Off Topic Bill Nicholson Arms

I didn't book the swan early enough, so it wasn't available. Think it was on lunch or something.

 

So for a corner you could have a player sat on another player's shoulders? (Managed to spell "sat" correctly, very important.)

 

The laws don't specifically say you can't, but I would think that the referee would consider this to be dangerous play.

 

Swanning about

 

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.

 

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.

 

Professionalisation has killed that concept in most modern sports. Too much money and prestige involved.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

Ok a corner then

 

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 ).

 

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.

 

That's not quite right. If the penalty was sufficiently harsh no-one would be committing a deliberate foul in the first place so the refs would have nothing to be inconsistent about

 

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) .

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

might as well just introduce the team foul rule ala basketball .