Ex Player Watch (58 Viewers)

Forums New posts
mrtrench

mrtrench

Well-Known Member
Frostie said:
it is a very harsh rule
Click to expand...

I don't think it's harsh. If the rule isn't that you have to stand on the line what is the limit to how far you can come off? A foot? A metre? Right next to the spot obscuring the shot? There has to be a rule and it makes sense that it's to stand on a line painted on the grass.
 
Frostie

Frostie

Well-Known Member
mrtrench said:
I don't think it's harsh. If the rule isn't that you have to stand on the line what is the limit to how far you can come off? A foot? A metre? Right next to the spot obscuring the shot? There has to be a rule and it makes sense that it's to stand on a line painted on the grass.
Click to expand...

I agree but you've picked out the middle of a sentence which kinda removes my context tbf.

I was trying to say that it's harsh that we're so strict on goalkeeper movement if the taker is allowed all the histrionics in the run up.
Used to be a rule about the taker wasn't allowed to make a deliberate stop during his run up but that's since been ignored.
 
mrtrench

mrtrench

Well-Known Member
Frostie said:
I agree but you've picked out the middle of a sentence which kinda removes my context tbf.

I was trying to say that it's harsh that we're so strict on goalkeeper movement if the taker is allowed all the histrionics in the run up.
Used to be a rule about the taker wasn't allowed to make a deliberate stop during his run up but that's since been ignored.
Click to expand...

Fair. I don't like all the faffing about in the run up either.

But what I dislike the most is the awarding of penalties... where it seems to depend on whether the player falls over as to if it is a penalty or not. Surely, if it's a foul it's a foul... even if it only unbalances the player and he stays on his feet? We play advantage elsewhere on the pitch, why is it different in the box? If we did this it would:

a) incentivise players to continue to try and score, in the knowledge that they possibly have a penalty in the bag;
b) Slightly reduce diving.

I'd also like to see more penalties for wrestling in the box... the unwritten rule seems to be that it's considered a part of the game for defenders to push/pull and hold onto shirts. And whilst I'm at it, I'd like to see harsher penalties for cynical fouls as a player breaks away but without yet a clear view on goal. Should be a yellow every time without exception.
 
S

SBbucks

Well-Known Member
mrtrench said:
Fair. I don't like all the faffing about in the run up either.

But what I dislike the most is the awarding of penalties... where it seems to depend on whether the player falls over as to if it is a penalty or not. Surely, if it's a foul it's a foul... even if it only unbalances the player and he stays on his feet? We play advantage elsewhere on the pitch, why is it different in the box? If we did this it would:

a) incentivise players to continue to try and score, in the knowledge that they possibly have a penalty in the bag;
b) Slightly reduce diving.

I'd also like to see more penalties for wrestling in the box... the unwritten rule seems to be that it's considered a part of the game for defenders to push/pull and hold onto shirts. And whilst I'm at it, I'd like to see harsher penalties for cynical fouls as a player breaks away but without yet a clear view on goal. Should be a yellow every time without exception.
Click to expand...
A yellow doesn’t punish the last piece you mentioned, e.g. Winks yesterday with cynical foul on the halfway line which prevented a 3 on 1 for Leicester in the last few minutes - should be straight red in that situation.
 
SBAndy

SBAndy

Well-Known Member
SBbucks said:
A yellow doesn’t punish the last piece you mentioned, e.g. Winks yesterday with cynical foul on the halfway line which prevented a 3 on 1 for Leicester in the last few minutes - should be straight red in that situation.
Click to expand...

Absolutely a red for me. Wasn’t even in the same postcode as the ball. Cynical is an understatement.
 
mrtrench

mrtrench

Well-Known Member
SBbucks said:
A yellow doesn’t punish the last piece you mentioned, e.g. Winks yesterday with cynical foul on the halfway line which prevented a 3 on 1 for Leicester in the last few minutes - should be straight red in that situation.
Click to expand...

Didn't see it... But there has to be a rule so there is consistency. The rule at the moment, as I understand it, is that the player has to have a clear chance at goal and then it's a red. If there is no clear chance on goal and it's not dangerous play you cannot award a red for that in all cases. And if you leave it up to the ref to judge how likely they were to shortly have a clear cut chance you'll get inconsistency.

I want it to be more draconian than it is - players like O'Hare get pulled down 10 times per game with players taking it in turns to deny breaks on the half-way line. I'd like that to be reduced but not at the cost of having 16 players on the pitch after 90 minutes for every fixture.
 
Frostie

Frostie

Well-Known Member
mrtrench said:
Didn't see it... But there has to be a rule so there is consistency. The rule at the moment, as I understand it, is that the player has to have a clear chance at goal and then it's a red. If there is no clear chance on goal and it's not dangerous play you cannot award a red for that in all cases. And if you leave it up to the ref to judge how likely they were to shortly have a clear cut chance you'll get inconsistency.

