The Footie Thread

[Swango1980]

@Swango1980 why do you assume that people on here disagreeing with a ref are screaming at them, are in their faces on the tv screen? It is very possible to disagree with a decision and not be in someone's face or losing the plot. You are making excuses for players when there aren't any. We have to stop using passion or background as an excuse, there isn't one.

Because, I'm not naive. I've been to football matches. I've been to watch matches at pubs. I know exactly how many people shout and scream at referees. Even if you live a life of just watching football on TV, presumably you must see how many fans react when a referee makes a decision against their side, or the abuse they scream at the linesman? Have you ever heard the chant "the referee's a......"

I'm a realist, I don't pretend that this is something that does not happen. And it won't suddenly disappear if referees start booking players for showing frustration when a call goes against them, when the fans may well not only agree with the player, but show it with much more anger.

 

[Swango1980]

I'm with you here.. one month of being strict in every game and throwing around reds to anyone who contests/ screams and shouts/ cries and all of a sudden the respect will increase tenfold.

That happened at the start of the season, referees where issuing yellow cards like confetti. Didn't last long, and respect to referees certainly didn't seem to increase at all. Instead, you start to get pundits and fans wondering why a player gets a yellow for questioning a decision that everyone agrees the referee got wrong, with another player that got a yellow for a challenge that was bordering on red and put a player at danger.

It is almost like there is a sweet point. If you get less strict, players will walk all over you. But if you get more strict, people see you as an authoritarian and almost despise what you stand for even more. Especially when you start making decisions that people don't agree with, of which there will be many given the amount of decisions referees need to make over a season / career.

 

[Orikoru]

https://x.com/footyaccums/status/1755907055196463431?s=46

They’ve invented celebrations now

How embarrassing. I think Curtis needs a bit of media training. Or a brain.

 

[Swango1980]

The ten yard movement of the free kick was trialled in football ages ago, but it didn't work because moving it ten yards forward doesn't really provide any advantage most of the time. Only if you go from 35 to 25 yards, then it brings an opportunity to shoot at goal. But at all other times it is useless, can even be detrimental if it narrows the angle from a wide area for example - or if it brings the free kick to the very edge of the area where it's more difficult to get the ball over the wall and back down. Or if it's deep in your own half the 10 yards makes next to no difference.

Maybe an alternative is to allow the attacking team to choose where they take the free kick from, their perfect spot. Or prohibit the defending team in having a wall. Just a quick thought, whether it is practical is another thing

 

[Orikoru]

Maybe an alternative is to allow the attacking team to choose where they take the free kick from, their perfect spot. Or prohibit the defending team in having a wall. Just a quick thought, whether it is practical is another thing

They all sound like gimmicks to me, like something Americans would come up with. I don't see why we have to change the game. Just punish dissent in line with the rules that are already in place. As Phil said, they go through phases of being really hot on it for a few weeks, and then it's forgotten and everything goes back to normal.

 

[Swango1980]

It wouldn't be the referees ruining the game,it would be the players acting like a bunch of Karens. They will have been told the laws and the ref would be applying it .who's fault is it .

Common sense doesn't apply to football fans, or pundits

Book an opposition player for dissent and many fans 100% agree with the decision, rules are rules. Book a player for your team for exactly the same thing, and if there is any subjectivity whatsover, the fan is 100% against the decision, will call the referee a disgrace and possibly accuse them of being biased against their team.

The easiest thing in the world, to stop dissent, would be to say to players "you must not talk to the referee EVER, unless the referee speaks to you first. If you do, immediate yellow card". Therefore, a referee wouldn't even need to worry whether the player is being insulting or not (which in itself is subjective), and they could 100% be confident in booking a player for talking to them. There is a reason why the rules don't go that far. It would be a disaster for the game.

 

[Swango1980]

They all sound like gimmicks to me, like something Americans would come up with. I don't see why we have to change the game. Just punish dissent in line with the rules that are already in place. As Phil said, they go through phases of being really hot on it for a few weeks, and then it's forgotten and everything goes back to normal.

That, I very much agree with. Blue cards, or alternative positions to take free kicks, etc are probably all gimmicky. Maybe a bit like the 6 seconds rule for goalkeepers, which is still a rule but absolutely never implemented from what I see.

 

[GB72]

They all sound like gimmicks to me, like something Americans would come up with. I don't see why we have to change the game. Just punish dissent in line with the rules that are already in place. As Phil said, they go through phases of being really hot on it for a few weeks, and then it's forgotten and everything goes back to normal.

From my point of view, coming at this from only being an occasional watcher, the yellow card has become an occupational hazard as opposed to a deterrent. A card that came with 10 minutes off the pitch has the potential to have more impact. It may be a gimmick but it does make the whole though process different when punishing dissent.

