Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Official Soccer Thread
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 11 of 45 (697976)
05-02-2013 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by CoolBeans
05-01-2013 11:53 AM


Don't worry - you have here at least one football fan!
I really hope FC Barcelona goes to the finals.
Surely even yesterday when you posted this you knew that there was no realistic chance of it happening. The current Bayern team are not only excellent, but they are far better defensively than Barca. The chance that Barca could manage four goals against that defense was incredibly slim; the chance they had of doing so without conceding at least one on the break was so slim as to be not worth mentioning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by CoolBeans, posted 05-01-2013 11:53 AM CoolBeans has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by vimesey, posted 05-02-2013 9:28 AM caffeine has replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 13 of 45 (697981)
05-02-2013 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by vimesey
05-02-2013 9:28 AM


Bayern have been superb, and had what was needed against Barca. Dortmund have a much better chance I reckon - they know Bayern better.
They knew them better all season, but that didn't stop them losing to Bayern in the Pokar or the German Super Cup.
Still, I'm not even going to hazard a prediction for the final. Anything can happen in one game, and Bayern managed to lose to a ten-man Chelsea last year, so who knows.
My heart wants Dortmund to win it, but my wallet reminds me that I have money on Bayern.
----
Seeing as this is a debate forum, if we're going to have a thread on football, shouldn't we bring up something controversial like Financial Fair Play?
If you'll allow me to step on my soapbox for a minute, I'm of the opinion that this is one of the most poorly thought through initiatives I've come across in a long time. If the aim is, as claimed, to provide a level playing field for clubs, then it is doomed to miserable failure.
There are a few clubs in Europe whose names are already massive global brands - Bayern, United, Liverpool, Barcelona etc. will be completely untroubled by these regulations, since their revenue from merchandising is colossal.
At the moment, it's still possible for a Manchester City to be bought by a multibillionaire willing to throw cash at the club, and thus raise the funds to compete with the likes of Man Utd. If clubs are forced to not spend more than their revenue, that option is gone. The big clubs with guaranteed revenue will still spend as much as they do now; but the middling clubs will no longer be able to afford it. The chance of an 'outsider' winning a major tournament will become less and less, and thus their abilit y to get noticed by all the millions in Thailand or Brazil who buy their merchandise is reduced. It will do nothing but create a entrenched European elite that cannot be changed bar a miracle.
The only way to level the playing field is absolute caps on transfer fees and wages. It's very simple.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by vimesey, posted 05-02-2013 9:28 AM vimesey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by vimesey, posted 05-02-2013 10:24 AM caffeine has not replied
 Message 15 by CoolBeans, posted 05-02-2013 11:45 AM caffeine has replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 26 of 45 (698105)
05-03-2013 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by CoolBeans
05-02-2013 11:45 AM


I would like to know more about the FFP. So you can only spen as much as you gain
The amount spent on transfer fees, wages, and all bonuses and benefits will not be allowed to exceed the amount you receive in gate receipts, advertising, merchandising, prize money, TV revenue and transfer fees.
So the big brands who can rake in far more money in sponsorship, merchandise sales and TV deals are likely to become an ossified elite at the top. Real and Barcelona already dominate Spain, where they have seperate TV deals from the rest of the league and a huge global brand to shift merchandise. The only possible way I can see that dominance undermined would be by a billionaire somewhere deciding he wanted to give Atletico or Valencia a huge pile of cash to enable them to compete. That will no longer be permitted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by CoolBeans, posted 05-02-2013 11:45 AM CoolBeans has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 27 of 45 (698106)
05-03-2013 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Dogmafood
05-02-2013 8:58 PM


I watched a movie called The Green Street Hooligans. It is about football fan violence in the UK and a rowdy bunch of guys who go around beating the shit out of people.
Green Street is a terrible film - a slightly better one on the same subject (with a great soundtrack) would be Football Factory.
Despite the reputation, however, English football violence is nowhere near as bad as it used to be. Some countries do still have big hooligan problems though - Russia and parts of the former Yugoslavia, for example.
It's just tribal violence, and it's nothing new. Supporters of the different teams of charioteers in early medieval Constantinople used to riot in the streets and murder each other. People aren't so bright.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Dogmafood, posted 05-02-2013 8:58 PM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 32 of 45 (698844)
05-10-2013 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by CoolBeans
05-08-2013 5:23 PM


