It would make teams that take the lead more defensive and actually encourage more dull games. If you went 1-0 up and then sat on it for most of the game, then the worst that you'd probably be looking at would be 2 points.
True, but I imagine you wouldn't have bothered crossing the halfway line after going 1-0 up under Graham, if this rule was introduced. It would encourage more teams to play in a cagey, defensive way, especially as going a goal down could see you come out worse, even in the case of an away draw.
I see your point, but we can break down defences and play through them with the likes of Fabregas & Nasri in our te.........oh wait. Maybe not such a good idea for next season!!!
I'm always in a good mood, but obnoxious pretenders like Ensil do take the edge off at times. He grates like that noise you hear when someone drags their nails down a blackboard.
...but I am anti PC. Assuming PC stands for Prize **** (you) I can give a link to this 100% trustworthy source if you'd like? ...thought not. Just you telling more lies
They're called 'dry wipe boards' nowadays ------------------------------------------------------------- So whats an Arsewipe?
It's interesting that nobody proposed any rule changes to the game. So are we all happy with the rules? Offside/Diving/Card system?
I said referees should take responsibility, which in turn would make them more likely to realise that if the likes of Gerrard, Rooney, Drogba, Lampard et al fall over in the penalty area in stoppage time when their team isn't winning, it might just be a dive...
I'm not happy with 'simulation' or the current use of the offside system, but if I were only given one change, then I'd prioritise the people running it. I don't like the current way that injuries are dealt with, the offside rule is implemented, the cowardly lack of decisions by the 5th and 6th officials in European games, time-wasting or the way that officials are intimidated both on- and off-pitch. If a player goes down injured then just carry on and let the physio come on, unless it's a bad one, in which case the player should have to go off for at least 5 minutes. If a player is shown to have dived, then he should be banned for 3 games, using post-match reviews. Mic up the refs and only allow the captain of each time to talk to them, as in rugby. Go back to a more strict offside rule, where a player is interfering if he's gaining an advantage from being in that position, with 'phases of play' being irrelevant. Dock points if a manager comes out with Ferguson-esque rants about refs. Make any ref given this kind of abuse take charge of MORE games for that club. I could go on all day, to be honest!
That's one thing I've never been able to understand - if a player has a reputation for diving, as many have over the years, why don't referees take this into account when they hit the deck when their team need an equaliser/winner? Surely it's common sense, but instead they point to the spot whilst they're still in flight.
Because they take into account the amount of abuse that they'll get from a certain club's manager and how many games they'll spend in the Championship if they're wrong, Croydon!
Referees are supposed to make a decision based on the incident in question and nothing else That's the answer you get from ex-referees when asked
I know a lower league referee Colonel and I can assure you that, while they'd like to act in that manner, they're aware that they don't. Graham Poll wrote an insightful article about how referees can be influenced in the Daily Mail. Yeah, I really did just write that sentence! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...Poll-reveals-secrets-footballs-dark-arts.html
Graham Poll wrote an insightful article about how referees can be influenced in the Daily Mail. If the Daily Mail is influencing referees it is no wonder they make poor decisions. Boom Boom!
