Football 2010-2011

[ampersand]

Its easy enough to say, most people start supporting a team when they're young though. Why one earth would you support Brighton, if you were simply not exposed to them as a 9 year old?

I can understand people perhaps changing as they get older, like you did and a couple of mates (interestingly Brighton and also Norwich, although of the Brighton 3 that I know one has stayed as a LFC fan and is not bothered about BHAFC at all) when they are exposed more to the club and can go to the match with their friends but I don't think its unsual for someone to not necessarily support their local team (or indeed a problem), esp if they're not big.

Supporting Utd if you've been born and bread in Birmingham is mighty weirs, I find it funny when you see news footage from Brum or similar and there's some kid cycling about in an LFC shirt in the background.

[TheGayTent]

The only ambiguity there is the term 'level', which is left to the ref's discretion. Everything else is straight forward. It's not a complex rule at all, nor is any decision.

[eFestivals]

So you played rugby at school during P.E. but not for the school team and not for a rugby club outside of school - and therefore don't understand the nuances of rugby. Do you watch any club rugby regularly either live, or on the TV? Do you watch any international rugby? Do you watch more football or rugby?

You've got it right for my school, but the PE teacher was a rugby man and not a football man. So there's really no excuse on his part - aside from him trying to get us interested in the game of course, rather than bore 11 year olds with complex rules.

I watch the occasional game on TV (such as England/France at the w/e), and that's it. A part of what puts me off is not knowing the technical nuances to any great degree (tho I've had a better handle on them in the past than I do right now), along with the stop/start nature of the game.

Would you have known the answer to these when at school? Or even now?

The first wouldn't have been relevant when I was at school.

And I'm unsure for now - but I'd guess 'caution'. I've never considered it happening outside of a goal.

And having strained my eyes reading that first one, I'll skip the next two (sorry) to avoid a migrane.

I would guess more people play(ed) football at school and for club teams as a youth than they did (do) rugby. Certainly more people watch football in this country than rugby. So it's no surprise, in general, more people in this country understand the rules of football better than they do rugby.

while that's of course a part of it, it's still the case that the basic rules of footie are all very straightforwards and logical and consistent - and so easy enough for anyone to understand - while the same is not true with rugby.

[Benj]

tight offside calls? You're having a giraffe.

How can there be redress for something which is called offside but isn't?

And so the ideas fall apart. It's just not workable.

[Benj]

However, take for example the WHU v Liverpool game on Sunday. The linesman (alright assistant ref) and the ref got a throw in decision wrong. Clearly O'Neil thumped it against Bridge, it went no where near Kuyt. Had WHU scored from the resultant throw they'd have scored a goal that technically shouldn't have occured. So what do you suggest? Officials check with a 4th official if they're not sure about which way to give a throw in? Or the teams to have reviews to allow them to challenge decisions?

[TheGayTent]

Is that it, all that is in the official rules!

[TheGayTent]

It should obviously only be used on the big calls, offsides that lead directly to goals/ immediate goal scoring opportunity and pennos etc.

[worm]

all of which is not workable in practice.

Edited March 1, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

You'd have to play on until the ball ends up in the net/ goes out of play

At which point the offensive or defensive team could review it if they so chose. If they oppo get it back, its simply play on.

I think it would be a bit mad at first but once teams got used to the system it could work, its in effect what they have in the NFL. I think the main problem would be the officials who would use it as a crutch to fall back on, flagging anything they were unsure of.

That works, but causes problems of its own - such as players injuring themselves trying to stop a piece of play that they don't need to stop cos it was offside. Would that be fairer? I think it would be more unfair than what we have now.

Someone has to make a call over whether a bit of play is fair or not; in many cases there is no definitive answer even with a million replays (eg: Eduardo's 'dive') - so in many cases a change of rules like that wouldn't actually change anything about how the ref calls it, but it would create more room for disputes about fair/unfair. And so how are things made better regarding fairness if there's a greater amount of disputes?

As things stand we know the ref's call is how it is - it's clear and decisive, always.

[Benj]

Which would stop play far too much.

[Tugger2k]

Which would stop play far too much.

[worm]

No, the 'gaining an advantage by being in that position' is the bit that isn't applied consistently. Which is frustrating. It partly isn't the fault of the officials, it's the fault of the ambiguous law in the first place.

[worm]

That works, but causes problems of its own - such as players injuring themselves trying to stop a piece of play that they don't need to stop cos it was offside. Would that be fairer? I think it would be more unfair than what we have now.

[eFestivals]

All of what?

Handing out punishments retrospectively? Already happens on occasion. Having an officiate panel set up to do so by reviewing each game? Already happens on just about every public medium going.

a game is reviewed: it's discovered that the game as played was called wrongly, and the result is all wrong for what happened - and that's all official. How's it redressed? It can't be without making a mockery of the whole thing.

As things stand we know the ref's call is how it is - it's clear and decisive, always. There's no room for argument, aside from within ultimately-meaningless after-match discussions like we're having now.

