Football 16-17

[Comfy Bean]

Wow. What a game :-)

[TheGayTent]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

I thought they were playing all home games at wembley next season?

That doesn't make an FA Cup semi final or final there involving Tottenham a home game. 

[TheGayTent]

Abysmal refereeing decisions and poor gamesmanship from Barcelona mars that comeback somewhat for me. 

[sdvruxk]

26 minutes ago, TheGayTent said:

Abysmal refereeing decisions and poor gamesmanship from Barcelona mars that comeback somewhat for me. 

Gamesmanship in what sense? 

[pink_triangle]

While Liverpool was a high profile comeback to me it's cheapened slightly by the fact it was a drawn game and penalties. To me the greatest comeback (during my time as a fan) was deportivo against Milan.

[thetime]

If that game last night was 30/40 years ago, you would of thought something fishy was going on. 

[eFestivals]

9 hours ago, TheGayTent said:

That doesn't make an FA Cup semi final or final there involving Tottenham a home game. 

WTF?

If it was any other team playing a final at the ground they played their normal matches on, it would be regarded as a home tie.

 

Edited March 9, 2017 by eFestivals

[TheGayTent]

21 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

WTF?

If it was any other team playing a final at the ground they played their normal matches on, it would be regarded as a home tie.

 

Piffle. 

Tottenham playing home games at Wembley is a temporary thing. 

Tottenham fans say that home games at Wembley don't feel like home games, bar having 95% of the crowd.

Tottenham fans say that they'd rather be at WHL. 

Tottenham's record in 'home' games at Wembley is poor. 

Any potential FA Cup Semi or Final at Wembley involving Tottenham and Arsenal will be split 50:50 attendance wise. 

Arsenal have used Wembley for home games temporarily before too. 

In summary, suggesting Tottenham v Arsenal at Wembley in an FA Cup Semi or Final is like a home game for Tottenham is ill considered. 

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, TheGayTent said:

Piffle. 

Tottenham playing home games at Wembley is a temporary thing. 

Tottenham fans say that home games at Wembley don't feel like home games, bar having 95% of the crowd.

Tottenham fans say that they'd rather be at WHL. 

Tottenham's record in 'home' games at Wembley is poor. 

Any potential FA Cup Semi or Final at Wembley involving Tottenham and Arsenal will be split 50:50 attendance wise. 

Arsenal have used Wembley for home games temporarily before too. 

In summary, suggesting Tottenham v Arsenal at Wembley in an FA Cup Semi or Final is like a home game for Tottenham is ill considered. 

it might not be the extent of a 'real' home tie, but on the basis of the accepted idea that the home team has an advantage via that, a tie like that would give an advantage to Spurs.

(and wasn't Arsenal only for Euro ties, not all games? I forget now).

[TheGayTent]

13 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

it might not be the extent of a 'real' home tie, but on the basis of the accepted idea that the home team has an advantage via that, a tie like that would give an advantage to Spurs.

(and wasn't Arsenal only for Euro ties, not all games? I forget now).

That advantage is based around familiar surroundings and having the vast majority of the crowd. 

Lose the toss and Arsenal will have the home dressing room and the crowd will be split 50:50. It'd feel like exactly what it would be - a Cup tie played at a neutral venue. 

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, TheGayTent said:

That advantage is based around familiar surroundings and having the vast majority of the crowd. 

Lose the toss and Arsenal will have the home dressing room and the crowd will be split 50:50. It'd feel like exactly what it would be - a Cup tie played at a neutral venue. 

so what you're saying is .... Spurs will have an advantage because of a greater familiarity with the ground, and perhaps a greater one via familiarity with a particular dressing room too.

Yeah, I know. It's much what I said.

[The Nal]

10 hours ago, sdvruxk said:

Gamesmanship in what sense? 

Suarez diving about the place. 3 blatant ones. Got booked for one of them, got a free kick from another and a peno for another.

And heres the one he got booked for

 

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, The Nal said:

Suarez diving about the place. 3 blatant ones.

I can see more reason for him to go down for the first one you've posted there than there was for Lew to go down in the Arsenal match.

Suarez, at least, does get bumped from behind to send him forwards.

(it's a dive, of course it is. But it's a dive with contact to justify how he's gone down, which is more than there was for Lew).

 

[The Nal]

4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I can see more reason for him to go down for the first one you've posted there than there was for Lew to go down in the Arsenal match.

Suarez, at least, does get bumped from behind to send him forwards.

(it's a dive, of course it is. But it's a dive with contact to justify how he's gone down, which is more than there was for Lew).

 

I suppose most modern strikers go down now with contact. Suarez is particularly bad for it though as he looks for it as option 1 sometimes. Really lets himself down because hes so good and doesn't need to do it.

Edited March 9, 2017 by The Nal

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, The Nal said:

I suppose most modern strikers go down now with contact. Suarez is particularly bad for it though as he looks for it as option 1 sometimes. Really lets himself down because hes so good and doesn't need to do it.

Suarez is about the quickest of any player I've seen to go down, and the ref doesn't always fall for it .... But plenty of times the ref does.

I'd say Suarez is the best at diving to convince refs, as well as the best at diving.

Which is a skill in itself.

[mjsell]

31 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Suarez is about the quickest of any player I've seen to go down, and the ref doesn't always fall for it .... But plenty of times the ref does.

I'd say Suarez is the best at diving to convince refs, as well as the best at diving.

Which is a skill in itself.

Those two statements made me shudder. I understand what you are saying, but from a postion of neutrality (ie. as a fan and not having any vested interest in the success of a dive) can you say someone is the 'best' at diving? That's like saying someone is the best at stealing your wallet in plain sight.

