting to the ball, arms spread wide etc so they cant go round them.
would like it called as obstruction, cos anywhere else on the pitch it would be.
the refs to give cards based on the foul not on the fact "oh if i give him another yellow i've got to send him off", hear it so many times "if he wasn't on a yellow he'd have been booked for that", well sodding well book the muppet then.
it only sort of applies to the premiership currently, mainly cos of all the sky camera coverage, but i'd like to see ALL matches reviewed to take into account the likes of yellow/red cards/penalties/diving etc.
then hopefully it would start to highlight all the crap that goes on, fake injuries clutching at their face when they got pushed in the chest etc.
whatever they do, if they really have a wish to present the game in the best light, the governing body should do something to try and combat all the cheating that goes on.
problem is your not even allowed to tackle nowadays, you see calls all the time cos his trailing leg caught him, he'd already cleared the ball so what the hell does that matter ?
near enough outlawed the sliding tackle, which is an art to itself
.
would like it called as obstruction, cos anywhere else on the pitch it would be.
the refs to give cards based on the foul not on the fact "oh if i give him another yellow i've got to send him off", hear it so many times "if he wasn't on a yellow he'd have been booked for that", well sodding well book the muppet then.
it only sort of applies to the premiership currently, mainly cos of all the sky camera coverage, but i'd like to see ALL matches reviewed to take into account the likes of yellow/red cards/penalties/diving etc.
then hopefully it would start to highlight all the crap that goes on, fake injuries clutching at their face when they got pushed in the chest etc.
whatever they do, if they really have a wish to present the game in the best light, the governing body should do something to try and combat all the cheating that goes on.
Does anyone else remember the days when it actually had to be a foul in the box as opposed to there being contact for it to be a penalty!?!?!
problem is your not even allowed to tackle nowadays, you see calls all the time cos his trailing leg caught him, he'd already cleared the ball so what the hell does that matter ?
near enough outlawed the sliding tackle, which is an art to itself
.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 17 Feb 2003
- Posts
- 29,640
- Location
- Chelmsford
Like Rugby, when time is up then the game ends as soon as the ball is out of play.. If a defender tactically knock it out of play, then so be it.
That wasn't my point. I understand the concept.
It's more to do with serious injuries where stopping the game is essential. Do you also stop time or allow it to tick away?
They all use the same cameras
You take the Carling Cup final for example frame for frame what Sky showed BBC also showed.
I guess in terms of pundits/commentary it's down to personal preference. I like Gary Neville, Martin Tyler, Alan Smith etc etc while that's not to say I dont like the Beeb's commentators I do find them all much of a much-ness. I cant understand why anyone wouldn't love Martin Tyler, he's a legend
BBC > Sky > ESPN > Channel 5 > ITV
The BBC are great because they do sport on so many levels, they often do local radio (which is fairly good), they have the BBC 5Live stuff, which for the most part is very good (they have a few really **** commentators / pundits and Alan Green who's an epic ****) they also do the World Service which covers football (The world football phone in is brilliant) and Match of the day is ~okay, but depends majority on who's in the studio with Links. Match of the Day 2 is much better.
Sky have some good coverage, but their continual hype of all things English is boring and the matches often feel like a soap opera with a football game on in the back ground. The best thing Sky Sports does is the Soccer Saturday / Sunday Supplement. The majority of their presents / commentators and pundits are poor.
ESPN are pretty bad, but mainly through picking up the dregs of other football shows instead of doing something inventive.
ITV / Channel 5 are terrible. Only redeeming feature is Pat Nevin on channel 5, who's underused.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
Does motd really have to start at half ten? how are kids meant to watch this without recording it. Surely 8pm or 9pm at the latest would be more than adequate for some of the x rated tackles and chants from the fans. is it due to licensing i.e highlights can only be shown x hours after live matches ?
It's always been on at that time due to pubs closing at that time in the past? iirc.
- Joined
- 17 Feb 2003
- Posts
- 29,640
- Location
- Chelmsford
Correct. The days to get home before MOTD or at least you hoped the Mrs could figure out which button to push down on the VHS machine.. BetaMax of course
.Tick away is hardly the words i'd use. Merely allowing the game to continue.. Providing he's receiving treatment on the pitch it doesn't matter.. The team will be a man short.. but they they would be under the current system anyway so it makes no different.. All you get is players standing around. No logic in that .. carry on!
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
before electricity we always used gas. and before that candles and well you see how it goes.
Laws have changed motd was never family friendly starting time. Now i get annoyed because i can't watch the goals before i go out at night...
football focus is a decent time but approx 6 days late lol
serious injuries would stop the game/time, i think huddy is referring more to the trips and tackles where they go down clutching an ankle/thigh etc.
talking of this has brought something else up as well, wasn't it set up to so that sides carried on playing until the ref whistled, why is it that the team with the injured player/crowd start booing if the opposition dont kick the ball out ?
Last edited:
They should force Barry Davies out of football retirement. I mean he still does the tennis doesn't he? He should be frog marched to the nearest football ground and literally forced at gun point to commentate on it.
Also, clubs should have one permanent shirt for home and one permanent shirt for away and that's it.
edit: I would also ban the word "exclusively" from being used on Sky Sports.
Also, clubs should have one permanent shirt for home and one permanent shirt for away and that's it.
edit: I would also ban the word "exclusively" from being used on Sky Sports.
Last edited:
I think that I would stop watching football if half of you guys got your way.
No penalties for fouls in the box. How on earth would that be anything but an offer for any defender to foul an attacker as soon as he looked like shooting. Its great watching defenders try to tackle a skilful player in the box because he knows that any mistake and its a penalty.
Extra time is very similar to rugby rules. Any time wasted in the match is added on. It may be slightly off in most games but 30 seconds or a minute won't make much difference. It works in rugby because they stop for decisions and referrals and should an attacking team have possession of the ball at the end they can hold onto it until they make a mistake. How many times in football would you see a team that could hold onto the ball when the defending team know they just need to kick the ball anywhere and it will go out.
The offside rule works fine and there are plenty of stats to back up the quality of the decision making from the linesman.
Football is fine, it just needs goal line technology. Some people seem to think that we as laymans can decide definitively whether a player has had enough contact to merit a foul or not which is plain idiotic. You can't remove diving from the game because to do that, you would have to punish so many people that were genuinely fouled. Its not an exact science but the rules are pretty well equipped to deal with it.
No penalties for fouls in the box. How on earth would that be anything but an offer for any defender to foul an attacker as soon as he looked like shooting. Its great watching defenders try to tackle a skilful player in the box because he knows that any mistake and its a penalty.
Extra time is very similar to rugby rules. Any time wasted in the match is added on. It may be slightly off in most games but 30 seconds or a minute won't make much difference. It works in rugby because they stop for decisions and referrals and should an attacking team have possession of the ball at the end they can hold onto it until they make a mistake. How many times in football would you see a team that could hold onto the ball when the defending team know they just need to kick the ball anywhere and it will go out.
The offside rule works fine and there are plenty of stats to back up the quality of the decision making from the linesman.
Football is fine, it just needs goal line technology. Some people seem to think that we as laymans can decide definitively whether a player has had enough contact to merit a foul or not which is plain idiotic. You can't remove diving from the game because to do that, you would have to punish so many people that were genuinely fouled. Its not an exact science but the rules are pretty well equipped to deal with it.
Last edited: