*Official* English Football Season 2013-14

[sledger]

Can see both sides of the wider debate but I agree with Uppercut on the red in the box thing. Deny a clear goalscoring opportunity in the box and they get a clear goalscoring opportunity anyway, so what you've done is actually not deny a clear goalscoring opportunity at all. Deny a clear goalscoring opportunity on the half way line (the Torres example vs Barcelona works here), and you only give away a free-kick so there is a clear advantage gained.

There's no way of knowing that had Oscar not been fouled it actually would have led to a clear goalscoring opportunity though. He might have been tackled or just tripped up or something.

 

[Tom Halsey]

There's no way of knowing that had Oscar not been fouled it actually would have led to a clear goalscoring opportunity though. He might have been tackled or just tripped up or something.

Yeah I haven't even seen it so I'm not intending to get involved in the wider debate.

 

[GIMH]

Accidental fouls in the box that deny goalscoring opportunities always result in goals though. It's not really denying a goal scoring opportunity if you let them take a free kick from 12 yards with no defenders anywhere. It's completely different to a deliberate foul when a player is through on goal, which results in a free kick with 15+ players behind the ball suddenly.

So when Suarez handled it on the line in the World Cup should he have not been sent off? (Different rule with it being handball and I'm being obtuse but you see my point)

If it's a clear opportunity to score and it's a foul, you should walk. If a player has the ball on the halfway line and is practically static, that's not really a clear opportunity to score.

 

[GIMH]

What about whether it's deliberate or not?

Yeah can have some sympathy with this, but you take your chances in those situations knowing the risks.

We saw it in the Mersey derby; Suarez is through and with the game lost the Everton defender doesn't go to ground - if it's 0-0 with 20 to go you can bet he does.

 

[Cabinet96]

So when Suarez handled it on the line in the World Cup should he have not been sent off? (Different rule with it being handball and I'm being obtuse but you see my point)

If it's a clear opportunity to score and it's a foul, you should walk. If a player has the ball on the halfway line and is practically static, that's not really a clear opportunity to score.

Yeah, like I said with my last post, I think whether or not it's deliberate should definitely play a role. It just ****s me a bit when things like the Danny Rose incident last week occur. Basically killed the game by giving City a goal and sending Rose off just because his tackle was mistimed.

 

[sledger]

Yeah I haven't even seen it so I'm not intending to get involved in the wider debate.

Fair enough, but I believe what I'm saying is applicable in a general sense too, not just in the immediate context.

I mean, if we are to accept that a player fouled on the halfway line has been denied a "clear goalscoring opportunity" we are supposing that either (a) said player is capable of smashing the ball in from 45-50 yards out, or (b) that the player would unquestionably have made his way into a position where he would have had a clear goalscoring opportunity had he not been fouled.

I would suggest that in the majority of circumstances, most players are not capable of doing (a), and there is no way of making a proper judgment in respect of (b).

 

[Tom Halsey]

So when Suarez handled it on the line in the World Cup should he have not been sent off? (Different rule with it being handball and I'm being obtuse but you see my point)

Personally I think there should be a distinction made between certain goal (ie beyond all reasonable doubt) and clear goal-scoring opportunity. Denying certain goals should be a red, the logic being similar to before that a penalty is not a certain goal so there is an advantage gained that needs to be redressed.

 

[GIMH]

Personally I think there should be a distinction made between certain goal (ie beyond all reasonable doubt) and clear goal-scoring opportunity. Denying certain goals should be a red, the logic being similar to before that a penalty is not a certain goal so there is an advantage gained that needs to be redressed.

Fair

 

[sledger]

Personally I think there should be a distinction made between certain goal (ie beyond all reasonable doubt) and clear goal-scoring opportunity. Denying certain goals should be a red, the logic being similar to before that a penalty is not a certain goal so there is an advantage gained that needs to be redressed.

In principle I agree, but if wording like the bit in bold were to be inserted into the rules it'd surely prove to be an absolute nightmare. The subjective nature of this sort of thing would lead to a manner of inconsistencies, and so in practice I'd be very concerned about how it could be applied with any assurance.

 

[Tom Halsey]

In principle I agree, but if wording like the bit in bold were to be inserted into the rules it'd surely prove to be an absolute nightmare. The subjective nature of this sort of thing would lead to a manner of inconsistencies, and so in practice I'd be very concerned about how it could be applied with any assurance.

Yeah it's probably bad wording, was just using it to try and get across what I meant. There are loads of laws in football which require the referee's subjective judgement though, the handball law for instance. Some subjectivity is unavoidable really.

 

[Pothas]

This is boring now, title race is more interesting.

City really should win those next 6 games but you never know, massive game for Arsenal on Saturday.

 

[sledger]

Yeah it's probably bad wording, was just using it to try and get across what I meant. There are loads of laws in football which require the referee's subjective judgement though, the handball law for instance. Some subjectivity is unavoidable really.

Yeah, I agree, I think there's going to be instances of this sort of thing in most sports really, I think these sorts of things should be kept to a minimum though. As you say, there are enough of these sorts of rules in football already without inviting refs to make split second decisions as to whether they think something that's just happened would more likely than not have led to a goal were it not for X incident.

 

[grecian]

So Joe Kinnear has resigned, one of the more bizarre interludes in modern football.

 

[sledger]

But Joe, why now? Why not twenty years ago?

 

[Jarquis]

Some Arsenal fan actually wanted City to win?

Chelsea are pretty bang average and I think a home victory here for City would've done ridiculous things for them. Was the best result IMO.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Yep, still City. What did I tell all of you last week.

 

[GIMH]

Some Arsenal fan actually wanted City to win?

Chelsea are pretty bang average and I think a home victory here for City would've done ridiculous things for them. Was the best result IMO.

Bang average? Nope

 

[Uppercut]

Surely Marcuss can't have watched the game, to still be saying that.

 

[grecian]

No sleep at all last night, so ignore me if I post more bollox than normal.

Yet, I do think Chelsea have a definite problem with killing off teams, which may hurt them even more in the coming weeks. They really should have put Citeh away, but in the end it needed a good save from Cech, and even on the final kick of the game Dzeko had a chance, which he hilariously miscued.

 

[Pothas]

Yeah I think it is a fair point, yesterday was the best I have seen Chelsea play in years but City could still have got a point out of it.

Said it yesterday but Chelsea look so much better with Matic and Luiz, Hazard is becoming somewhat sickeningly good as well. I still think City will win the league but Chelsea (and Arsenal may well come above them as well) but they are much better now than I thought they were at the start of the season.