Football

[Madge Wildfire]

Ok, I know there is a lot of emotion and contention involved in football match decisions.

However, the laws of the game do not say that a penalty should be awarded just for contact between two opposing players in the penalty area.

Even a tackle or push in the penalty area is qualified by the statement that it must be "considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force".

Nothing that went on in the penalty area in that match came under that description, and the second Utd dive certainly didn't.

I'm not saying Chelsea players were not indulging in the same practices, but I'm afraid that these activities are reaching such a frequency that football is being ruined by them.

The even sadder thing is that instead of complaining, the press and media love it because it gives them a subject for hours of debate, discussion and action replays.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Just seen United's second penalty. Oh dear. What a bunch of disgraceful cheats United are. Oh wait, Howard Webb awarded it, what a surprise. If he's meant to be the best official in the country then I think the FA needs to invest in their referee training programme more.

 

[SS4]

The even sadder thing is that instead of complaining, the press and media love it because it gives them a subject for hours of debate, discussion and action replays.

I've seen that the pundits will often disagree with each other creating more argument. Personally, I think it's time wasting

 

[EM2]

Even a tackle or push in the penalty area is qualified by the statement that it must be "considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force".

Have a look at page six here:
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_12_fouls_misconduct_en_47379.pdf

 

[Minilad]

Another weekend, another load of moaning about refs. Ho Hum

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Just seen United's second penalty. Oh dear. What a bunch of disgraceful cheats United are. Oh wait, Howard Webb awarded it, what a surprise. If he's meant to be the best official in the country then I think the FA needs to invest in their referee training programme more.

Would you not say that, for the second penalty incident, the Chelsea defender actually tried to pull away from making contact, but being off-balance, was not able to move his trailing leg away in time? Welbeck seems deceptively fast for a "gangly" long-legged centre forward who was moving forward on goal at the time. I would not say that a penalty should have been awarded for this particular incident.

I notice that the Sturridge tackle, for the first penalty incident, was a typical "forwards" tackle that so often leads to a penalty being awarded. There was no ill intent, just a very badly timed challenge, which must have caused despair amongst the Chelsea defence when they saw it being made. I would definitely say that the penalty award was correct in this case and it is interesting to note that the ex-professional players on the TV panel (one a defender and the other a centre-forward totally concurred on this matter) and I would accept their view, as players who have actually performed in the highest standard of British football, rather than some "football conspiracy theorists" who seem blinkered by their innate hatred of certain clubs.

I record matches so I can then view them myself, to formulate a view on each individual event. Every incident should be viewed on its own merits, rather than to make a "blanket" assertion that all matters are deemed to be the same "refereeing mistake". This, I add, has helped my understanding of football, which I first started following seriously in the 1954/1955 season and I have seen matches played both at home and abroad, when I was on secondment in company European project work.

The worst "cheats", as this word seems suddenly to be in vogue on this forum, that I have seen, were from players in the Italian and Spanish leagues in matches between 1968 to 1980. It seemed to be an accepted cultural fact of sporting life at that time.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I think Welbeck went into the defender for the second penalty, not vice versa.

If you are reffering to Dixon and Dublin on MOTD2, you should note that for the latter half of his career, specifically after Aston Villa, Dublin played as centre back.

The worst cheats I can think of are FC Barca at the minute, anyone remember Busquets looking through his fingers to see if a foul had been called?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I think Welbeck went into the defender for the second penalty, not vice versa.

If you are reffering to Dixon and Dublin on MOTD2, you should note that for the latter half of his career, specifically after Aston Villa, Dublin played as centre back

This point you made about Dublin adds ever more strength to my argument as he has seen football incidents from both as an attacker and as a defender, but I hasten to add that I doubt if you ever saw him play as a centre-forward where he made his name in British football.

If you wish to think upon a well-respected defender from a similar period, again, well before your time, there are forum members who will tell you how good a player Paul McGrath was. This was a defender with a sound positional sense.

 

[SS4]

If you wish to think upon a well-respected defender from a similar period, again, well before your time, there are forum members who will tell you how good a player Paul McGrath was. This was a defender with a sound positional sense.

Aka God

 

[Minilad]

This point you made about Dublin adds ever more strength to my argument as he has seen football incidents from both as an attacker and as a defender, but I hasten to add that I doubt if you ever saw him play as a centre-forward where he made his name in British football.

If you wish to think upon a well-respected defender from a similar period, again, well before your time, there are forum members who will tell you how good a player Paul McGrath was. This was a defender with a sound positional sense.

