comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Kobbie The King Mainoo (U10026)
posted 13 minutes ago
I’d like to see indirect free kicks being given for cheap ‘fouls’ in the box rather than pens.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And handballs apart from goalsaving or obviously deliberate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes to both of the above
It is often the easier option to try and get a penalty than it is to try and go for goal. Rashford has perfected this over the years by running at the box with more intention of getting fouled than actually creating a goalscoring chance. May be being cynical but I am pretty sure many teams use this tactic and practice trying to get penalties in training.
It is easier to draw a foul from the opposition than it is to put the ball into the net. BUT the way football is, that foul then means goal. And that needs to change.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Kobbie The King Mainoo (U10026)
posted 13 minutes ago
I’d like to see indirect free kicks being given for cheap ‘fouls’ in the box rather than pens.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And handballs apart from goalsaving or obviously deliberate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think the rule about 'unnatural' positions is wrong in and of itself, but its application is god awful at times. Refs and VAR officials sometimes give the impression not only that they've never played football, but that they've never actually jumped.
Yeah I’m handballs in with cheap fouls, should have clarified.
It would be better if refs just applied sensible laws so that the punishment does fit the crime, as Barry says. I don’t see how. A player running away from goal, getting touched, then diving warrants almost a guaranteed goal. Same with the bullshiiiit handballs. Indirect free kicks could be a good solution if these priiiiicks still want to pretend that they’re fouls.
We need a variation of the below experiment to test fairness in football. We could use monkeys.
If the monkey has to do a certain task in order to receive a grape, but there is the other monkey in the cage next to him who has to do a much easier task in order to get the grape, the first monkey will see the unfairness and either start doing the easier task he sees the other monkey is doing or he will get pissssed off and start kicking off.
As Darren suggested, one monkey is actually having to put in a big effort to score a goal by let's say throwing a ball through a small hole which is difficult to do, in order to get the grape. The other monkey just needs to fall on the ground anywhere in his cage and he gets the same reward of a grape.
If monkeys don't stand for this level of unfairness then why should we?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg
Actually the below study looks into that so I don't really need to:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.0707182104
The conclusion is that giving an automatic goal for something like falling over when touched in the box is UNFAIR when compared with the effort levels required to actually score a goal directly. As proven with monkeys above.
Has anyone got FIFA's number?
The other monkey just needs to fall on the ground anywhere in his cage and he gets the same reward of a grape.
---
Correction.
He (Monkey 1) would have to fall down in the other Monkey's (Monkey 2) cage, at which point the is a high chance Monkey 2 would respond to the invasion of territory by attacking Monkey 1's exposed skrotum.
Yes, I think this should be trialled in football.
comment by Michael Mellon (U1734)
posted 1 minute ago
Actually the below study looks into that so I don't really need to:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.0707182104
The conclusion is that giving an automatic goal for something like falling over when touched in the box is UNFAIR when compared with the effort levels required to actually score a goal directly. As proven with monkeys above.
Has anyone got FIFA's number?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Al Thani, Mansour, Bent Salmon, and probably Boris.
The monkey experiment also shows that dissent is perfectly natural and shouldn't be punished with a blue card.
Although that could be the next phase of the experiment. Put the monkey in solitary confinement for a few minutes if it shows dissent to being given cucumber instead of a grape. Does the monkey then keep showing dissent or does the monkey accept the decision to only give him cucumber when the other monkey is getting grapes? Even though he sees it as completely unfair, does he simply just not complain due to the punishment or is it natural to still complain at the injustice? If the monkey still complains, we do not bring in blue cards, deal?
I for one do not see a 10 minute sin bin as being fair, simply for disagreeing with injustice.
Also, who would play each monkey's role?
I thought maybe Ronaldo could be the one throwing the tantrum, but also that he could be the one getting the easy tap-ins.
Also, who would play each monkey's role?
......
Gareth Bale obvs...
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 3 minutes ago
Also, who would play each monkey's role?
......
