You do hear a lot of pundits make comments along the lines of... "he had every right to go down as there was contact" Personally the whole idea that any (minimal) contact can be utilised to fall like a sack of spuds is what annoys me most.. especially as players are very rarely awarded fouls for trying to stay on their feet when they do get clipped but stumble a couple of steps later.. i.e. being too honest
KOPR we have to be honest here and say that if Dids was clipped in the penalty box no matter how slight contact was made WE would all want him to go down! Any Striker worth his salt will go down and then give the referee a decision to make!
This sums up the frustration amongst genuine football fans...if a player is "clipped" (as you put it), and the contact was not enough for him to have fallen, but then decides to "go down" - then that is blatantly cheating - regardless of if there was contact or not. Thats why (i think) a lot of fans detested Ronaldo so much..it's not the fact that there was no contact (as the majority of times there was) it's the over-simulating and going to ground deliberatley, and conning the ref. Now, if a sin-bin eradicates this behaviour, then i'm all for it - anything to show up the players' deliberate cheating has to be given a chance.
That is my point hawky, we have players going down after only being brushed and they are getting penalties. I'm old school, i don't get this tackling with excessive force ****, if you win the ball and clear a player out at the same time it sends a message to the attacker that he is in for a hard time, but when you have 2 players running side by side and the attacker falls over it ****s me right off. Re-handball, you try running, jumping to block a cross with your hand beside you, it can't be done and wingers know this and play for it. and don't even get me started on offside!
Offside rule? Right. Get the ketchup, the brown sauce and the salt and I'll explain it the way my Dad explained it to me in 1981.
This is what really annoys me and infact does encourage diving, because a player falls over in the box and there is contact doesn't mean that is a penalty but then you see a player who is obviously fouled in the penalty area but stays on their feet and gets nothing. To me that encourages diving. As does as I said before the last man rule and raising the arms. Football players need to learn to show the respect of Rugby players but by the same token as I've said some of the rules in football really don't help. Similarly IMO sometimes there doesn't need to be contact for it to be a foul, if someone sticks a leg out and you have to hurdle it they miss you and the ball but it either causes you to lose your balance or lose posession then surely that should be a foul?
We might need a different Fifa and one which is more democratic (whatever that’s supposed to mean in the context of world football), more respected and behaves better, but why in the name of spam do we want one that does more? It’s Fifa’s constant fannying around to justify its own existence (along with those other layers of bureaucracy: Uefa and their other big-girl’s-blouse regional counterparts) which causes this mess of rules and reg’s and boneheaded decisions like awarding the World Cup to Qatar on the altar of “spreading the word” (not to mention brown envelopes). Then there’s awarding the World Cup to Russia as “they wanted to give it to someone who’d never had a major tournament before”, thus admitting they’d wasted the time of England, Iberia and Belgium/Holland who were evidently always out of the running on that basis. A better leader would be nice, but the iron law of bureaucracy states that all large organisations create the necessary work and rules to justify their existences, which in turn create more rules, regulations, stipulations, diktats, committees and employees to administrate and perpetuate it. Make it better but for chrissake get it do a whole lot less. Preferably abolish it. It was the idea of a Frenchman in the 1920s who wanted to organise World Cup and has since grown into a largely pointless monster bent on global footballing rule. Who do they think they are, might I ask?
Everyone knows that if the Mayonnaise is in between the Ketchup and the HP it is clearly interfering and must be deemed Offside!
Its a ****ing joke! explain to me, how its ok for a centre forward to be in the opposite side of the pitch in an offside position and he is classed as not interferring, yet its ok for defender in the same position to play somebody onside! either that side of pitch is active or not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! its a ****ing joke! Also, if the ball is played down the right hand side and a centre forward is 5 yards ahead of the defender on the other side, he has a five yard headstart to get in position for the cross that will come in, so surely he is gaining an advantage! ITS A ****ING JOKE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Discuss, the recent Newcastle v Man City game when a crackerjack of a goal for newcastle was dissalowed for offside although it appeared that the offending player was trying to make at least a half arsed attempt to move away from the ball/goal thus attempting to not interfer. Many thought the goal should have stood, although Joe Hart must have been aware/distracted at the point the shot was struck of the player offside, although ultimatly I do not think any keeper would have got near the ball. I am still undecided as to if the ref made the correct decision or not.!
But don't you think there must have at least 1 man city player whose position altered because of the player, therefore the newcastle player was interferring with play.
My old PE teacher (who also refereed & occasionally Lino'd our matches) had the mantra: "If they're on the field, then they are interfering with play" probably just to make his life a bit easier but always thought there could be some value in that As for Newcastle goal, I'm pretty sure the angle shows that the only players in Hart's line of sight were his own team mates... Also as a professional footballer having a player stood 6 yards away shouldn't make any difference to his judgement as he will be used to that having played 100's of matches... I think they were clutching at straws by berating the linesman & Ref and got a lucky 'get out of jail free card' in having it disallowed
