Off Topic Bill Nicholson Arms

  • 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
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Alfie Conn said:
Question from my grandson, is it against the rules for a player to use another player from his team as a lifter to reach a cross like they do in rugby ? I couldn't answer
Click to expand...

There is no specific mention of this in the laws of the game, so it would come down to referees interpretation of the laws surrounding dangerous play and I think that in most cases actually lifting a player would be deemed a foul whereas using a team mates shoulders to assist in reaching the ball would likely be acceptable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: remembercolinlee
The Changing Man said:
There is no specific mention of this in the laws of the game, so it would come down to referees interpretation of the laws surrounding dangerous play and I think that in most cases actually lifting a player would be deemed a foul whereas using a team mates shoulders to assist in reaching the ball would likely be acceptable.
Click to expand...

So for a corner you could have a player sat on another player's shoulders? (Managed to spell "sat" correctly, very important.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: redwhiteandermblue and The Changing Man
vimhawk said:
So for a corner you could have a player sat on another player's shoulders? (Managed to spell "sat" correctly, very important.)
Click to expand...
I had the same mental image, but I think the suggestion was to launch yourself by putting your hands on your teammates shoulders, not being sat there. I think sitting on the shoulders would reduce mobility somewhat and we'd need very accurate crosses. And we all know how good at that we are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Changing Man
There's specific guidance about using other players and the like being unsporting conduct.
It's not in the laws, but the refs all know about it and are trained on that sort of stuff.

I think that they like the fact that there are things that are against the rules but aren't in them.
Feeds into the original concept of knowing what being a good sport is.
Not really part of the game any more, though.
 
PleaseNotPoll said:
There's specific guidance about using other players and the like being unsporting conduct.
It's not in the laws, but the refs all know about it and are trained on that sort of stuff.

I think that they like the fact that there are things that are against the rules but aren't in them.
Feeds into the original concept of knowing what being a good sport is.
Not really part of the game any more, though.
Click to expand...

Professionalisation has killed that concept in most modern sports. Too much money and prestige involved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PleaseNotPoll
The Huddlefro said:
Professionalisation has killed that concept in most modern sports. Too much money and prestige involved.
Click to expand...
I,m not sure it is that different, yes there is more diving but thats just an import. Diving was there 60 years ago just not so much in Britain. Thinking back to teams like Revies Leeds violence was part of the pro game. The real difference is TV and analysis, that did not happen the way it takes place now.
 
SpursDisciple said:
I had the same mental image, but I think the suggestion was to launch yourself by putting your hands on your teammates shoulders, not being sat there. I think sitting on the shoulders would reduce mobility somewhat and we'd need very accurate crosses. And we all know how good at that we are.
Click to expand...
For instance if Richarlison had Dier in front of him on Saturday and he used Eric's shoulders as an aid to reach the cross from Perisic Dier Hard would have creamed his pants at the perfect cross to get Richarlison up and running ,but in the meantime I will tell my grandson that I could be considered unsportsmanlike
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spurlock
Alfie Conn said:
For instance if Richarlison had Dier in front of him on Saturday and he used Eric's shoulders as an aid to reach the cross from Perisic Dier Hard would have creamed his pants at the perfect cross to get Richarlison up and running ,but in the meantime I will tell my grandson that I could be considered unsportsmanlike
Click to expand...
I have to say, it is an unlikely scenario with defenders close enough to make it unlikely, but I do not see what is unsportsmanlike about it.
 
Pitch invaders at Premier League and English Football League matches will receive an automatic club ban under new measures to tackle fan behaviour.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/62293635

It is an offence for fans to enter the pitch "without lawful authority or lawful excuse" under the Football Offences Act 1991 - but offenders have not always been prosecuted.

My question is ''Why not ?'' Why only now ?
We know had it been certain teams involved up till now, then they would have been punished.

Also in the article-Individuals who carry or use pyrotechnics or smoke bombs will also be banned and identified offenders will be reported to the police.

But that punishment is being meted out to one Spurs player (Richi ) immediately (except it's not really immediate , as there were a number of games last season, when it could have been implemented ).
 
  • Like
Reactions: humanbeingincroydon
The RDBD said:
And the punishments that ensure the offenders are always worse off, are .... ??
Click to expand...
Well on a reductio ad absurdum you could award a goal to the opposition and a red card for a deliberate foul such as shirt pulling. Players would soon stop doing it.
However I would favour something more exciting like requiring 7 of the offending side's players to be in the opposition penalty area when any free kick is taken.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spurlock
PowerSpurs said:
Well on a reductio ad absurdum you could award a goal to the opposition and a red card for a deliberate foul such as shirt pulling. Players would soon stop doing it.
However I would favour something more exciting like requiring 7 of the offending side's players to be in the opposition penalty area when any free kick is taken.
Click to expand...

So much complication when a yellow card after the Fth
such foul will suffice (and I bet the average value per PL
game over a season is F = 1) .
 
The RDBD said:
So much complication when a yellow card after the Fth
such foul will suffice (and I bet the average value per PL
game over a season is F = 1) .
Click to expand...
Players deliberately take yellow cards to stop an attack because yellow cards have no immediate effect on the game. In fact if they have any effect at all it is very probably aiding a totally different team to the one that the offence is committed against. It is the yellow card system that is complex and encourages cheating, not the concept of actually making the foul pointless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spurlock
PowerSpurs said:
Players deliberately take yellow cards to stop an attack because yellow cards have no immediate effect on the game. In fact if they have any effect at all it is very probably aiding a totally different team to the one that the offence is committed against. It is the yellow card system that is complex and encourages cheating, not the concept of actually making the foul pointless.
Click to expand...

Perhaps a 'sin bin' approach akin to hockey or rugby would make things interesting, varied according to the severity of the yellow card. Robust but honest tackle that missed the ball would get 5mins whereas a cynical hack would get 10mins etc.

It would make things more interesting, greatly reduce niggling fouls being used by park-the-bus sides to delay and disrupt the rhythm of better sides and would also lead to far fewer teams taking tactical yellows in the closing minutes of games as they won't want to be down to 10 men in the moments leading up to full time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spurlock, remembercolinlee, Alfie Conn and 3 others
Citizen Kane. said:
Perhaps a 'sin bin' approach akin to hockey or rugby would make things interesting, varied according to the severity of the yellow card. Robust but honest tackle that missed the ball would get 5mins whereas a cynical hack would get 10mins etc.

It would make things more interesting, greatly reduce niggling fouls being used by park-the-bus sides to delay and disrupt the rhythm of better sides and would also lead to far fewer teams taking tactical yellows in the closing minutes of games as they won't want to be down to 10 men in the moments leading up to full time.
Click to expand...

I like this idea, but it falls down on the men currently making the decisions I mean does anyone trust lets say Oliver to sinbin a Liverpool player in the last 10 minutes of a match if the match is in the balance?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spurlock, remembercolinlee and Citizen Kane.
PowerSpurs said:
Players deliberately take yellow cards to stop an attack because yellow cards have no immediate effect on the game. In fact if they have any effect at all it is very probably aiding a totally different team to the one that the offence is committed against. It is the yellow card system that is complex and encourages cheating, not the concept of actually making the foul pointless.
Click to expand...

Not true.

The Citeh foul, as you see it done, is an attempt to
spread that type of foul across a team, with the intent
being that no one player commits that type of foul
more than once.

If every player after the Fth foul of that type starts
getting yellow cards, you now set the clock running on
the game (especially if committed early on and your
tackling prowess is already a yellow card magnet) .
and the season tally for automatic match suspension.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back