Re: Alex Ferguson retires.
Do you think the new guy will be as successful as Fergie?
Fergie won the title 13 times. In the current Premiership, there's only one other manager who's been at the same club more than 13 years. The average Premiership manager spends less than four seasons at a club. I find it hard to believe that anyone will ever be as successful as Fergie again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by CoolBeans, posted 05-08-2013 5:23 PM CoolBeans has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 33 of 45 (698845)
05-10-2013 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by onifre
05-09-2013 9:23 AM


That's what I like, the tournament set up of the game, where it's a quick few weeks to a championship. Plus I'll admit there's a little nationalsim to it.
I guess you're thinking of the World Cup. Proper football tournaments take almost a year.
On the boring aspect, if you want to watch football played better than you see it in international tournaments, you should watch things like the Champions League. Sure, you can still sometimes get boring games, but it's generally much more exciting that a World Cup (excluding all the festival atmosphere you get around a big international tournament).
The top clubs in Europe are picked from the best players in the world and, more importantly, they're a bunch of players who play together and train together all year round, under the same coach. An international team, by contrast, if a bunch of players hobbled together who only meet to train sporadically, and who (outside the big tournaments), only play an average of about one game a month.
Barcelona-Bayern Munich is almost always going to be a better game than Spain-Germany.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by onifre, posted 05-09-2013 9:23 AM onifre has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 36 of 45 (699002)
05-13-2013 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by AZPaul3
05-11-2013 6:25 PM


I take it from all this Fergie fella talk that in the game of succer the word "manager" is some strange disambulation of what would in more enlightened sports properly be called a "head coach". And I take it that this Sir Fergie fella was considered a somewhat successful head manager coach guy.
Football's done a bit differently to most American sports. The manager is something of an autocrat - he handles training, decides the team's tactics, picks the players and is in charge of buying and selling players (though the amount of leeway a manager gets can vary depending on who owns the club).
The rest of your post is slightly confusing, but Fergie's side have, sadly enough, been either the highest or second-highest scoring team in the Premiership every year for the last eight seasons.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by AZPaul3, posted 05-11-2013 6:25 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 39 of 45 (837119)
07-27-2018 5:45 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Percy
07-26-2018 8:17 PM


Re: Tactics and Rules Questions
Why were Uruguayans allowed in the line?
Because every player has the right to his place on the pitch (to quote the official rules). Meaning that a Uruguayan player has every right to go and stand where the Russians want to place their line; and there's nothing the Russians can do about it. It's standard for attacking players to try and occupy space that would be useful for a defensive line to make holes in it; or to block the keeper's line of sight.
The only restriction on where players can stand during a free kick is that no Russian is allowed to stand within 10 yards of the spot the freekick is being taken from (nowadays referees often use the spray foam to mark a ten yard line). And of course if a Uruguayan is standing in an offside position it would be not be possible to pass the ball to them
How many offensive players are allowed in the line?
All of them, if they felt like (minus the one actually taking the free kick).
Where are offensive players allowed to be in the line?
Anywhere at least ten yards from the ball (see above).
Why was the pushing by the Russian legal? How much pushing is legal anway?
Ah - now the difficult question.
The laws of football do not explicitly forbid pushing an opponent. They do mention that pushing an opponent to prevent a clear goal-scoring opportunity is an immediate red card offense. They also say that pushing an opponent in a manner considered to be careless, reckless or using excessive force is an offence. 'Careless', 'reckless' and 'using excessive force' are all explicitly defined in the rules, but in such a way that it is in no sense easy to distinguish between them.
So there is considerable room for interpretation on this point, and different referees come to different conclusions. There is a school of thought that no pushing at all should be allowed. After all, as mentioned above 'every play has the right to his position on the pitch'; which clearly implies to me that it's not permissible to forcibly move a player from where they're standing, as the Russian defender does in this clip. It's also an offence to impede the movement of a player with contact. To my mind the above two rules would make it clearly illegal to push players, but this is not commonly enforced so strictly.
Why did the Russian push the Uruguayans given that it made the line three players narrower, even though it gave his goalie a better view?
You've answered your own question. The keeper couldn't see where the ball was coming from. The defender tried to clear his line of sight before the shot (clear foul, in my opinion, but irrelevant in this case since it was a goal).
Also, during the World Cup I saw a heck of a lot of jersey grabbing, much of it forceful and blatant, and very few fouls called. I don't understand why so much jersey grabbing is permitted.
Unlike a bit of pushing, where there is room for interpretation, pulling is always a clear and unequivocal foul. It frustrates me enormously that it is so weakly enforced.
quote:
A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences:
(...)
holds an opponent
  —"The Laws of the Game"
I don't see what lack of clarity there is there. Are referees taking the view that holding someone's shirt is not the same as holding an opponent?
This is not the only rule that is inconsistently or never enforced. How many times in the world cup did you see players surrounding the referee, shouting at him and arguing? Let's look how the rules define 'dissent' - which by the rules is always a yellow card offence:
quote:
Public disagreement (verbal and/or physical) with a match official’s decision
Shouting at the referee that he's got it wrong is a yellow card offence - no ifs or buts, no leeway or room for interpretation. It strikes me that if the rules were actually followed most of the players at the last world cup would have been sent off.
Incidentally - the enforcement of rules is not the same at all levels of football. Referees often seem to be laxest on things like dissent at the highest levels; while different leagues and countries tend to develop very different interpretations of things like 'excessive force'. When it comes to events like the World Cup I think referees are directed from on high to be lax - the big money sponsors don't want the guy they signed a multi-million dollar sponsorship deal with to miss half the tournament thanks to being sanctioned for something petty like dissent. Personally I think it ruins the game, and makes football a bit of a laughing stock among people who only tune in every four years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Percy, posted 07-26-2018 8:17 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Percy, posted 07-27-2018 8:44 AM caffeine has replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 42 of 45 (837336)
07-30-2018 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Percy
07-27-2018 8:44 AM


