Football's a simple game and I don't think attempts to make teams more "sporting" would be successful. FIFA brought in a new rule to try and stop teams unfairly scoring from drop balls after an injury, long story short it didn't work. Does it really infuriate the crowd? Probably only the one supporting the losing team. I feel like a team kind of earns the right to hold possession and defend by being ahead in the first place.
Nothing necessarily, but denying them the ball in an unsporting way is unsportsmanlike. That's up to the referee's judgement. How do the officials determine when a player deliberately handles the ball? Not really, but I don't suppose they're bothered if the goalkeeper waits five minutes before taking a goal kick either. He still gets booked for it because it's considering unsporting. It's up to the referee's judgement to decide to if it is intentional or not. In the case you describe I suspect they would decide it was not. But it becomes very obviously intentional were the player to turn his back to the play and make no attempt to wait for support. Implying that I'm because I frown on timewasting I would frown on a defensive formation really does nothing for your argument.
No ****. That doesn't really answer my question now does it? What is unsportsmanlike about shielding the ball in the corner? They don't. An accidental handball is still a handball if the player doesn't have his arms by his side or behind his back. There are clear rules for when it's handball and when it isn't. The fact that refs can't always see the incident clearly is the problem. The ball is out of play during a goal kick. Big difference. The time he wastes is added on at the end, but supporters and officials don't want to be waiting around, and they want the game to be finished as close to the predicted time as possible so the rules exists to prevent ridiculous amounts of stoppage time. In my eyes, there is nothing more unsporting about shielding the ball in the corner than playing a defensive formation. Both are strategies designed to see the game out, and prioritise not conceding over scoring. When the player turns his back to shield the ball, he is not obstructing the ball. If he is, there are already rules which exist to penalise him. The time wasting never lasts more than a few seconds, because two defenders team up on him and either poke the ball away, out of play or concede a free kick. It's not pretty, but it's not unfair.
Well that wasn't what you asked, you asked what was wrong with denying your opponent the ball, and I did answer that question. It's unsportsmanlike for the same reason all the other things considered unsportsmanlike are unsportsmanlike. Audibly farting during a penalty kick is enough to get you a yellow card according to a "you are the ref" I once read. The point is it's circumventing the spirit, if not the letter, of the law, in exactly the same way taking your time over substitutions and so on is. And besides that it ruins the spectacle. You want to see both teams contesting the match until the final whistle, not giving up after 85 minutes and simply wrestling over the ball for the remainder of the game. We kept the ball for long periods against City simply by accurately passing and moving. So it's not like banning holding the ball in the corner would materially disadvantage any team. You can still waste time in a positive way by playing the game. This is not true. The law states "a player (other than the goalkeeper within his own penalty area) may not handle the ball deliberately". That's it. If a referee decides that by having his arm in a position where the ball is likely to strike it he is deliberately handling the ball then that's his prerogative. But it does not say anything like that in the rules. No they don't. The law exists to prevent players indulging "in tactics, which in the opinion of the referee, are designed to hold up the game and thus waste time and so give an unfair advantage to his own team". I don't see how that applies any less to timewasting during play than it does to extending stoppages. The key points here are, again, "in the opinion of the referee", and "an unfair advantage". Nowhere does it say anything about preventing long periods of stoppage time from being added. I don't share this opinion. Playing defensively still means you have to defend your goal, and it is far from impossible to score against a defensively-minded team. If you don't have the means to defend your goal so you indulge in timewasting then you are gaining an advantage unfairly in my opinion. Just because it's not currently banned doesn't mean it shouldn't be. I didn't make any mention of obstructing the ball. To say that it never lasts longer than a few seconds is I'm afraid inaccurate. It can last for a considerable amount of time, particularly when the 'attacking' player gets a throw-in, wastes some time over the throw-in, then repeats the process ad nauseum. I have seen this happen. Basically, this idea is no more controversial than some of the rules we already have. It's an unpleasant feature of the game which has developed, much like simulation, in order to give your side an unfair advantage, and it strikes me as indefensible really.