I want it to be more draconian than it is - players like O'Hare get pulled down 10 times per game with players taking it in turns to deny breaks on the half-way line. I'd like that to be reduced but not at the cost of having 16 players on the pitch after 90 minutes for every fixture.
Click to expand...

100% this.
DOGSO (Denying Of Goal Scoring Opportunity) is the law you refer to.

There was one in the PL a few years back (escapes me now which club/player was involved) where it was the most blatant, cynical trip ever on the halfway line - ball barely even in the picture but there was covering defenders so no chance of DOGSO.
Referee gave it as a red just due to the sheer cynical nature & was praised in a lot of the media. The red was of course rescinded though as it's simply not in the laws of the game.
 
Irish Sky Blue

Irish Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
mrtrench said:
Didn't see it... But there has to be a rule so there is consistency. The rule at the moment, as I understand it, is that the player has to have a clear chance at goal and then it's a red. If there is no clear chance on goal and it's not dangerous play you cannot award a red for that in all cases. And if you leave it up to the ref to judge how likely they were to shortly have a clear cut chance you'll get inconsistency.

I want it to be more draconian than it is - players like O'Hare get pulled down 10 times per game with players taking it in turns to deny breaks on the half-way line. I'd like that to be reduced but not at the cost of having 16 players on the pitch after 90 minutes for every fixture.
Click to expand...
I agree completely with this and with your comments on all of the wrestling that goes on in the penalty area..
Cynical fouls like the ones you describe seem to be much more common now. It seems like they are an almost accepted part of the game. ‘Taking one for the team’ or ‘a good foul’ are phrases used by pundits these days and are never really challenged. Even Oggy has commented on good fouls a few times this season, whichhas seemed to annoy Clive a bit.
The fact is that if it is every teams intention to chop down or pull back a player breaking with the ball then the ones who suffer are people paying to watch games. As a City fan I can safely say that I can do without the ‘excitement’ (dread) of opposing players breaking against us. But I then have to endure the frustration of seeing O’Hare chopped down multiple times each game when he looks like making something happen.
For the good of the game, punishment needs to be harsher for cynical fouls.
I hate the way that teams like Cardiff, Swansea and in the first game against us, Bournemouth, play, ‘Managing the game’ in other words managing the ref, diving, timewasting, diving basically cheating.
 
Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
mrtrench said:
I don't think it's harsh. If the rule isn't that you have to stand on the line what is the limit to how far you can come off? A foot? A metre? Right next to the spot obscuring the shot? There has to be a rule and it makes sense that it's to stand on a line painted on the grass.
Click to expand...

But it is natural to take a step forward in that situation. So should a keeper stand behind the line so when he does it he's only on the line? You don't see the rule about player run-ups being applied as vigourously. If you slowed them down for a replay you could definitely say some of those have a stop-start run-up.

For me I've alway sfelt the pen spot being 12 yards away was to allow for that forward movement as opposed to the 10 required for all free-kicks.
 
JulianDarbyFTW

JulianDarbyFTW

Well-Known Member
SBAndy said:
Bizarre how many end up knocking about there until their mid to late twenties.
Click to expand...
Must be hard as a player in that position, thinking that one day you might just get your chance playing in the Premier League because the club keep wanting you to stay / extending your contract.
 
T

Tomh111

Well-Known Member
Dickie said:
It’s a weird set up isn’t it
Click to expand...

Its because of the constant manager turnover I think, it happens at lots of the 'Traditional?' Premiership clubs.

The club wants to retain them because they perceive value, but the constant need for immediate success and turnover in management means they never get a look in at their parent club.
 
Terry Gibson's perm

Terry Gibson's perm

Well-Known Member
When he got called in to be released it must have been a shock after never playing but getting his contract renewed for years.

The squads at the big clubs are ridiculous Man Utd had five seniors goalies costing them way over a half a million a week.
 
larry_david

larry_david

Well-Known Member
So Joe Newton has gone to conf South. Not a bad level considering his age and every chance he can kick on and make a league career. Certainly impressed the few times I saw him for our 23s.

Wonder where Williams and Bartlett will go. Thompson is still on loan and playing every min for Solihull moors. He'll bag a conf or league 2 gig.

Williams played in league 1 for us and a few conf loan spells. Imagine if he wanted he'd he a league player but his insta is full of him pro gaming so...who knows.

Yes I'm bored
 
fernandopartridge

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
larry_david said:
So Joe Newton has gone to conf South. Not a bad level considering his age and every chance he can kick on and make a league career. Certainly impressed the few times I saw him for our 23s.

Wonder where Williams and Bartlett will go. Thompson is still on loan and playing every min for Solihull moors. He'll bag a conf or league 2 gig.

Williams played in league 1 for us and a few conf loan spells. Imagine if he wanted he'd he a league player but his insta is full of him pro gaming so...who knows.

Yes I'm bored
Click to expand...

Bartlett looked a long way off in the very brief view I had of him
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 54 (members: 0, guests: 54)
Top