Re: Tactics and Rules Questions
I understand the reason behind defensive players having to be ten yards from the ball, but why the offensive players since the closer they are to the ball the further they are from the goalie?
Sorry - I was muddling myself. Offensive players can stand wherever they like.
Since every player has a right to his place on the pitch, in a set play, especially a free kick like this one where the defense really needs to create a line of its own players, how do opposing players settle who gets a place they both want?
They push and shove each other (against the rules) as you have observed.
Had they not been pushed, what were the Uruguayans planning to do? Step aside to create a clearer shot? If so, then why did the Russian help them step to the side by pushing them since that's what the Uruguayans wanted anyway? Plus the Russian vacated his own spot in the line, which would have been occupied had he done nothing (not that it mattered since the ball passed through the line where the Uruguayans had been).
They would most likely have run to the side, yes; but could also have jumped in case they had agreed in advance that Suarez would play the ball along the ground. Risky if timed poorly, though.
You seem to feel that if the free kick attempt had not ended up as a goal that the referee would have been justified calling a foul on the Russian player. Since the foul would have been in the box wouldn't that have been a penalty kick? If so, why would the Russian risk it? Was he actually risking nothing since the ref knew the Uruguayans wanted to move to the side anyway, and so wouldn't call a foul?
And would it be correct to say that whether Russians get called for a foul for pushing Uruguayans that it would depend upon the refs interpretation of Uruguayan intent?
I don't know the exact thought processes of the defender - but as you have observed referees do not often penalise this type of play, so it becomes normalised (and players start screaming and shouting when they are penalised).
I'm not sure I follow why Uruguayan intent is relevant.
Some of the holding I saw in the box that wasn't called was extreme, sometimes very much like a bear hug. Do refs tend to ignore fouls when there's no harm (in the run of play) or injury?
I think referees are counselled to let a bit of pushing and pulling slide during set pieces. Back in 2016 they started trying to enforce the rules more strictly on this in the Premiership, and there was a lot of negative criticism.
Interestingly - I downloaded a copy of the most recent rules to check I'm getting things right, and I have just been reading the 'guidelines' section. These are not technically part of the rules, but are advice to referees on how to interpret them from the official rule-making body. The official guidelines clearly do not encourage lenience in these cases. To clarify the meaning of the below, 'caution' does not mean 'warn' - it means give a yellow card.
quote:
3. Holding an opponent
Referees are reminded to make an early intervention and to deal firmly with holding offences, especially inside the penalty area at corner kicks and free kicks. To deal with these situations:
the referee must warn any player holding an opponent before the ball is in play
caution the player if the holding continues before the ball is in play
award a direct free kick or penalty kick and caution the player if it happens once the ball is in play
One of the reasons Americans find boring baseball so intriguing is because the interplay of the rules causes so many interesting situations. It's beginning to seem to me that the same is true of soccer, though there's a more interpretational aspect to it.
The main problem with the rules of football is that a lot of it comes down to interpretation. They introduced goal-line technology to avoid referee mistakes over whether the ball had crossed the line; since that's a physical fact that requires to be determined - not interpreted.
But there's no technology that can determine the correct decision most of the time. Take the concept of 'denial of an goal-scoring opportunity'. Whether a foul prevents an obvious goal-scoring opportunity matters to decide the correct sanction to apply; but the rules do not actually define 'obvious goal-scoring opportunity', and it strikes me as a very subjective concept. At school we always used the rule of thumb that a foul by the 'last man' (meaning there are no defensive players between the one commiting the foul and the goal - except the keeper) was always DOGSO; but is that really the case if you're out wide and very close to the goal line?
