Neymar transfer rumour
- Thread starter cumbrianmackem
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
I don't mean the comical dives with pike and tuck though, I'm talking about the ones where the dive/fall is 95% generated by the player being 'fouled' and those happen several times every game, often having a bearing on the result because they tend to try it in dangerous areas. Then there's the ones where somebody feels a hand touch their face, however gently and they act like they've had their eyes gouged out. It's pathetic and often a red card will come out, sometimes the refs see through it of course but they shouldn't have to.
On that note yeah the egomaniac refs are a problem and some of the inconsistency is truly baffling. It was better in the days when nobody knew who the ref was and they didn't feel the need to grab the limelight. Old fart stuck in the past, I know I know.
Early Football rules, off the top of my head......
A player was offside if he is caught in front of the ball. - So I assume early football was basically like rugby but played with the feet.
The teams swapped ends every time a goal was scored.
There was no crossbars, a goal had to be scored between 2 posts but could be of any height. - A tape was introduced for a 'crossbar' then later the crossbar as we know today was used.
A player could catch the ball as long as it hadnt touched the ground. (very early rule i think)
Wanderers won the first ever FA Cup and the rules of the day meant that they got a bye to next years final so that they could defend their trophy.
Queens Park of Scotland played in 2 English FA Cup finals
If teams drew a match in the FA Cup the two teams discussed and had the choice of replaying the match or both going through to the next round
All matches in the FA cup from the semi final onwards were played at the Oval (so i guess things havnt changed THAT much)
A player was offside if he is caught in front of the ball. - So I assume early football was basically like rugby but played with the feet.
The teams swapped ends every time a goal was scored.
There was no crossbars, a goal had to be scored between 2 posts but could be of any height. - A tape was introduced for a 'crossbar' then later the crossbar as we know today was used.
A player could catch the ball as long as it hadnt touched the ground. (very early rule i think)
Wanderers won the first ever FA Cup and the rules of the day meant that they got a bye to next years final so that they could defend their trophy.
Queens Park of Scotland played in 2 English FA Cup finals
If teams drew a match in the FA Cup the two teams discussed and had the choice of replaying the match or both going through to the next round
All matches in the FA cup from the semi final onwards were played at the Oval (so i guess things havnt changed THAT much)
You say that like we havnt taken some baggage off you recently....Richardson, Bardsley, O' Shea, Brown, Love, McNair.......you must have some B team/injury prone players Moyes would love!!
I think the theatrics probably lead to more yellow cards, it seems yellows are coming out for nothing nowadays and that really does spoil games imo. Players unable to tackle or argue their case with the ref, for fear of a second soft yellow.
Look at the tackles Herrera got a red (2 yellows) for vs Chelsea, and Rojo got away scott-free with a stamp. I think Hazard's reaction in both cases were deciding factors in the ref's decisions. Rolled around like a shot gimp after Herrera breathed on him, and did nowt when Rojo stamped on him.
He could have made a massive song and dance about both and got both sent off.
Ref's decision on both counts was wrong, even though I think Herrera was getting sent off sooner rather than later either way.
Federico Mecheda should be knocking about somewhere.
On a more positive note, you're right though, we've sent you some good players over the years on loan, Welbeck, Evans, Simpson.... they all did ok, perhaps next season in the Championship, we could send a few over. I'd love to see what Angel Gomez and Joshua Bohui could do at that level, Gomez would probably tear that league a new arsehole.
A new Man Utd club tie would do Moyes but he'd still manage to bore the thing to bits before he got the knot tied..
A VIEW FROM.... PADDY VON BEHR
The importance of ‘contact’ appears to have surfaced as one of the game’s most prevalent unwritten rules – ‘if there’s contact in the box, it’s a penalty’.
What people seem to have entirely disregarded is the fact that a penalty is the result of an infringement in the area – i.e. a handball or a foul.
Outside the 18-yard box, were a player to make ‘contact’ with another, no pundit or commentator on this earth would instantly cry ‘foul’ with such conviction.
However, when the penalty jury is out, panels of ‘experts’ immediately set about determining whether or not the alleged offender ‘made contact’ with the man now rolling on the turf.