 

[clubchamp98]

The ten yard movement of the free kick was trialled in football ages ago, but it didn't work because moving it ten yards forward doesn't really provide any advantage most of the time. Only if you go from 35 to 25 yards, then it brings an opportunity to shoot at goal. But at all other times it is useless, can even be detrimental if it narrows the angle from a wide area for example - or if it brings the free kick to the very edge of the area where it's more difficult to get the ball over the wall and back down. Or if it's deep in your own half the 10 yards makes next to no difference.

Make it optimal if the player wants it fine if he dosnt stay where he is.

 

[Hobbit]

They all sound like gimmicks to me, like something Americans would come up with. I don't see why we have to change the game. Just punish dissent in line with the rules that are already in place. As Phil said, they go through phases of being really hot on it for a few weeks, and then it's forgotten and everything goes back to normal.

There some merit in what you say. But I’d like a sin bin, and I’d like to see that only captains can approach the ref unless the ref calls over the captain and the offending player, same as rugby.

 

[Orikoru]

From my point of view, coming at this from only being an occasional watcher, the yellow card has become an occupational hazard as opposed to a deterrent. A card that came with 10 minutes off the pitch has the potential to have more impact. It may be a gimmick but it does make the whole though process different when punishing dissent.

Slightly playing devil's advocate here, but the Premier League wants to create an entertaining product. For most teams if they lose a player for ten minutes, it'll just mean parking the bus for ten minutes, somewhat ruining the game as a spectacle until that player comes on. How many times have we heard things like "the red card ruined the game" and "it's harder to break down 10 men sometimes".

 

[Orikoru]

There some merit in what you say. But I’d like a sin bin, and I’d like to see that only captains can approach the ref unless the ref calls over the captain and the offending player, same as rugby.

That should be a rule already really. Complain to your captain and he should be able to articulate the team's thoughts to the ref without abusing him.

 

[clubchamp98]

That should be a rule already really. Complain to your captain and he should be able to articulate the team's thoughts to the ref without abusing him.

Sometimes though the Captain is the worse offender

 

[Swango1980]

From my point of view, coming at this from only being an occasional watcher, the yellow card has become an occupational hazard as opposed to a deterrent. A card that came with 10 minutes off the pitch has the potential to have more impact. It may be a gimmick but it does make the whole though process different when punishing dissent.

The issue is, 10 minutes off the pitch is likely to absolutely kill the game as a spectacle for 10 minutes.

Furthermore, I can guarantee there will be huge inconsistency. What one referee sees as an offensive remark by a player, another will see as an instant of frustration not necessarily directed as a personal attack at the referee, but just a moments gesture of annoyance. So, some referees will send a player off for 10 minutes, others will not.

I can just imagine a referee sending an important player off for 10 minutes. Then in the next play, he makes a borderline decision against the other team and one or 2 of their players vent a bit of frustration for a second or 2. Will the team that had a man sent off for 10 minutes be demanding he now sends the opponents off for 10 minutes? If he doesn't, will they just all stand there politely and quietly?

And when a referee makes a big call against a team, that is harsh, they may want to have their say to defend their team. The referee might have to give 5 or 6 players blue cards for showing their frustration.

I believe tactical fouls could get a blue card? Does this mean if a player pulls a player down, it is off for 10 minutes. But, if he knew that, he instead tried to dive in with a slide tackle he could get away with a yellow. After all, who is to say the player didn't genuinely believe he could win the ball, and only in hindsight he realised it was unlikely. You could basically be sending players off for 10 minutes for a pull, but only giving a yellow for a mistimed slide challenge that puts the opponent in more danger.

 

[Orikoru]

Sometimes though the Captain is the worse offender

That's where I would question some team's choice of captains! But he'll be the one taking the booking in that case, so he'd better not do it twice.

 

[Robster59]

The ten yard movement of the free kick was trialled in football ages ago, but it didn't work because moving it ten yards forward doesn't really provide any advantage most of the time. Only if you go from 35 to 25 yards, then it brings an opportunity to shoot at goal. But at all other times it is useless, can even be detrimental if it narrows the angle from a wide area for example - or if it brings the free kick to the very edge of the area where it's more difficult to get the ball over the wall and back down. Or if it's deep in your own half the 10 yards makes next to no difference.

I know the 10 yard didn't work in football, but the respect for the referees should be a given. There should be some form of penalty for the way they behave.

Yes but then the talk shows and pundits will be up in arms about refs ruining the game. Sadly there has become a whole media industry built on a foundation of criticising referees and encouraging their listeners to rant over the airwaves about them, interviewers and pundits goading managers and players into blaming the ref etc. In such an atmosphere it is hardly surprising that players feel vindicated in surrounding the ref.