Paul McGrath was without a doubt the finest footballer I have ever seen live. And I have seen a lot of the greats. One thing is certain, you would not see McGrath making some of the rash challenges made by so called defenders today

 

[TGVDUDE]

Another weekend, another load of moaning about refs. Ho Hum

This isn't just any ref, this is fergies 12th man lol, I remember him ref'ing Leeds v bolton the year we went down, and I was mascot for Leeds, the atmosphere in the dressing room pre game was one of desire and distress at the corperate end of the club!

 

[YorkshireBear]

I dont want man city to win the league so much that i would rather howard webb give away tons of penalties so utd could go top... selfish i know i just want anyone cept city to win league and utd seem to be only ones who can do it.

Arsenal-Useless, far too inconsistent.
Chelsea-Pretty much arsenal but with a tad more luck and skill involved.
Tottenham-Havent got enough puff to win league.

SWFC on other hand, back to second in league1, beggers belief, certainly cant believe my eyes.

 

[balne-wonderer]

I'm seriously going to stop watching games involving Manchester United because the decisions they get are sickening.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It is good to see that "football conspiracy theorisism" is alive and well and is certainly flourishing on this forum.

I have been criticised for saying how poor my own side, Oldham Athletic, are when they play at home, as I am a realist and see matters as factual events. You will not find me claiming that certain clubs who I cannot claim to have any intimate knowledge of, are guilty of misfeasance. Forget matters that concern other teams and look to the shortcomings of your own teams. There must be plenty of matters in need of resolution there, without having to hide away under the cover of criticism of other teams, to mask the shortcomings in your own teams.

Football has international, national and local structures with well defined strictures and sets of rules that go back countless years. If some of the comments that I have seen over the last fifty years by people who lack the knowledge or the understanding of football organisation, such as unproven aspersions against certain teams that only exist in their own minds as a result of jealousy towards more successful clubs, which are then so ingrained as to make them believe that these indeed are factual events rather than the fantasies that they really are.

The Sports Press and Media are notorious for feeding these fantasies as they always evoke much debate and whilst seriously-minded football supporters see this for what it is, unfortunately there are those who see this as confirmation of their deeply held fantasies as actually being true.

 

[Madge Wildfire]

I'm seriously going to stop watching games involving Manchester United because the decisions they get are sickening.

Same here.

I wouldn't mind if it was a one off, but these dodgy decisions are happening more and more these days and the game is being ruined.

However, I would admit that it is unlikely that any club would ever win the Premiership now by just being honest, or by just accepting the referees' decision.

United players were constantly in the referees' face and that must put him under pressure. Anyone who can lip read would wonder why these players do not get yellow cards for persistent abusive language, but nothing ever happens.

And yet, the slightest touch from the opposition and they are falling like a sack of potatoes, and with arms and legs flailing in all directions. It is sickening, and makes football little more than a joke.

I think a lot of so-called football fans continue to be in denial that there is nothing wrong with their "beautiful game".

It is everything but beautiful, and the only 'game' is who can con the referee the best.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I'm seriously going to stop watching games involving Manchester United because the decisions they get are sickening.

That is a decision for you to make on a personal basis. No-one forces you to watch any match.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You should note that for the latter half of his career, specifically after Aston Villa, Dublin played as centre back

I think that my knowledge of football matters such as this comes from actually having attended matches in that period and is rather more extensive than yours. I am somewhat amused by your attempts at trying to educate me on matters that I already know so well.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

For God's sake, it wasn't a jab at you, I was merely pointing something out for everyone's benefit. Stop with this we can only debate things we know about and you've seen football for fifty years - this is a forum, much like real life, we can discuss football as we see it. We all have opinions. Please stop taking the high ground - it is infuriating. Your arrogance astounds me.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I saw all six goals on the BBC News tonight and I am a totally neutral observer. Are you saying that there was no contact by either Chelsea player in their own penalty area on the opposing player? Sturridge who made one of the two tackles is an out-and-out forward without the defensive knowledge of defending such situations. I would have been quite worried if any of our defenders (Oldham Athletic) made such challenges on opposing forwards, in their own penalty area.

That said, I thought that Chelsea's second goal was the goal of the match and was struck to perfection.

There was contact but it was minimal and I think it was as much attacker on defender as anything else.

I didn't think any of the three penalties given to the two Manchester clubs this weekend were penalties, but I guess that is the way the game is going, completely non-contact before too long.

