|
Post by spitthedog on Mar 27, 2014 0:55:54 GMT
Too many red cards spoiling games Totally agree with Bruce about common sense
Again tonight we have a penalty decision accompanied by a red card, hull did well to make a fight of it but still couldn't get a result against a very poor WHU side
The rules are crap imho
|
|
|
Post by cheekymatt71 on Mar 27, 2014 9:37:44 GMT
it must be some kind of record for penalties with straight reds this season for sure.
It should be one or the other but not BOTH. its way too much advantage
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2014 9:51:51 GMT
it must be some kind of record for penalties with straight reds this season for sure. It should be one or the other but not BOTH. its way too much advantage it's not too much advantage..it's called the price someone pays for deliberately bringing someone down to prevent a certain goal i.e. openly and blatantly cheating! if they don't want to give away too much advantage to the opposing team then don't drag them down intentionally when they're through on goal, everyone knows the rules so if they don't stick to them it's their own fault. i don't see why we're blaming the rules on this particular kind of incident when in reality the only blame should be placed at the door of the keeper who openly and blatantly cheated. this specific incident seems to be a case of the ref possibly getting it wrong (as Bruce said, one of their players cleared the ball off the line so how could McGregor be the last man?) but the rule itself isn't really a problem, it's down to the individual ref that's implementing it. if i'm through on goal and about to tap the ball into an empty net and the keeper intentionally hauls me down to prevent that then how is it a punishment to that team/player if they either just give away a pen (which i could then miss) or just send him off and we get no penalty at all? they've basically blatantly cheated and possibly got away with it (they've turned a definite goal against them into the possibility of no goal against them at all).....getting rid of the "Last man" rule would just result in far far more cheating going on than there already is simply because players know they can then blatantly prevent a guaranteed goal by cheating and basically get away with it simple..if you don't want to give away "Too much advantage" to the opposing team then don't bloody cheat! it's the same for everyone. the only way you could really change it would be to start awarding "Penalty goals" in the same way you get Penalty tries in Rugby really....if the player isn't going to get sent off then the goal should be awarded not just a penalty given, otherwise they're not really being punished and it's open season for cheats everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by wembley4372 on Mar 27, 2014 11:04:37 GMT
Good idea, penalty goal and send the fucker off!
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Mar 27, 2014 11:06:58 GMT
it must be some kind of record for penalties with straight reds this season for sure. It should be one or the other but not BOTH. its way too much advantage it's not too much advantage..it's called the price someone pays for deliberately bringing someone down to prevent a certain goal i.e. openly and blatantly cheating! if they don't want to give away too much advantage to the opposing team then don't drag them down intentionally when they're through on goal, everyone knows the rules so if they don't stick to them it's their own fault. i don't see why we're blaming the rules on this particular kind of incident when in reality the only blame should be placed at the door of the keeper who openly and blatantly cheated. this specific incident seems to be a case of the ref possibly getting it wrong (as Bruce said, one of their players cleared the ball off the line so how could McGregor be the last man?) but the rule itself isn't really a problem, it's down to the individual ref that's implementing it. if i'm through on goal and about to tap the ball into an empty net and the keeper intentionally hauls me down to prevent that then how is it a punishment to that team/player if they either just give away a pen (which i could then miss) or just send him off and we get no penalty at all? they've basically blatantly cheated and possibly got away with it (they've turned a definite goal against them into the possibility of no goal against them at all).....getting rid of the "Last man" rule would just result in far far more cheating going on than there already is simply because players know they can then blatantly prevent a guaranteed goal by cheating and basically get away with it simple..if you don't want to give away "Too much advantage" to the opposing team then don't bloody cheat! it's the same for everyone. the only way you could really change it would be to start awarding "Penalty goals" in the same way you get Penalty tries in Rugby really....if the player isn't going to get sent off then the goal should be awarded not just a penalty given, otherwise they're not really being punished and it's open season for cheats everywhere. Mick, I think the problem is when it's intentional. Last night was pretty intentional as far as I'm concerned, however the Bayern one against Arsenal, Robben was simply too quick and in most other cases the Arsenal keeper would have actually won the ball I reckon. There's the line between clear intent and unintentional. You work out the middle ground... that's the problem.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2014 11:21:00 GMT