I'm also with Joe. PTF, IMO you are being a bit too forceful in putting your point across. You may start pissing people off if you keep on being too forceful. I think you're a good poster, but sometimes you do slightly annoy me. Like now.
It's your right to disagree with me, but how exactly am I being "too forceful"? I'm merely answering the questions that have been asked.
Let's try and focus on the points rather than the tone of the debate, because that just ends in petty arguments bogged down in semantics. Besides, I'm not so sensitive that I'm going to get upset by some silly little jabs.
Just to add I think timewasting when the ball is out of play is unsporting. When the ball is actually in play there is no such thing as time wasting imo. It's just retaining possession which is part of football. Surprised one would think retaining possession would be unsporting. Obviously if you go to the corner and try to win throw ins and corners which you then take an eternity over taking then then it becomes pretty unsporting. But whilst the ball is actually in play it's not unsporting at all for me
That seems reasonable. But what if you were to completely enclose the ball by positioning your body over the top of it (a bit like the Swansea ball boy)? The ball is technically still in play, and there's no way your opponents can get it without fouling you. Taking the ball into the corner is not quite that extreme obviously, but it's essentially similar.
There are rules against that, are there not? Shielding the ball in the corner makes it a challenge for defenders, but it's not impossible for them to win the ball if you're playing within the rules. I personally think that, if they were to change the rules at all, they should just allow players a little more freedom to jostle each other off ball without blowing for silly free kicks. I hate to see free kicks given for the slightest hint of aggression that was never enough to cause injury. I don't really see the harm in a little pushing and shoving.
In that circumstance the ref would probably penalise you for a. impeding, b. dangerous play, or c. another made up offense. Shielding the ball in the corner flag like we normally see is pretty much fine.
Yes, but what are they? It's not obstruction, or 'impeding the progress of an opponent' as it is now called, because the ball is "within playing distance": "Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the path of the opponent to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction by an opponent when the ball is not within playing distance of either player." A player who places himself between an opponent and the ball for tactical reasons has not committed an offence as long as the ball is kept in playing distance and the player does not hold off the opponent with his arms or body." So it must, I suppose, be considered unsporting behaviour. I agree, it's very inconsistent. You see the merest touches being penalised outside the box but you have to pretty much kill somebody to concede a penalty if you're defending a corner. The rules on obstruction say that if you're within playing distance of the ball you're allowed to charge your opponent, which probably means that you should be allowed to barge someone off the ball in this situation, and furthermore they're not allowed to hold you off with their arms or body, so in theory it should be very easy to regain possession but the referees rarely seem as keen to penalise the player in possession as they perhaps should be. I guess you're right, if they were, it probably wouldn't be an issue.
Interesting point.....is shielding the ball at the corner flag any different from say a goal keeper waisting time by going from one side of the goal to the other to take a goal kick? Or who maybe waits until one of the forwards who has run back to the halfway line expecting the goalkeeper to clear down field or at least pass it to one of his collegues, comes to challenge then they pick the ball up in the penalty area and hang on pretending they cannot kick it to any of their players. No you cannot call it unsporting, nor can you call it time wasting.......as it is not in breach of any rule or the spirit of he game. It is frustrating but it is the other teams responsibility to get that ball off you. What I do not like to see, which you see a lot at the corner flag is when the player with the ball is being held off or warded off by a stiff arm. Also they stick there ass out. I would suggest that using stiff arms to hold you away is a foul or to ward you off is a foul sticking your ass out to me is obstruction but they don't seem to blow for anything like that.
Yes, as the ball is not technically 'in play' until the goalkeeper kicks the ball. He's delaying the restart of play. This is a bookable offence. Keeping the ball in the corner whilst the game is judged to be 'in play', is not an offence.
Surely the key question to ask on this is, is Professional Football first and foremost a Sport or a form of Entertainment? In my opinion the answer to this question really shapes the answer to the question about shielding the ball in the corner. Thoughts?