The implicit assumption is that, unless you remove yourself entirely from the striker’s path, you are liable to concede a spot-kick – it soon becomes very difficult not to sympathise with defenders.
Imagine you have Eden Hazard, Sergio Aguero or Theo Walcott running at you and all you know from previous situations is you must not ‘make contact’ with him.
It’s a wonder the Richard Dunnes and Jamie Carraghers of this world even bother turning up to work anymore – this was not the case in their heyday.
‘Contact’ does not equal a foul and, as long as we continue to suggest it does, the game is edging closer to looking like a game of basketball.
Perhaps soon every single instance of ‘contact’ in the area will result in a penalty and, should the attacker score immediately after the ‘contact’, he will be awarded the goal AND the penalty.
But here’s where we come back to diving – the belief that ‘contact’ is a punishable offence is what enables simulation.
If attackers know ‘contact’ is sufficient to earn them a penalty – and they must also hit the floor to sway the referee – diving is the logical step once you have felt the brush of a defender’s leg.
The simple fact is that the concept of ‘I would have gone down there’ is to condone a dive.
This may not always be considered morally wrong – especially if you are a disciple of Diego Maradona, who believes tricking the referee is a skill to be rewarded.
However, unlike ‘making contact’, it is illegal – if you could avoid falling over but choose to throw yourself to the ground nevertheless, you have dived and that is against the rules of the game.
Not only is the obsession with ‘contact’ a fabrication that de-values football, its growing importance is enabling the epidemic of diving that we so despise.
FOOTBALL IS A CONTACT SPORT.........LETS KEEP IT THAT WAY
For more on this story and many others, follow Mancunian Matters on Twitter and Facebook.
Sign up for our newsletter to receive regular email updates.
You must log in or register to see images
The importance of ‘contact’ appears to have surfaced as one of the game’s most prevalent unwritten rules – ‘if there’s contact in the box, it’s a penalty’.
What people seem to have entirely disregarded is the fact that a penalty is the result of an infringement in the area – i.e. a handball or a foul.
Outside the 18-yard box, were a player to make ‘contact’ with another, no pundit or commentator on this earth would instantly cry ‘foul’ with such conviction.
However, when the penalty jury is out, panels of ‘experts’ immediately set about determining whether or not the alleged offender ‘made contact’ with the man now rolling on the turf.
The implicit assumption is that, unless you remove yourself entirely from the striker’s path, you are liable to concede a spot-kick – it soon becomes very difficult not to sympathise with defenders.
Imagine you have Eden Hazard, Sergio Aguero or Theo Walcott running at you and all you know from previous situations is you must not ‘make contact’ with him.
It’s a wonder the Richard Dunnes and Jamie Carraghers of this world even bother turning up to work anymore – this was not the case in their heyday.
‘Contact’ does not equal a foul and, as long as we continue to suggest it does, the game is edging closer to looking like a game of basketball.
Perhaps soon every single instance of ‘contact’ in the area will result in a penalty and, should the attacker score immediately after the ‘contact’, he will be awarded the goal AND the penalty.
But here’s where we come back to diving – the belief that ‘contact’ is a punishable offence is what enables simulation.
If attackers know ‘contact’ is sufficient to earn them a penalty – and they must also hit the floor to sway the referee – diving is the logical step once you have felt the brush of a defender’s leg.
The simple fact is that the concept of ‘I would have gone down there’ is to condone a dive.
This may not always be considered morally wrong – especially if you are a disciple of Diego Maradona, who believes tricking the referee is a skill to be rewarded.
However, unlike ‘making contact’, it is illegal – if you could avoid falling over but choose to throw yourself to the ground nevertheless, you have dived and that is against the rules of the game.
Not only is the obsession with ‘contact’ a fabrication that de-values football, its growing importance is enabling the epidemic of diving that we so despise.
FOOTBALL IS A CONTACT SPORT.........LETS KEEP IT THAT WAY
For more on this story and many others, follow Mancunian Matters on Twitter and Facebook.
Sign up for our newsletter to receive regular email updates.
