Football 16-17

[mjsell]

31 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

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.

Contact does not default to foul!

Quote

*Official laws of the game*

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed

basic contact is not considered careless...

Obviously this doesnt really relate to banning for diving as this is more about what constitutes a foul. However I do agree that at the end of the day it is judgement calls made by refs during a game... and bans on divers can equally be judgement calls made by a panel post-match.

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, mjsell said:

Contact does not default to foul!

that's not quite what I said - very deliberately.

I said "defaults towards 'foul' rather than 'not foul'"

 

11 minutes ago, mjsell said:

basic contact is not considered careless...

True.

It becomes 'careless' via the effect it has on the player the contact is with.

So minimal contact that causes a player to (genuinely) go down is 'careless'.

It doesn't matter that the contact might not be enough to make that player go down if they were stood up straight with full balance, it matters with the effect it has in the specific circumstances that the contact was made.

So if the player was off-balance enough that only-slight contact caused that player to go down, it's still a foul despite the fact the contact was only slight. It's not the fault of the player who was off-balance at the time.

[eFestivals]

20 minutes ago, mjsell said:

However I do agree that at the end of the day it is judgement calls made by refs during a game... and bans on divers can equally be judgement calls made by a panel post-match.

Yup.

Which is why I wouldn't be hugely comfortable about the first instance of Suarez that Nal posted being used to call a definite dive. There was contact, and only Suarez knows for sure if it was the contact which caused him to go down or if he dived.

Judgements can be made on it, but none of those judgements are likely to be better-based than the one the ref made at the time. 

(it would be different if replays showed no contact at all - you could nail him with that).

[zahidf]

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Yup.

Which is why I wouldn't be hugely comfortable about the first instance of Suarez that Nal posted being used to call a definite dive. There was contact, and only Suarez knows for sure if it was the contact which caused him to go down or if he dived.

Judgements can be made on it, but none of those judgements are likely to be better-based than the one the ref made at the time. 

(it would be different if replays showed no contact at all - you could nail him with that).

It depends. How many times have u seen suarez been nudged in the back, and he responds to falling to floor, clutching his face and screaming? He does it on a semi regular basis in la liga.

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, zahidf said:

It depends. How many times have u seen suarez been nudged in the back, and he responds to falling to floor, clutching his face and screaming? He does it on a semi regular basis in la liga.

over-acting doesn't define whether it's a foul or not.

[mjsell]

26 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Yup.

Which is why I wouldn't be hugely comfortable about the first instance of Suarez that Nal posted being used to call a definite dive. There was contact, and only Suarez knows for sure if it was the contact which caused him to go down or if he dived.

Judgements can be made on it, but none of those judgements are likely to be better-based than the one the ref made at the time.

Much like only Mings knows if the contact made with Zlatan was intentional, and he has still been nailed for it. I get that the rules of football are so wildly open to interpretation, but its things like post match discipline hypocrisy that winds me up.

Slightly off topic, but while on the subject of the laws of the game - I found out the other week that until this season you were technically allowed to take a throw in 1 handed.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, mjsell said:

Much like only Mings knows if the contact made with Zlatan was intentional, and he has still been nailed for it.

Slightly different, tho. It's careless &/or reckless no matter what his intention was.

Whereas that bump into Suarez is only careless if the bump was what caused Suarez to go down.

So I'm happy for the Mings thing to always be subject to review, and less happy for the Suarez thing to be subject to review - because the Suarez thing is less clear-cut against the rules for whether the rules were infringed.

(as I've said, if a video replay showed no contact at all, then that's good enough for me to be happy with a review).

[ThomThomDrum]

Barca were without doubt the better team last night, but how they managed to get those 6 goals to go through stinks. There is very much something rotten going on there

[mjsell]

20 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Slightly different, tho. It's careless &/or reckless no matter what his intention was.

Yeah it was careless and reckless, but like what was quoted above " Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed" and  "Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned" 

What Mings was charged and banned for was violent conduct. Which only he knows if that is true or not. So therefore, absolutely no difference with the banning aspect.

 

[sdvruxk]

10 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said:

Barca were without doubt the better team last night, but how they managed to get those 6 goals to go through stinks. There is very much something rotten going on there

Yeah. PSG completing 4 passes in the final 8 minutes.

People can point fingers wherever they want but the fact is PSG bottled it.

