The Footie Thread

[GB72]

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".

Exactly, but that is not the ref's fault, it is the player and the team. Want to keep 11 men on the pitch, play within the rules and keep your trap shut. Does not seem that hard. If the FA had the guts to keep enforcing that, it would soon stop.

 

[Bdill93]

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.

Yeah it did, I was a big fan to be honest, players were starting to mellow and then it just ended and normal service resumed

 

[fundy]

It really doesnt need a new card, all it needs is the current laws being applied properly and consistently.

Any dissent is a yellow card instantly and if that becomes a sending off, tough, like in rugby, the players will soon stop there teammates transgressing (used to get dragged away by a teammate as the ref was marching us back 10 yards lol)

As said above, a sinbin will just cause a very dull 10 minute period where the ten man side battens down the hatches, delays, time wastes until back to their full compliment

 

[fundy]

The other issue is the constant goading and clickbait caused by the media, commentators, ex-players etc which keeps bad decisions in the news and fans arguing against each other over and over which creates even more column inches and thus clicks

But then football is the least of the problems in this area..................

 

[Swango1980]

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.

An entertaining game. After all, it is the entertainment industry.

Of course, players verbally and physically abusing referees is not entertainment, so I'm not saying let them do what they want. So, if a player is shouting and screaming at a referee, book him. And if he goes beyond that, send him off. If a player threatens a referee physically, send him off. And I think referees are generally doing exactly that. I'm not sure I see players chasing referees all over the pitch these days?

I just don't think the yellows should be dished out as easily as they are sometimes, where it seems like a player will get booked for basically one seconds worth of frustration. The referee doesn;t even try to engage with the player, he just flashes a yellow card and almost makes things worse. And, of course, many referees won't do that because they are not as easily offended, thus you have the inconsistency.

And I certainly think there is no requirement for blue cards. And I used to think sin bins could be a good idea, but now I'm actually not sure at all. Maybe due to the farce of VAR, I realise sin bins will just add another area of huge inconsistency and will give fans another thing to get angry about. I can just see City v Liverpool, Salah or De Bruyne get sent off for 10 minutes in the 79th minute. Really entertaining game up to that point, then they get a blue card for something dubious. What's more, they come on after 10 minutes, cold. They then pull a hamstring. Back pages the next day talk about the day the referee destroyed football.

 

[Orikoru]

Exactly, but that is not the ref's fault, it is the player and the team. Want to keep 11 men on the pitch, play within the rules and keep your trap shut. Does not seem that hard. If the FA had the guts to keep enforcing that, it would soon stop.

I didn't say anything about whose fault it was. My point is the non-offending team now has to break down a defensive wall of ten men for the next ten minutes - it doesn't necessarily work in their favour. It just radically alters the game for ten minutes and possibly makes it far less likely a goal will be scored in that time.

 

[GB72]

It really doesnt need a new card, all it needs is the current laws being applied properly and consistently.

Any dissent is a yellow card instantly and if that becomes a sending off, tough, like in rugby, the players will soon stop there teammates transgressing (used to get dragged away by a teammate as the ref was marching us back 10 yards lol)

As said above, a sinbin will just cause a very dull 10 minute period where the ten man side battens down the hatches, delays, time wastes until back to their full compliment

It is amazing how quickly team mates self police these things when there is a solid and well applied sanction (this comes form someone who was also dragged back by team mater occasionally whilst being marched back 10 yards).

 

[Robster59]

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.

No sport is without its detractors, critics, armchair warriors, etc. But the biggest example people are seeing is on the TV screen. Be that with the players, pundits, managers, fans, etc. People see that and take it as the standard. This is why I disagree with doing it at grass roots first. That won't have as big an impact as if it was on Premier League games. It may get a bit farcical in the first month or two as people will still act as they always done. But as they lose players off the pitch continuously then they will soon learn not to do it.
Years ago my the coach of Widnes Rugby League club got fed up with his players giving away too many players for complaining to the referee. So every time somebody gave away a penalty for back-chat they got fined £50 (different salary structure obviously). The number of penalties dropped markedly very quickly.
Grown professional sportsmen should not feel the need to act like schoolkids. If they do, expect to be treated like one.

 

[GB72]

No sport is without its detractors, critics, armchair warriors, etc. But the biggest example people are seeing is on the TV screen. Be that with the players, pundits, managers, fans, etc. People see that and take it as the standard. This is why I disagree with doing it at grass roots first. That won't have as big an impact as if it was on Premier League games. It may get a bit farcical in the first month or two as people will still act as they always done. But as they lose players off the pitch continuously then they will soon learn not to do it.
Years ago my the coach of Widnes Rugby League club got fed up with his players giving away too many players for complaining to the referee. So every time somebody gave away a penalty for back-chat they got fined £50 (different salary structure obviously). The number of penalties dropped markedly very quickly.
Grown professional sportsmen should not feel the need to act like schoolkids. If they do, expect to be treated like one.