it's not too much advantage..it's called the price someone pays for deliberately bringing someone down to prevent a certain goal i.e. openly and blatantly cheating! if they don't want to give away too much advantage to the opposing team then don't drag them down intentionally when they're through on goal, everyone knows the rules so if they don't stick to them it's their own fault. i don't see why we're blaming the rules on this particular kind of incident when in reality the only blame should be placed at the door of the keeper who openly and blatantly cheated. this specific incident seems to be a case of the ref possibly getting it wrong (as Bruce said, one of their players cleared the ball off the line so how could McGregor be the last man?) but the rule itself isn't really a problem, it's down to the individual ref that's implementing it. if i'm through on goal and about to tap the ball into an empty net and the keeper intentionally hauls me down to prevent that then how is it a punishment to that team/player if they either just give away a pen (which i could then miss) or just send him off and we get no penalty at all? they've basically blatantly cheated and possibly got away with it (they've turned a definite goal against them into the possibility of no goal against them at all).....getting rid of the "Last man" rule would just result in far far more cheating going on than there already is simply because players know they can then blatantly prevent a guaranteed goal by cheating and basically get away with it simple..if you don't want to give away "Too much advantage" to the opposing team then don't bloody cheat! it's the same for everyone. the only way you could really change it would be to start awarding "Penalty goals" in the same way you get Penalty tries in Rugby really....if the player isn't going to get sent off then the goal should be awarded not just a penalty given, otherwise they're not really being punished and it's open season for cheats everywhere. Mick, I think the problem is when it's intentional. Last night was pretty intentional as far as I'm concerned, however the Bayern one against Arsenal, Robben was simply too quick and in most other cases the Arsenal keeper would have actually won the ball I reckon. There's the line between clear intent and unintentional. You work out the middle ground... that's the problem. the problem with that though is (as has been pointed out many times re: Charlie Adam despite it being irrelevant in that case but anyway...) how can anyone categorically decied when something is or isn't intentional? you said yourself "Last night was pretty intentional as far as i'm concerned" but that's a personal opinion so others would see it differently and therefore with different refs there would be different outcomes. i totally agree it's not ideal but i think it's one of these where we have to find a "It's the best we can do" kind of solution and the Last man rule i think does that. as i said, if you are through on goal and about to score and are then penalised but only get a penalty and that's it,then it's not fair on the attacker who WOULD have scored to now only have an opportunity to score from the spot. likewise, if the player got a red but no penalty then the "Cheating" team have actually got away with it as they have completely prevented that goal from happening (and as is always said, winning against 10 men is by no means ever a certainty). in this case you're basically penalising the team that have been cheated against. like i said, it's not ideal i agree but i don't really see what other options there are unless they bring in a "Penalty goal". that way the keeper can stay on the pitch but their team is actually punished and penalised accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Mar 27, 2014 11:38:32 GMT
Mick, I think the problem is when it's intentional. Last night was pretty intentional as far as I'm concerned, however the Bayern one against Arsenal, Robben was simply too quick and in most other cases the Arsenal keeper would have actually won the ball I reckon. There's the line between clear intent and unintentional. You work out the middle ground... that's the problem. the problem with that though is (as has been pointed out many times re: Charlie Adam despite it being irrelevant in that case but anyway...) how can anyone categorically decied when something is or isn't intentional? you said yourself "Last night was pretty intentional as far as i'm concerned" but that's a personal opinion so others would see it differently and therefore with different refs there would be different outcomes. i totally agree it's not ideal but i think it's one of these where we have to find a "It's the best we can do" kind of solution and the Last man rule i think does that. as i said, if you are through on goal and about to score and are then penalised but only get a penalty and that's it,then it's not fair on the attacker who WOULD have scored to now only have an opportunity to score from the spot. likewise, if the player got a red but no penalty then the "Cheating" team have actually got away with it as they have completely prevented that goal from happening (and as is always said, winning against 10 men is by no means ever a certainty). in this case you're basically penalising the team that have been cheated against. like i said, it's not ideal i agree but i don't really see what other options there are unless they bring in a "Penalty goal". that way the keeper can stay on the pitch but their team is actually punished and penalised accordingly. All good points Mick, but I think some are more clear than others. The Hull didn't seem to go for the ball at all in fact, although I could see why people would say he did. Tough tough one. Like you said, maybe best to leave as is and face the consequences when it happens to you.
|
|
|
Post by cheekymatt71 on Mar 27, 2014 11:39:03 GMT
How can you say its not much advantage, you are just not thinking straight Mick
Option 1 = Have a clear goalscoring opportunity with 80% chance of scoring
Option 2 = Get a penalty with 80% chance of scoring and play the rest of the game against 10 men.