The issue of diving is an interesting one. Football is a product of the British Public Schools system; Eton, Harrow, Marlborough and the like. It was developed, like Rugby football, to promote what the Victorians called 'Muscular Christianity'- a system for promoting healthiness, discipline, order, and moral rectitude through physically demanding games and sports. Central to this concept was 'fair play', not just following the rules of the game to the letter but also following a strict but unwritten code of morality. When, a few years down the line, the working classes adopted the game in Britain those concepts of fair play remained, at least in part because the Victorians sought to copy the example of their 'betters', or those higher up the social ladder.
When the game was exported, it was adopted by people from other cultures. They saw the game through the prism of their own cultures. In some of those cultures (and this is based on well-observed and academically accepted anthropological study) the 'rules' were/are not seen as something to ensure equality or a level playing field but rather as a hindrance that can be circumvented. The attitude being 'I know I'll be punished if I'm caught but I gain an advantage if I don't get caught'. The concept of 'fair play' never existed in some of these cultures or societies.
As football has become globalised, the different football cultures have merged and so things that are alien to our football culture have gradually crept in. This isn't me saying we must accept cheating, its just a reality of the football world we live in. We can either understand that these things that we don't like are a side-effect of us having great players from all over the world playing in our domestic league or we can stick our heads in the sand and wish that everyone still played 2-3-5, balls were still made of concrete, players still wore pit boots, tactics were rigid and predictable, and the toe-punt was a regular feature of every game.
I don't like diving and I hope that something is done to eradicate it, as far as possible, but I'd rather watch today's football than Stanley Heckmondwike, caked in mud.
When the game was exported, it was adopted by people from other cultures. They saw the game through the prism of their own cultures. In some of those cultures (and this is based on well-observed and academically accepted anthropological study) the 'rules' were/are not seen as something to ensure equality or a level playing field but rather as a hindrance that can be circumvented. The attitude being 'I know I'll be punished if I'm caught but I gain an advantage if I don't get caught'. The concept of 'fair play' never existed in some of these cultures or societies.
As football has become globalised, the different football cultures have merged and so things that are alien to our football culture have gradually crept in. This isn't me saying we must accept cheating, its just a reality of the football world we live in. We can either understand that these things that we don't like are a side-effect of us having great players from all over the world playing in our domestic league or we can stick our heads in the sand and wish that everyone still played 2-3-5, balls were still made of concrete, players still wore pit boots, tactics were rigid and predictable, and the toe-punt was a regular feature of every game.
I don't like diving and I hope that something is done to eradicate it, as far as possible, but I'd rather watch today's football than Stanley Heckmondwike, caked in mud.
A GOOD SUMMARY I FEEL.
Players who cheat often have big egos, and disposition to define success in relation to others. For these players, satisfaction with accomplishment is dependent on doing better than others.
In contrast, other players are predisposed to feel successful when they accomplish victory through hard work and achieve a personal best. Success for these players has value and meaning when achieved not through cheating but through personal effort. Players who prioritise ego tend to cheat and injure others, whereas those who value tasks are more likely to play by the rules
Players who cheat often have big egos, and disposition to define success in relation to others. For these players, satisfaction with accomplishment is dependent on doing better than others.
In contrast, other players are predisposed to feel successful when they accomplish victory through hard work and achieve a personal best. Success for these players has value and meaning when achieved not through cheating but through personal effort. Players who prioritise ego tend to cheat and injure others, whereas those who value tasks are more likely to play by the rules
Stu, seriously, I highly recommend that you read Calcio by John Foot, Futebol; the Brazilian way of life by Alex Bellos, and Inverting the Pyramid by Jonathan Wilson.
It's no coincidence that we get loaned the good promising ones and sold the duffers. It frustrates me that the club did not appear ambitious enough or had the clout to buy the loaned players. All at different clubs now.
An earlier post stated we are blessed with far better players now than ever before,be interesting to name ten say from present and us older bods name some from the past
Ferenc Puskas
Mathias Sindelar
Len Shackleton
Georgi Asparuhov
Preben Elkjaer
Domingos Da Guia
Gianni Rivera
Rafael Moreno Aranzadi
Johan Cruyff
Leigh Richmond Roose.
Those are the ten players of all time I'd most like to have seen live. I'm not ignorant of the great players of the past but its about seeing the bigger picture and how the game has changed over time.