[ralph250]

Would same arguments not justify Lewandowski penalty/red as opposed to a dive? check 25 secs, watch the legs/lewa's knee as opposed to arm across chest, and in consideration of Lewandowski only having one foot on the ground as trying to control the ball with his left foot. Red justifiable within the rules: 

Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offending player is cautioned unless: • The offence is holding, pulling or pushing or • The offending player does not attempt to play the ball or there is no possibility for the player making the challenge to play the ball or • The offence is one which is punishable by a red card wherever it occurs on the field of play (e.g. serious foul play, violent conduct etc.) In all the above circumstances the player is sent off.

Personally felt it was pretty clumsy, and Arsenal can have little complaint.

P.S. Hope everyone's well!

[ralph250]

33 minutes ago, sdvruxk said:

Yeah. PSG completing 4 passes in the final 8 minutes.

People can point fingers wherever they want but the fact is PSG bottled it.

3 of those were from the kickoff I believe!

[eFestivals]

fuck me ralph, where you been hiding for 5 years?

 

[The Nal]

Waaay more contact for the Lewandowski peno. Leg and arm. Suarez felt a touch on the shoulder/neck and went down like he had his throat slit. 

And yeah... Ralph! 

Edited March 9, 2017 by The Nal

[eFestivals]

10 minutes ago, ralph250 said:

Would same arguments not justify Lewandowski penalty/red as opposed to a dive?

Yep, I guess you're right with that - tho it's far harder to give the benefit of the doubt about than with the Suarez one.

Suarez is bumped on the bum goes down from his middle. Lew is bumped on the thigh and goes down from his shoulders like he's been shoved in the shoulders - which he can't have been as K's arm is across his front.

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, The Nal said:

Waaay more contact for the Lewandowski peno. Leg and arm. Suarez felt a touch on the shoulder/neck and went down like he had his throat slit. 

I can't disagree with the Lew one having more contact cos K was right across him, but he went down like he'd been shoved from the back on his shoulders - which just wasn't possible from contact on the thigh and an arm across his chest to help keep his balance.

Suarez does at least go down in a more natural way for where the contact was - which comes back again to him having top skills as a diver.

 

[ralph250]

22 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

fuck me ralph, where you been hiding for 5 years?

 

United weren't winning! Nah, I've occasionally lurked, (still a great site so props), but post far less on forums now in general. Missed out on Glasto tickets again this year though, so off to Werchter for a fix and as such, been checking in a little more for updates.

Hope everyone's well as said.  

[ralph250]

28 minutes ago, The Nal said:

 

And yeah... Ralph! 

Hey Nal!

[mjsell]

I think what has been esablished today is that no-one has a fucking clue how the laws of the game are meant to be enforced.

[kaosmark2]

That's some long-term lurking.

Hey Ralph  

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, Scruffylovemonster said:

That's exactly the same as Mings though. And they've decided it was deliberate. 

have they?

I thought violent conduct was about the conduct being violent, and not that the violence was deliberate.

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, Scruffylovemonster said:

Can you be accidentally violent?

i'd say so, yep.

And for me, dangerous play is something that might have had very bad consequences but didn't really, rather than anything about intent.

[mjsell]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

have they?

I thought violent conduct was about the conduct being violent, and not that the violence was deliberate.

 

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

i'd say so, yep.

And for me, dangerous play is something that might have had very bad consequences but didn't really, rather than anything about intent.

If they didnt think it was deliberate then why have they given Mings more of a ban than Zlatan. Surely an accidental head stamp is not as bad as a deliberate elbow to the head? or have I got my violent conduct ranking system wrong?

For me Ibra's elbow is a worse offense.

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, Scruffylovemonster said:

For me, the consequences are sort of irrelevant. If you fly in two footed at chest height but miss, you should be punished more than if you slide one footed and are a split second late and end up taking the man out. 

Edit: when I say irrelevant, I mean in terms of punishment rather than for the poor sod with two broken legs. 

From one angle I agree, but a drunk driver doesn't get the same sentence as the drunk driver that also runs someone over.

 

[eFestivals]

34 minutes ago, mjsell said:

 

If they didnt think it was deliberate then why have they given Mings more of a ban than Zlatan. Surely an accidental head stamp is not as bad as a deliberate elbow to the head? or have I got my violent conduct ranking system wrong?

For me Ibra's elbow is a worse offense.

I guess it's based within the idea that neither incident were 'deliberate' as such .... and that a flying elbow is a fairly natural thing when jumping so it happens but greater care should be taken to avoid violence with it, while it gets harder to mitigate walking over someone's head (even tho we all realise that it might be unavoidable on occasion).