If you make the ref's decisions officially wrong in retrospect, does that make things better or worse? It very definitely only makes things worse.

And where do we stop the reviews? A wrongly awarded throw-in? But the play has already continued, does it get called back to re-take the throw-in? Or does the throw-in have to wait until after a review? A '50-50' tackle - that can be considered either's fault, or no-ones - even with a million reviews, there's no definitive answer.

Yet all of these lines have to be drawn, and written into the rules without creating new problems as a result. If you think that's possible then you really are the world's best read person as you believe yourself to be.

[eFestivals]

agreed. officials making the odd mistake im happy about.

i actually think that they get the vast majority of calls right.

its a shame that all the talk of technology/retro active punishment has come about because of a man incompetant to ref man utd games

he's way too chummy with their players, has been for a while.

i'd be happy to see technology to come in for goal line decisions - how hard can that be

and punishment for violence and diving - and leave the rest to the on pitch officials

I agree with technology for goal-line decisions - that's the only thing I think can work satisfactorily.

Punishment for violence and diving I'm in agreement with in principle, but the practice is far harder.

Very occasionally there is clear 'violence', but often it's not clear - Rooney could reasonably argue his elbow movement on Saturday was required for him to be able to change the movement of his body. We might all disagree, but the fact is that he could be right and us wrong.

And diving? I think the Eduardo case gets to show how difficult that is to call - a panel of UEFA experts couldn't say for sure that it was definitely a dive even when it was in their interests to say it was (as they'd already issued a ban).

[Benj]

That works, but causes problems of its own - such as players injuring themselves trying to stop a piece of play that they don't need to stop cos it was offside. Would that be fairer? I think it would be more unfair than what we have now.

Someone has to make a call over whether a bit of play is fair or not; in many cases there is no definitive answer even with a million replays (eg: Eduardo's 'dive') - so in many cases a change of rules like that wouldn't actually change anything about how the ref calls it, but it would create more room for disputes about fair/unfair. And so how are things made better regarding fairness if there's a greater amount of disputes?

As things stand we know the ref's call is how it is - it's clear and decisive, always.

[worm]

a game is reviewed: it's discovered that the game as played was called wrongly, and the result is all wrong for what happened - and that's all official. How's it redressed? It can't be without making a mockery of the whole thing.

[eFestivals]

Someone has to make the call, that person is far better placed to make the call with time and multiple slow mo replays on their side.

That's only definitely the case if your consideration is only about a right call or not.

When you factor in the effect it would have on the game from its side-effects, the benefits are far less clear. It comes to mean that either the game becomes stop/start, or if done in retrospect it means that players on the field don't have to take much notice of the ref (thus creating a whole range of new issues).

[ralph250]

i have a massive problem with that rule

anybody thats played the game, especially as a defender, knows that the forwards position is always in the back of your mind. you might only adjust for a split second, but thats enough to create an advantage for the opposing team

personally, im in favour of if your off side, your off side, and thats that.

i cant find the video, but ronaldo got one this year while he was tying his shoelaces, and then ran into the 2nd or 3rd phase, and slots it home. its way too complicated

Edited March 1, 2011 by ralph250

[worm]

Someone has to make the call, that person is far better placed to make the call with time and multiple slow mo replays on their side.

[Tugger2k]

I agree with technology for goal-line decisions - that's the only thing I think can work satisfactorily.

Punishment for violence and diving I'm in agreement with in principle, but the practice is far harder.

Very occasionally there is clear 'violence', but often it's not clear - Rooney could reasonably argue his elbow movement on Saturday was required for him to be able to change the movement of his body. We might all disagree, but the fact is that he could be right and us wrong.

And diving? I think the Eduardo case gets to show how difficult that is to call - a panel of UEFA experts couldn't say for sure that it was definitely a dive even when it was in their interests to say it was (as they'd already issued a ban).

[eFestivals]

It's a mockery as it is. France making the World Cup would be a good example. There are many more. This could have been overcome by a review challenge that would have taken minutes. Then you kick off again. Just look at other sports. It's improved them all immensely.

you like boring yank sports (tho haven't actually experienced one in the flesh to realise how deathly boring they are). Say no more.

Punish people for deliberate fouling and cheating by giving them match bans etc.

When you have a way of being able to identify what is deliberate and what isn't you'll have a system that's better than the system we have now.

I guess you'd use the telepathy you displayed yesterday to know for sure. And just like you were yesterday, you'd be wrong.

[Benj]

It's a mockery as it is. France making the World Cup would be a good example. There are many more. This could have been overcome by a review challenge that would have taken minutes. Then you kick off again. Just look at other sports. It's improved them all immensely.

Punish people for deliberate fouling and cheating by giving them match bans etc.

[Tugger2k]

at 3:20

[worm]

That's only definitely the case if your consideration is only about a right call or not.

When you factor in the effect it would have on the game from its side-effects, the benefits are far less clear. It comes to mean that either the game becomes stop/start, or if done in retrospect it means that players on the field don't have to take much notice of the ref (thus creating a whole range of new issues).

Edited March 1, 2011 by worm