Very much in agreement with that but, as you see from comments on here as well as far more comments on radio, social media etc, fans want the rules enforced or want change so long as it does not impact on the game being entertaining. On that basis, the FA and the Refs cannot win. Do not enforce something and the refs are joke for missing offences etc, enforce it and the refs are a joke for being too harsh and ruining the spectacle of the game. Given that seems to be the 2 default positions, nothing will change.

 

[GB72]

I didn't say anything about whose fault it was. My point is the non-offending team now has to break down a defensive wall of ten men for the next ten minutes - it doesn't necessarily work in their favour. It just radically alters the game for ten minutes and possibly makes it far less likely a goal will be scored in that time.

I guess what I mean is that the anger and frustration etc that seems to be the default media setting after a match should be aimed at the teams not the ref. Imagine how things would look different if a player is sent off for persistent dissent. Now after the match, there is no focus on the ref for that, the media questions are about the club not instilling on pitch discipline in their players, on the player for their actions and on the captain for not calming down this team and on the manager for leaving a player on who was losing their head. Then we have a whole different dialogue and way of looking at things. The ref is low hanging fruit and too many people are grabbing for it.

 

[fundy]

Very much in agreement with that but, as you see from comments on here as well as far more comments on radio, social media etc, fans want the rules enforced or want change so long as it does not impact on the game being entertaining. On that basis, the FA and the Refs cannot win. Do not enforce something and the refs are joke for missing offences etc, enforce it and the refs are a joke for being too harsh and ruining the spectacle of the game. Given that seems to be the 2 default positions, nothing will change.

Not for me, happy for offenses to be refereed correctly and it lead to players sent off if they deserve it, what isnt needed for me is to introduce another option that isnt required which will "ruin the spectacle" for 10 minutes in the middle of a game repeatedly (and is also likely to just increase the opinion of fans on which refs are biased against their team)

 

[Robster59]

Very much in agreement with that but, as you see from comments on here as well as far more comments on radio, social media etc, fans want the rules enforced or want change so long as it does not impact on the game being entertaining. On that basis, the FA and the Refs cannot win. Do not enforce something and the refs are joke for missing offences etc, enforce it and the refs are a joke for being too harsh and ruining the spectacle of the game. Given that seems to be the 2 default positions, nothing will change.

I also agree with you, and until they recognise that they need to endure some short-term pain for some long-term gain, nothing will ever change.
The refs are being made the scapegoats in all this and nobody really seems to be protecting them enough. VAR has put a lot of pressure on them. I would not have their job as every decision is being analysed to the 'nth degree in slow motion and in hindsight. They have to do it in front of 50,000 baying fans in a high pressure match.

 

[Orikoru]

I was just reading an article on it and saw this:
"The new issue on everyone's lips in football is the International Football Association Board's proposals to introduce a blue card. Football has been limited to yellow and red cards since they were first introduced in 1970"

I've never heard that before? I just thought we'd always had cards. What were they doing before 1970 then?? Would you still get a 'warning' from the ref just without the visual indicator?

 

[Deleted member 21784]

I was just reading an article on it and saw this:
"The new issue on everyone's lips in football is the International Football Association Board's proposals to introduce a blue card. Football has been limited to yellow and red cards since they were first introduced in 1970"

I've never heard that before? I just thought we'd always had cards. What were they doing before 1970 then?? Would you still get a 'warning' from the ref just without the visual indicator?

Not sure, football only began in 1992

 

[GB72]

I was just reading an article on it and saw this:
"The new issue on everyone's lips in football is the International Football Association Board's proposals to introduce a blue card. Football has been limited to yellow and red cards since they were first introduced in 1970"

I've never heard that before? I just thought we'd always had cards. What were they doing before 1970 then?? Would you still get a 'warning' from the ref just without the visual indicator?

I found that interesting so looked it up. Appears that there were sending offs but no cards prior. Ironically the triggering event appears to have been over a sending off for dissent and on the first day they were introduced in England in 1976 George Best was also sent off for abusing the ref.

 

[fundy]

Someone tell the numpty Curtis Jones, Stuart Pearce wants his celebration back lol

 

[Hobbit]

I was just reading an article on it and saw this:
"The new issue on everyone's lips in football is the International Football Association Board's proposals to introduce a blue card. Football has been limited to yellow and red cards since they were first introduced in 1970"

I've never heard that before? I just thought we'd always had cards. What were they doing before 1970 then?? Would you still get a 'warning' from the ref just without the visual indicator?

I may be old enough to remember football before yellow cards. To be honest, I thought they came in later but maybe I’m wrong. Anyway, through rose tinted glasses…

Players very rarely mobbed the ref, shirt pulled or committed cynical fouls, in the English/Scottish game, like today, hence less of a need for an interim card. Continental football, especially Italian, was very much viewed as dirty & cynical, and some say that’s where it stems from. Who know? Referees seemed to know the player more and robust conversation and finger wagging was very much in evidence. Players stood and took the admonishments - there was a mutual respect. That doesn’t mean hacking down didn’t happen, it very much did. And throwing a decent punch, not the pathetic slaps of today, did happen. Keegan & Bremner and Frannie Lee & Hunter fights on Youtube are worth a view.