....However, I would admit that it is unlikely that any club would ever win the Premiership now by just being honest, or by just accepting the referees' decision....

Sadly that is probably right, but note how other teams get moaned at for it and Man Utd get praised.

....It is everything but beautiful, and the only 'game' is who can con the referee the best.

Indeed, although it seems to help if you play your home games at Old Trafford.

 

[Ivo]

It is good to see that "football conspiracy theorisism" is alive and well and is certainly flourishing on this forum.

I have been criticised for saying how poor my own side, Oldham Athletic, are when they play at home, as I am a realist and see matters as factual events. You will not find me claiming that certain clubs who I cannot claim to have any intimate knowledge of, are guilty of misfeasance. Forget matters that concern other teams and look to the shortcomings of your own teams. There must be plenty of matters in need of resolution there, without having to hide away under the cover of criticism of other teams, to mask the shortcomings in your own teams.

Football has international, national and local structures with well defined strictures and sets of rules that go back countless years. If some of the comments that I have seen over the last fifty years by people who lack the knowledge or the understanding of football organisation, such as unproven aspersions against certain teams that only exist in their own minds as a result of jealousy towards more successful clubs, which are then so ingrained as to make them believe that these indeed are factual events rather than the fantasies that they really are.

The Sports Press and Media are notorious for feeding these fantasies as they always evoke much debate and whilst seriously-minded football supporters see this for what it is, unfortunately there are those who see this as confirmation of their deeply held fantasies as actually being true.

Well said Paul. Whilst I do enjoy critiquing other clubs, given I do have a very extensice knowledge of the sport for someone my age (as is true of Mr E), I know that there are many shortcomings across clubs that I follow to some degree or another. Indeed, at present I would say that of the clubs I do follow to some degree or another, the one that has the fewest issues at present is probably Brighton. Do they have financial issues compared to those around them? An old and decrepit stadium? An inadequate support base? A poor management structure? A current tendency to go backwards? Brighton have none of these things, and I sincerely that they achieve promotion to the Prem soon - and last longer than they did in the early 80s (when many of you will know that they also reached the FA Cup Final and lost on a replay).

United players were constantly in the referees' face and that must put him under pressure. Anyone who can lip read would wonder why these players do not get yellow cards for persistent abusive language, but nothing ever happens.

And yet, the slightest touch from the opposition and they are falling like a sack of potatoes, and with arms and legs flailing in all directions. It is sickening, and makes football little more than a joke.

The problem is that United have effectively learned this tactic from Chelsea. The Blues were the original antagonists of this, and now that others are copying them look where they have ended up.

Indeed, although it seems to help if you play your home games at Old Trafford.

A very stereotypical response: But (whilst I can't be bothered to dig any out) the statistics do back this up...

 

[balne-wonderer]

Same here.

I wouldn't mind if it was a one off, but these dodgy decisions are happening more and more these days and the game is being ruined.

However, I would admit that it is unlikely that any club would ever win the Premiership now by just being honest, or by just accepting the referees' decision.

United players were constantly in the referees' face and that must put him under pressure. Anyone who can lip read would wonder why these players do not get yellow cards for persistent abusive language, but nothing ever happens.

And yet, the slightest touch from the opposition and they are falling like a sack of potatoes, and with arms and legs flailing in all directions. It is sickening, and makes football little more than a joke.

I think a lot of so-called football fans continue to be in denial that there is nothing wrong with their "beautiful game".

It is everything but beautiful, and the only 'game' is who can con the referee the best.

I also thought it shocking how many miss-timed tackles Ryan Giggs did, one in particular was a bit nasty. That was at least a yellow card and probably even more given the 'totting up' process that refs always say they use these days.

But we can't have Ryan Giggs getting booked can we. It's not allowed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That is a decision for you to make on a personal basis. No-one forces you to watch any match.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I think that my knowledge of football matters such as this comes from actually having attended matches in that period and is rather more extensive than yours. I am somewhat amused by your attempts at trying to educate me on matters that I already know so well.

True Paul, no one forces me to watch. I watch football because I enjoy it but at the moment watching any games involving Manchester United is just awful.

How many times did their players, good old' Scholes included go running up to the refs with their vein bulging heads demaning decisions in their favour. Yes I know it happens now and then with most clubs but Man Utd seem to make a nasty habit of it. But as it's those pesky red devils, it's fine.