It should be an unacceptable part of football - With major bans handed out for anyone caught doing it blantantly. If you can have a panel deciding Mings stamped on someones head when really only he knows if he meant it or not then why not have the same panel chuck out bans for those they perceive as obviously diving - not hard imo. It's such an easy rule change.

[The Nal]

12 minutes ago, mjsell said:

Those two statements made me shudder. I understand what you are saying, but from a postion of neutrality (ie. as a fan and not having any vested interest in the success of a dive) can you say someone is the 'best' at diving? That's like saying someone is the best at stealing your wallet in plain sight.

It should be an unacceptable part of football - With major bans handed out for anyone caught doing it blantantly. If you can have a panel deciding Mings stamped on someones head when really only he knows if he meant it or not then why not have the same panel chuck out bans for those they perceive as obviously diving - not hard imo. It's such an easy rule change.

He got a yellow and won a peno for two very similar "tackles" last night. If he didn't dive and win the peno I doubt Barca go through. Would've been a goal kick for PSG instead of a peno. Thats the effect diving can have. 

 

Edited March 9, 2017 by The Nal

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, mjsell said:

Those two statements made me shudder. I understand what you are saying, but from a postion of neutrality (ie. as a fan and not having any vested interest in the success of a dive) can you say someone is the 'best' at diving? That's like saying someone is the best at stealing your wallet in plain sight.

it's exactly like that

If might not be a skill you appreciate, but it's a skill never the less.

 

10 minutes ago, mjsell said:

It should be an unacceptable part of football - With major bans handed out for anyone caught doing it blantantly. If you can have a panel deciding Mings stamped on someones head when really only he knows if he meant it or not then why not have the same panel chuck out bans for those they perceive as obviously diving - not hard imo. It's such an easy rule change.

Yep, I agree. Video replays should be used for diving too.

The problem is, tho, for the likes of that first Suarez one, is that he *was* bumped - and it's just about impossible to know if the bump caused him to go down or if it was a dive.

Cos while I'm of the firm opinion that it was a dive, I'm still able to recognise that it might not have been, and everything about it is dependent on where/how his centre of gravity was at the precise moment of that bump. I'm pretty sure it was a dive, but it might not have been all the same.

[mjsell]

12 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

The problem is, tho, for the likes of that first Suarez one, is that he *was* bumped - and it's just about impossible to know if the bump caused him to go down or if it was a dive.

Cos while I'm of the firm opinion that it was a dive, I'm still able to recognise that it might not have been, and everything about it is dependent on where/how his centre of gravity was at the precise moment of that bump. I'm pretty sure it was a dive, but it might not have been all the same.

You speak as if there isnt a minimum threshold of contact/force that a player can encounter when deciding whether it is foul and/or a dive or not. A hand on someones shoulder is not a foul and does not constitute a reason to go down. A push into someones back is a foul - somewhere in between there is a point where a foul no longer is one. It is no different for a panel of people who are deciding on a incident of violent conduct - there is a line where a innocent foul becomes a violent action. The Mings decision is a judgement call, the same as a ban on diving would be.

Obviously you wouldn't/shouldn't ban someone for diving (or any other misconduct) that is close enough to that threshold for you to consider it contentious. However, in divings case bans on those incidents that are slightly more contentious than others would'nt be all that bad as it would actually convince players to stay on their feet more often in the long run - and I personal don't see that as a negative. 

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, mjsell said:

You speak as if there isnt a minimum threshold of contact/force that a player can encounter when deciding whether it is foul and/or a dive or not.

that's because there isn't.

How easily someone will (genuinely) go down is related to how off-balance they might have been at the moment of contact - and for someone who's running (and not necessarily in a straight line), that 'off-balance' is changing at every moment.

So a slight contact or a big contact can have the same genuine 'going down' effect, dependent on what is happening at the moment of that contact.

Edited March 9, 2017 by eFestivals

[mjsell]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

that's because there isn't.

How easily someone will (genuinely) go down is related to how off-balance they might have been at the moment of contact - and for someone who's running (and not necessarily in a straight line), that 'off-balance' is changing at every moment.

So a slight contact or a big contact can have the same genuine 'going down' effect, dependent on what is happening at the moment of that contact.

But that doesn't make it a foul. A light hand on a shoulder does not constitute enough force to be considered a foul, it may make the player go down but then it is his fault for being 'off-balance' (providing it has not been influenced by any opposing player). In this case it isnt a foul but isnt a dive.

[TheGayTent]

 

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Yeah, I know. It's much what I said.

No. You said "it's pretty much a home match for Spurs"

Which we've shown is a long way from the truth. 

[eFestivals]

22 minutes ago, mjsell said:

But that doesn't make it a foul. A light hand on a shoulder does not constitute enough force to be considered a foul, it may make the player go down but then it is his fault for being 'off-balance' (providing it has not been influenced by any opposing player). In this case it isnt a foul but isnt a dive.

Nah, it's not that cut and dried - tho it should be pointed out that footie classes as a no-contact sport as a central idea within its rules (or at least, it did 40 years ago), and therefore contact defaults towards 'foul' rather than 'not foul'.

So the fact of someone being off-balance when there's contact doesn't make the going-down the fault of the person who is off-balance, but makes it the fault of the contact that caused him to go down. It only stops being that if the players was so off balance that they'd have gone down with no contact.

At the end of the day, there's only a judgement to be made by the ref on whether the contact was the cause of going down or not. No matter how hard we might try to make it better, it always comes back to that judgement.

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, TheGayTent said:

No. You said "it's pretty much a home match for Spurs"

Which we've shown is a long way from the truth. 

It'd be more of a home match for spurs than for arsenal, tho. And home gives an advantage, so Spurs acquire an advantage.

 

[TheGayTent]

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

It'd be more of a home match for spurs than for arsenal, tho. 

 

That's not what you said.