I agree. And the respect for the referee has to go all the way through, including to the pundits. Again in Rugby, the referee gets analyzed but not with the vitriol that comes in football. The problem in football is they make these big claims and then they quietly go away. Someone, somewhere, has to make a stand.

 

[Deleted member 21784]

How embarrassing. I think Curtis needs a bit of media training. Or a brain.

Kudos sitting on the adverting board was copied at the weekend

He didn't make a fuss

But someone pumps the air lol

 

[Hobbit]

The issue is, 10 minutes off the pitch is likely to absolutely kill the game as a spectacle for 10 minutes.

Furthermore, I can guarantee there will be huge inconsistency. What one referee sees as an offensive remark by a player, another will see as an instant of frustration not necessarily directed as a personal attack at the referee, but just a moments gesture of annoyance. So, some referees will send a player off for 10 minutes, others will not.

I can just imagine a referee sending an important player off for 10 minutes. Then in the next play, he makes a borderline decision against the other team and one or 2 of their players vent a bit of frustration for a second or 2. Will the team that had a man sent off for 10 minutes be demanding he now sends the opponents off for 10 minutes? If he doesn't, will they just all stand there politely and quietly?

And when a referee makes a big call against a team, that is harsh, they may want to have their say to defend their team. The referee might have to give 5 or 6 players blue cards for showing their frustration.

I believe tactical fouls could get a blue card? Does this mean if a player pulls a player down, it is off for 10 minutes. But, if he knew that, he instead tried to dive in with a slide tackle he could get away with a yellow. After all, who is to say the player didn't genuinely believe he could win the ball, and only in hindsight he realised it was unlikely. You could basically be sending players off for 10 minutes for a pull, but only giving a yellow for a mistimed slide challenge that puts the opponent in more danger.

Does 10 mins off kill, the game in rugby, or does the team with a full complement of players push more and the team with one player short up their work rate in defence?

Rugby refs make inconsistent, borderline decisions too but the ingrained respect and enforcement of the rules seems to work ok.

Having only the captain approach the ref would stop the 5-6 players mobbing him.

You will always get tactical fouls, just like lying on or holding in, in rugby. The ref just has to manage them as best he can - nothing is ever perfect but some change is needed.

 

[GB72]

The issue is, 10 minutes off the pitch is likely to absolutely kill the game as a spectacle for 10 minutes.

Furthermore, I can guarantee there will be huge inconsistency. What one referee sees as an offensive remark by a player, another will see as an instant of frustration not necessarily directed as a personal attack at the referee, but just a moments gesture of annoyance. So, some referees will send a player off for 10 minutes, others will not.

I can just imagine a referee sending an important player off for 10 minutes. Then in the next play, he makes a borderline decision against the other team and one or 2 of their players vent a bit of frustration for a second or 2. Will the team that had a man sent off for 10 minutes be demanding he now sends the opponents off for 10 minutes? If he doesn't, will they just all stand there politely and quietly?

And when a referee makes a big call against a team, that is harsh, they may want to have their say to defend their team. The referee might have to give 5 or 6 players blue cards for showing their frustration.

I believe tactical fouls could get a blue card? Does this mean if a player pulls a player down, it is off for 10 minutes. But, if he knew that, he instead tried to dive in with a slide tackle he could get away with a yellow. After all, who is to say the player didn't genuinely believe he could win the ball, and only in hindsight he realised it was unlikely. You could basically be sending players off for 10 minutes for a pull, but only giving a yellow for a mistimed slide challenge that puts the opponent in more danger.

So what do you want, an entertaining game or a step to combat dissent etc. This one seems to come up a lot, a punishment results in a player leaving the pitch and the airwaves are full of comments about it ruining the game. The ref did not ruin the game, the player did.

Players can vent without aiming at the ref. It really is not that hard to show self control or learn to show it if you cannot now.

As for players having their say, they have no say. The referee is the arbiter of the rules on the pitch and the word of the ref should be final.

OK, playing devils advocate here but it does seem to be a general point that fans want things to change as long as it does not impact on the spectacle of the game or, more particularly, on their team.

 

[GB72]

I know the 10 yard didn't work in football, but the respect for the referees should be a given. There should be some form of penalty for the way they behave.

I agree. And the respect for the referee has to go all the way through, including to the pundits. Again in Rugby, the referee gets analyzed but not with the vitriol that comes in football. The problem in football is they make these big claims and then they quietly go away. Someone, somewhere, has to make a stand.

I am not sure that we can hold our hands up as rugby fans to be in the clear on that after the behavior of some after the world cup. The problem seems to be more at an international level than at club level but still, we are not great off the pitch but far better on it. Then again, rugby does not have to fill hundreds of hours of air time and so there has to be something to rant about. It is the way in which it is discussed in football though that is the issue. That ref if biased, that ref is a cheat, he should never ref again etc. Rugby tends to pillory the mistakes without so much of the hyperbole attached.