 

[SS4]

It's plain for anyone without a vested interest to see that what goes around does not come around (I dare you to suggest to Mick McCarthy that his team get the same amount of decisions go their way as anyone in the top half). It's equivalently plain that Man Utd get a huge number of dodgy decisions going their way - such a number cannot be explained by jealousy or by random chance. If Man Utd didn't get these decisions Man City would be walking away with the title making the premier league even more boring than the SPL.

The sooner video evidence arrives the better but strange how they've been silent on the issue...

 

[YorkshireBear]

In relation to video evidence, me and my friend came up with a system the other day, the goal goes in, the referee asks the video referee, is there a reason for me not to give the goal. The video ref goes back a set period of time (45 seconds?) any infringements spotted. If the team that scored for example had a handball in build up, the goal would not stand and a free kick given.

Thoughts? Obviously this was a quick discussion without real thought for consequences.

 

[SS4]

In relation to video evidence, me and my friend came up with a system the other day, the goal goes in, the referee asks the video referee, is there a reason for me not to give the goal. The video ref goes back a set period of time (45 seconds?) any infringements spotted. If the team that scored for example had a handball in build up, the goal would not stand and a free kick given.

Thoughts? Obviously this was a quick discussion without real thought for consequences.

A good plan but you'd need to be harder on appeals (so you don't waste even more time) and if possible make the video publicly available to dismiss claims of cheating. Video evidence would still depend on the impartiality of the officials which is questionable judging by the last few posts.

It would need to be extended to penalties and straight red cards but have clearly defined limits (so it can't be used for handball on the half way line). I

I can understand valid appeals because if you consider our game against QPR last week there were at least two handballs in the area which are likely to have cost us two points.

 

[YorkshireBear]

A good plan but you'd need to be harder on appeals (so you don't waste even more time) and if possible make the video publicly available to dismiss claims of cheating. Video evidence would still depend on the impartiality of the officials which is questionable judging by the last few posts.

It would need to be extended to penalties and straight red cards but have clearly defined limits (so it can't be used for handball on the half way line). I

I can understand valid appeals because if you consider our game against QPR last week there were at least two handballs in the area which are likely to have cost us two points.

Well thats my opinion on video evidence pretty much. Good idea, but the details need to be right.

Maybe even just start some preliminary trials in pre season friendlies or reserve friendlies etc. Games that dont matter.
In my opinion this would allow us to more clearly see the advantages and disavantages allowing us to press on and develop it further.

By 'us' i mean humans, i am an engineer not a sportsman

 

[Madge Wildfire]

I like that idea of video technology. If the cameras are there, why not use them as they do in rugby and cricket?

Sadly, those who run football and those who like to portray themselves as 'real' fans of the game do not.

They argue that stopping for every major incident would ruin the flow of the game, as if football these days does not stop every few minutes anyway for someone to writhe around on the grass and then get up and carry on playing because there was nothing really wrong with him.

The argument would then become which do you prefer, a sort of smooth flowing game where the outcome is often decided by incorrect decisions, or a more stop-start game where the final result is the correct one according to the laws?

 

[SS4]

Well thats my opinion on video evidence pretty much. Good idea, but the details need to be right.

Maybe even just start some preliminary trials in pre season friendlies or reserve friendlies etc. Games that dont matter.
In my opinion this would allow us to more clearly see the advantages and disavantages allowing us to press on and develop it further.

By 'us' i mean humans, i am an engineer not a sportsman

Perhaps a trial in the lower leagues (eg the conference) although the FA would need to foot the bill.

I like that idea of video technology. If the cameras are there, why not use them as they do in rugby and cricket?

Sadly, those who run football and those who like to portray themselves as 'real' fans of the game do not.

I reckon the media types will be the ones who will try and oppose it. They may have to show more football on Match of the Day!

They argue that stopping for every major incident would ruin the flow of the game, as if football these days does not stop every few minutes anyway for someone to writhe around on the grass and then get up and carry on playing because there was nothing really wrong with him.

The argument would then become which do you prefer, a sort of smooth flowing game where the outcome is often decided by incorrect decisions, or a more stop-start game where the final result is the correct one according to the laws?

They're out of touch with reality if they think the pace of the game would drop. Besides, there is too much riding on these decisions from a financial point of view to not have a fairer way of deciding games. Red cards can be rescinded but that doesn't help the ten men on the pitch.

I'd still be interested to see how it would be called upon. Would it be mandated for every appeal (given cheating strikers this would be every time the ball is in the box) or would a manager claim via the fourth official. If it were the latter how could abuse be prevented.