Even more difficult is that a lot of the rules require to referee to determine a player's intent. It's only an offence to handle the ball, for example, if you do so intentionally. Another rule of thumb used here is the concept of 'ball to hand' - if the ball moves towards the hand instead of the hand towards the ball it's not a foul (so you can't intentionally force a penalty by kicking the ball at a defender's arm). But it's not that simple; since in practice there are 'ball to hand' situations that are clear handballs. If a defender stands on the goal line with arms outstretched before the shot comes in, and the ball hits them, that's an obvious handball since they had clearly placed their hands in such a position in the hope that it might block a shot - the intent was to handball. But often it's not so obvious; and the rules nowhere mention whether a player should be making active effort to ensure that their arms do not contact the ball (often they do when defending free kicks and the like - if the arms are held directly in front of the torso while you're standing in a wall then you can't reasonably call handball).
Sorry, I went on too long about that. I just don't like to see aspects of the fakery of pro wrestling on the soccer field.
To be honest, I don't really understand it. Going down easy makes sense - the intent is to call the referee's attention to the fact that you've been fouled and don't see an advantage to playing on or, more cynically, to give the impression you've been fouled when you haven't. But the overacting and rolling around on the floor is a mystery. What matters from the point of view of the referee is what the player committing the foul actually did, not whether or not it hurt. Why feign pain? Do players think referee's will overlook them falling over without the histrionics? Do they think referees actually believe their childishly poor play-acting?
And I think it can backfire - once a player has developed enough of a reputation for obvious fakery it seems to me that referees give their opponents the benefit of the doubt. This happened to Arjen Robben later in his career - I saw many actual fouls which were clear sat at home with the slow-motion replay; but which the ref ignored because he just saw Robben rolling on the floor when he lost the ball in the final third again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Percy, posted 07-27-2018 8:44 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Percy, posted 07-30-2018 2:58 PM caffeine has replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 45 of 45 (837348)
07-30-2018 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Percy
07-30-2018 2:58 PM


Re: Tactics and Rules Questions
Thanks for all the info. About hand balls, all of what you said made sense to me, but it reminded me of one of the World Cup games where an offensive and a defensive player both leapt up to head a ball in the box, the offensive player behind the defensive player and all their arms akimbo. The offensive player leapt higher and headed the ball down into the defensive players arm. The ref called nothing, but there was a VAR review, after which a hand ball was called. The penalty kick was successful and the game ended in a tie when it seemed like it should have been a win for the other team. I can only guess that the ref thought he detected that the defensive player had positioned his arm purposefully.
Funnily enough, one of the things I was just reading in the latest edition of the rules was the guidance for using the VAR. When using the video to assess questions of fact (ie. was the foul just inside the penalty area or just outside it?) officials are directed to watch the replay in slow motion. When using it to judge questions of intent, however (ie. was the handball deliberate) they should watch the replays at full speed, so they're accurately taking into account how much time players had to consciously react to a situation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Percy, posted 07-30-2018 2:58 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024