I would take Option 2 every day and twice on Sundays! Im sure if someone can be arsed to do the research then teams that receive Option 2 pretty much are guaranteed to win the game.
Simple question Mick
If we have this situation on Saturday against Hull, which would you prefer to happen. And be honest
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2014 11:42:01 GMT
How can you say its not much advantage, you are just not thinking straight Mick Option 1 = Have a clear goalscoring opportunity with 80% chance of scoring Option 2 = Get a penalty with 80% chance of scoring and play the rest of the game against 10 men. I would take Option 2 every day and twice on Sundays! Im sure if someone can be arsed to do the research then teams that receive Option 2 pretty much are guaranteed to win the game. Simple question Mick If we have this situation on Saturday against Hull, which would you prefer to happen. And be honest i didn't say it wasn't much advantage..i said it wasn't TOO much advantage which you seemed to think it was. they're 2 entirely different things mate. if a player breaks the rules to specifically prevent a goal from occurring then it's their own fault and if that gives the opposing team "Too much advantage" then that's THEIR fault and not the fault of the ref or the rules so i have no idea why the rules are being blamed rather than the perpertrator of the offence. if you get sent off for cheating then you (as a player or team) have no right to say "That's not fair ref, they've been given too much of an advantage now" because the simple reason they have that advantage is because the player cheated. as all the players already know the rules then it's HIM that should be castigated for it by his team, NOT the rules of the game. as soon as one of your players cheats then you lose all right to play the victim and moan about the opposition having "Too much of an advantage"....take that on your player that cheated, the team that were cheated against should not have to suffer at all because of it which they would if you changed the rules so you either got a pen OR a red but not both.
|
|
|
Post by cheekymatt71 on Mar 27, 2014 11:48:29 GMT
How can you say its not much advantage, you are just not thinking straight Mick Option 1 = Have a clear goalscoring opportunity with 80% chance of scoring Option 2 = Get a penalty with 80% chance of scoring and play the rest of the game against 10 men. I would take Option 2 every day and twice on Sundays! Im sure if someone can be arsed to do the research then teams that receive Option 2 pretty much are guaranteed to win the game. Simple question Mick If we have this situation on Saturday against Hull, which would you prefer to happen. And be honest i didn't say it wasn't much advantage..i said it wasn't TOO much advantage which you seemed to think it was. they're 2 entirely different things mate. if a player breaks the rules to specifically prevent a goal from occurring then it's their own fault and if that gives the opposing team "Too much advantage" then that's THEIR fault and not the fault of the ref or the rules so i have no idea why the rules are being blamed rather than the perpertrator of the offence. if you get sent off for cheating then you (as a player or team) have no right to say "That's not fair ref, they've been given too much of an advantage now" because the simple reason they have that advantage is because the player cheated. as all the players already know the rules then it's HIM that should be castigated for it by his team, NOT the rules of the game. hmmm so now you agreeing that the rules are an advantage. That was my point from the start. I dont care about the individual cases, but more a general point that the rule creates too much advantage. Your argument seems to be that we shouldnt complain about the rule because its the rule and the losing team should just put up with it. So we cant discuss the overal validity of the rule now?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2014 12:06:04 GMT
i didn't say it wasn't much advantage..i said it wasn't TOO much advantage which you seemed to think it was. they're 2 entirely different things mate. if a player breaks the rules to specifically prevent a goal from occurring then it's their own fault and if that gives the opposing team "Too much advantage" then that's THEIR fault and not the fault of the ref or the rules so i have no idea why the rules are being blamed rather than the perpertrator of the offence. if you get sent off for cheating then you (as a player or team) have no right to say "That's not fair ref, they've been given too much of an advantage now" because the simple reason they have that advantage is because the player cheated. as all the players already know the rules then it's HIM that should be castigated for it by his team, NOT the rules of the game. hmmm so now you agreeing that the rules are an advantage. That was my point from the start. I dont care about the individual cases, but more a general point that the rule creates too much advantage. Your argument seems to be that we shouldnt complain about the rule because its the rule and the losing team should just put up with it. So we cant discuss the overal validity of the rule now? if you think my argument is that we just shouldn't complain as it's the rule then you've either not read my posts or completely missed the point of them mate. i agreed from the start it was an advantage..where did i ever say it wasn't???? the point i'm making is that in every type of foul committed, the team that are cheated against gain an advantage in terms of a free kick so why shouldn't the team in this situation (keeper being the last man) gain an advantage? if you only give a penalty then you're