If the complete inability of referees and their assistants in enforcing the current rules on simulation is anything to go by then I don't hold out much hope of leaving it up to match officials to decide when unilaterally.
It's retarded that there can be no punishment for going down in the box and then trying to get the defender sent off and it's equally backward when an attacker does not get what would have been a penalty if he did go down. IMO the main issue with these laws is that there is nothing to lose by going down and everything to gain so it's always going to happen

 

[Ivo]

In relation to video evidence, me and my friend came up with a system the other day, the goal goes in, the referee asks the video referee, is there a reason for me not to give the goal. The video ref goes back a set period of time (45 seconds?) any infringements spotted. If the team that scored for example had a handball in build up, the goal would not stand and a free kick given.

Thoughts? Obviously this was a quick discussion without real thought for consequences.

It's certainly a good idea but for a fast game such as football (noting also that the stereotypical fan is somewhat lazy and impatient) 45 seconds is too far. Cut it to 20, and then restrict its use to only those you have mentioned (so none of this "is it a corner or isn't it" malarkey; there just isn't the time for that), and you have a system that Blatter and others should finally be willing to accept. And also introduce the hawk-eye -esque thing that can determine whether the ball crossed the line or not, but again think carefully about when it is used - only for goals I feel...

Back to the original point though, and SS4's post:

It would need to be extended to penalties and straight red cards but have clearly defined limits (so it can't be used for handball on the half way line).

Red cards yes, but penalties? A firm, unbiased and consistent referee, if such folk still exist, would know to give a penalty on account that any given offence is a genuine foul in any part of the pitch; there is of course no difference in criteria as to what constitutes a foul. Essentially intervening everyone time someone tries to win a penalty in a controversial manner would needlessly and excessively slow the game. Other the other hand though, what we/they could look at introducing is a new rule that states that any potential penalty situations are allowed to continue until the ball is cleared from the area (i.e. at least 40 yards from the centre of the goal mouth, or the edge of the pitch if nearer), and at that point play is stopped to adjudicate on the situation at hand; if the penalty should not have been awarded, a indirect free kick occurs from wherever the ball ended up (or the applicable set-piece if it went off), and if it should have been awarded, then it is awarded - unless a goal has been scored. There could also be a time-lag of 20 seconds (deliberately chosen to match my suggestion above), at which point play is stopped by default and the indirect free kick or penalty approach is taken there and then.

Having said all that though, it's probably too complicated for most fans, pundits, players and staff to understand...

 

[Oswyntail]

IMHO, there is one massive problem with the use of video technology - the players. In Rugby (as you would have seen at the weekend), the players accept the ruling of the Video Official and get on with the game; the same is usually true in Cricket. With the present behaviour of footballers, I cannot see that happening. I believe there would be more "crowding" of the referee, as they tried to persuade him to argue with the video ref - "you were there, you saw it".
Of course, it doesn't help when "managers" see fit to rubbish the officials (see, eg, http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/16898880). That is as much cheating as writhing around on the ground. So, IMHO, is the now almost automatic appeal against a red card. Players take their lead from their boss, and so long as the bosses are saying that the officials can be challenged, the players will too. Even if video evidence were allowed, the amount of argument on MOTD about incidents suggests that decisions would rarely be clear cut.
Incidentally, I was delighted to see the decision of the video ref in one of the weekend rugby internationals - "The evidence is inconclusive, I cannot award a try". Honesty, and (of course) accepted by everyone.

 

[YorkshireBear]

It's certainly a good idea but for a fast game such as football (noting also that the stereotypical fan is somewhat lazy and impatient) 45 seconds is too far. Cut it to 20, and then restrict its use to only those you have mentioned (so none of this "is it a corner or isn't it" malarkey; there just isn't the time for that), and you have a system that Blatter and others should finally be willing to accept. And also introduce the hawk-eye -esque thing that can determine whether the ball crossed the line or not, but again think carefully about when it is used - only for goals I feel...

Well maybe having a few guys constantly watching it so that it wouldnt take 45 seconds to watch it back?

Cant cost that much extra. Maybe just cut premier league wages by 1% to pay for it all plus loads for charity.

 

[Oswyntail]

.... Red cards can be rescinded but that doesn't help the ten men on the pitch....

Hm - what about when a red card offence was missed and only seen on TV. The logic of what you say might suggest the game should be replayed