Yellow cards did calm & slow down some of the cynicism but they seem to have lost their impact now. More cynical fouls nowadays, and more of them being ignored by refs meaning players get more frustrated. And I feel the refs are having to resort to more reds than they used to to counter the couldn’t care if I get a yellow attitude.

 

[Swango1980]

I may be old enough to remember football before yellow cards. To be honest, I thought they came in later but maybe I’m wrong. Anyway, through rose tinted glasses…

Players very rarely mobbed the ref, shirt pulled or committed cynical fouls, in the English/Scottish game, like today, hence less of a need for an interim card. Continental football, especially Italian, was very much viewed as dirty & cynical, and some say that’s where it stems from. Who know? Referees seemed to know the player more and robust conversation and finger wagging was very much in evidence. Players stood and took the admonishments - there was a mutual respect. That doesn’t mean hacking down didn’t happen, it very much did. And throwing a decent punch, not the pathetic slaps of today, did happen. Keegan & Bremner and Frannie Lee & Hunter fights on Youtube are worth a view.

Yellow cards did calm & slow down some of the cynicism but they seem to have lost their impact now. More cynical fouls nowadays, and more of them being ignored by refs meaning players get more frustrated. And I feel the refs are having to resort to more reds than they used to to counter the couldn’t care if I get a yellow attitude.

It is interesting that when some look at football back in the day, on one hand they can praise the players for showing respect, and on the other hand talk about the numerous punch ups that occured.

I didn't realise cards were introduced in 1970. Having had a bit of a read, it seems like before they were invented, referees just talked to players and wrote names in a notebook, and could send them off (without showing a card). This appeared to have many flaws. For example, Argentina v England in the 1966 World Cup was a pretty violent game, many fouls interupting the game. In one incident, the referee appeared to send off Rattin for Argentina, who furiously gesticulated "I am the Captain". Rattin refused to go off, continued to argue, and the Argentinian players and officials crowded the referee. Took him 11 minutes to leave the pitch, and I think fans were confused about what was going on. So, I think cards were invented to both make it clear to players where they stand, and indicate to the fans what on earth was going on.

 

[Hobbit]

It is interesting that when some look at football back in the day, on one hand they can praise the players for showing respect, and on the other hand talk about the numerous punch ups that occured.

I didn't realise cards were introduced in 1970. Having had a bit of a read, it seems like before they were invented, referees just talked to players and wrote names in a notebook, and could send them off (without showing a card). This appeared to have many flaws. For example, Argentina v England in the 1966 World Cup was a pretty violent game, many fouls interupting the game. In one incident, the referee appeared to send off Rattin for Argentina, who furiously gesticulated "I am the Captain". Rattin refused to go off, continued to argue, and the Argentinian players and officials crowded the referee. Took him 11 minutes to leave the pitch, and I think fans were confused about what was going on. So, I think cards were invented to both make it clear to players where they stand, and indicate to the fans what on earth was going on.

Showing respect to the ref, and throwing a punch at an opposition player are two different things. Did I say punch ups were numerous, or did I say did happen? Before my time but didn’t a very young Pele get kicked out of a game/tournament? Sometimes refs in every era lose control of a game, and in many cases he’s not to blame for that. Players choose how they behave. Yes, sometimes refs frustrate players but that doesn’t excuse bad behaviour, it’s only a factor in why it happened. Ultimately, it’s always the player’s fault.

 

[Swango1980]

Showing respect to the ref, and throwing a punch at an opposition player are two different things. Did I say punch ups were numerous, or did I say did happen? Before my time but didn’t a very young Pele get kicked out of a game/tournament? Sometimes refs in every era lose control of a game, and in many cases he’s not to blame for that. Players choose how they behave. Yes, sometimes refs frustrate players but that doesn’t excuse bad behaviour, it’s only a factor in why it happened. Ultimately, it’s always the player’s fault.

If a player punches another player, I'm not sure he is giving much respect to the authority in the game (who happens to be the referee). In todays game, as soon as players start making rash challenges, fans are quick to blame the referee for not taking control of the game earlier on. So, if punch ups were to happen in todays game, I would be happy to bet that fans would be critical of the referee of not getting control of the players earlier on.

I've no idea how often punch ups happened back in the day. Maybe not numerous, but certainly numerous relative to today. I also believe that tackles were often extremely rash, and designed to injure opponents. We often talk about how well protected players are in today's game compared to the old days.

So, with many fewer rash challenges or punch ups in todays games, perhaps the level of refereeing and the latest rules in the game are better than they have ever been? Maybe players are better behaved than they have ever been. However, because it is still a passionate game for fans, it results in extreme reactions to either end of the scale. Maybe a tactical foul or an angry comment to a referee barely got a reaction from fans in the 1970's, as they were more enraged with the leg breaking challenges and punch ups. Whereas today, a tactical foul and a player saying one swear word is likely to send fans into a rage.

One thing that I very much agree with, though, is that VAR has probably resulted in a decline in respect towards officials, as it has put them in a gold fish bowl. The best time for referees might well have been the season before VAR?