reducing the chance they had of scoring previously by being clean through on goal (i'm talking about a goalkeeper being last man here as that's the incident the OP referred to i.e. what happened last night) with an open net. to say that's only a 80% chance of scoring is ridiculous. therefore the team that have been cheated against aren't being given an advantage at all, the goalkeeper has successfully reduced the oppositions chance of scoring from "Pretty much guaranteed" to "Probably" by cheating (and if you think that isn't too much of a difference then answer this, would you rather have SJW 2 yards from goal with an open net or have him taking a pen? do you think they're similar chances? of course not!) if you only give a red card and no penalty then, again, they have completely prevented a goal from happening by cheating and still have a chance to get a result (winning against 10 men is by no means a certainty and at times, actually harder as the lack of a player means the entire team parking the bus and getting all 10 behind the ball for the remainder of the game). in both of those instances, the cheat has actually been given the advantage as they have prevented a definite goal and replaced it with either just the chance of a goal or just an extra man advantage which doesn't always help the team that have been offended against. this is why i personally think that if the rules ARE to be changed then a penalty goal is the only real alternative; that way the keeper CAN stay on the pitch but at least the goal that the player WOULD have scored is awarded. that way, the cheats haven't prospered at all but it also still allows a competitive game with 11 men on both sides. anything else (like only a red OR a Pen) is actually only really rewarding the cheats. players DO intentionally commit "Professional fouls" and other offences where they know they'll probably get a red (the Arsenal one the other day, Ox knew full well that if that ball was going in then he'd get a red and a ban but that is preferable to conceding to the goal so they do it). to not punish them fully is completely unfair to the side who WOULD have otherwise scored. to sum up (and i hope this has made it all perfectly clear this time) if you are not going to give both a pen AND a red, then the only other course of action to take to be fair to the team that have been cheated against is to award them the goal they would have scored if it wasn't for the cheats. just giving them a pen or just sending a man off isn't enough IMO...the keeper cheating when he is the last man isn't denying a goalscoring opportunity in the way a defender being the last man would be, he's denying a goal and they are what determine the outcome of a game, nothing else just the amount of goals scored so it's far more of a serious offence than just legging someone up on the halfway line when he has 3 defenders still to get past and therefore the punishment needs to reflect that.
|
|
|
Post by dirtygary69 on Mar 27, 2014 13:16:03 GMT
Oh fuck, he's making things bold and underlining. Could be a long one.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2014 13:18:29 GMT
Penalty goals sound like an awful dystopian, Minority Report type thing.
Not for me, Clive.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2014 13:50:42 GMT
Penalty goals sound like an awful dystopian, Minority Report type thing. Not for me, Clive. nor me ideally. i just put it forward as a solution if the rules had to be changed because the options given by others just seem daft to me (and i did state it was when the keeper was the last man, not just for any "Professional foul" i.e. when it's a defender that committed it and the attacked would still have to beat the keeper). i'm happy enough with how it is now.i just think that only giving a red OR a pen is completely unfair on the side that has been cheated out of a goal for the reasons i've stated. no rule is ever going to be 100% acceptable to everyone, especially not one like this. the thing is that Bruce wasn't even pissed off because of the actual last man rules, he was pissed off because he said McGregor wasn't the last man as one of their players cleared it off the line anyway
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Mar 27, 2014 19:30:32 GMT
I think if a goalkeeper mistimes a challenge bringing down a forward. A penalty + a red card + a 3 match suspension is ridiculously disproportionate.
I think Refs are there to decide about intentionality.
They do so with handball in the penalty area so why not with foul, plus they can use video replays for such a major decision. It's a game changing decision.
I would personally go for sin bin kind of job e.g. 20 minutes off
Penalty plus 20 mins off plus 1 match suspension?
That's a deterrent surely?
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Mar 27, 2014 19:35:53 GMT
It's only a 1 match ban. I do agree though with keepers they're virtually always gonna be last man so a red card ontop of a penalty is too harsh
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Mar 27, 2014 19:41:16 GMT
I think if a goalkeeper mistimes a challenge bringing down a forward. A penalty + a red card + a 3 match suspension is ridiculously disproportionate. I think Refs are there to decide about intentionality. They do so with handball in the penalty area so why not with foul, plus they can use video replays for such a major decision. It's a game changing decision. I would personally go for sin bin kind of job e.g. 20 minutes off Penalty plus 20 mins off plus 1 match suspension? That's a deterrent surely? Why would a ref be allowed to decide if a foul was intentional or not . If its a foul that's it surely . No discretion . There's enough bias already
|
|