Gareth Bale obvs...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's on golf leave
id like the 6 yard box extended to 12 yards and have that be the new penalty area, indirect free kicks in the rest of the box
we had one against city a few seasons ago where Romero went to make a sliding block right on the corner of the box where it meets the byline, it hits his hand so city get a near guaranteed goal.
Maybe it should just go on the xG of the opportunity when the foul took place. As soon as you accumulate the equivalent to, let's say, 75% the xG of a penalty, then you get a penalty.
The reason you get it before you've accumulated the full xG equivalent of a penalty is that there has to be some kind of deterrent for the defender fouling his opponent.
This is guaranteed to be a huge success in Sunday League.
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 6 minutes ago
Maybe it should just go on the xG of the opportunity when the foul took place. As soon as you accumulate the equivalent to, let's say, 75% the xG of a penalty, then you get a penalty.
The reason you get it before you've accumulated the full xG equivalent of a penalty is that there has to be some kind of deterrent for the defender fouling his opponent.
This is guaranteed to be a huge success in Sunday League.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
75% seems a bit high. Even at 50% where half the time I'd score, I'd be wanting a penalty if a defender takes me out to stop my 50/50 chance. Maybe it could be used for deciding whether an automatic goal should be awarded instead of a penalty. If penalty conversion rate is 80% then it's not fair to award that instead of what would have been a goal 90%+ of the time.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 2 hours, 58 minutes ago
We need to strip back all these innovations that have stripped the game of its soul. It was fine when we just had a pig's bladder and the menfolk of two villages and left them to it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You go walk on your six toes to that particular brand of footy....the rest of us will see the game evolve
Also not a fan of using xG for anything other than short circuiting Hafi. Goals are individual events that are 1 or 0. You cannot accumulated lots of 10ths of goals to make a "goal".
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 40 minutes ago
Maybe it should just go on the xG of the opportunity when the foul took place. As soon as you accumulate the equivalent to, let's say, 75% the xG of a penalty, then you get a penalty.
The reason you get it before you've accumulated the full xG equivalent of a penalty is that there has to be some kind of deterrent for the defender fouling his opponent.
This is guaranteed to be a huge success in Sunday League.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Edin will be in heaven reading this.
comment by Jalisco Red - Gimme Hope Onana (U4195)
posted 6 hours, 44 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 39 minutes ago
comment by Jalisco Red - Gimme Hope Onana (U4195)
posted 6 minutes ago
It's just an utterly ridiculous, absurd idea for so many reasons.
I don't see how it can work with yellow cards still in place. It just seems extremely confusing to have both.
Who is to decide what is a cynical or tactical foul?
What if a player's teammates complain about his blue card? Do they all go and join him in the sin bin?
If a player commits a sinbinnable (even that word is stupid) offence inside the final ten minutes of a match, is his punishment automatically less costly, simply due to the time factor? Is he more likely to receive a yellow or red card for this reason?
Decisions like this make me seriously believe that there is a group of people who sit around a table (or, more likely, meet on Zoom) with the sole intention of figuring out new ways to ruin football.
Leave. The. Game. Alone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've watched several games where it has been tested and it's been very good.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've watched lots of games without blue cards and naughty steps, and many of them have been amazing
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And yet dissent remains a massive problem in the game.
Red Russian
The 'leave the game alone' people maybe aren't fully aware that at different levels of the sport there are different sets of rules.
---
That's an unnecessary bit of commentary. As someone who's never liked the var and has seen many effects on the game I don't enjoy coming to fruition that were easily predicted (many decisions being subjective so it's not effective or requires changing rules to suit technology) it's not helpful to imply that changes are necessarily good or that is wrong to be sceptical. Yes they're inevitable over time, but like the back pass rule and like goal line technology, they should improve the game.
Will blue cards improve the game? It's certainly possible if dissent and tactical fouls ruin it for you. But there's going to be a change in the way the game is played while teams are a man down. It seems likely teams will just park the bus and waste time. Then there's the realistic implementation. Just on this thread, there's the questions about goalkeepers getting blues, blues in the last few minutes.. refs still making mistakes.. tactical fouls are largely subjective.
If you really just wanted to stop dissent and tactical fouls there's a system in place already - make them red card offences.
comment by Kobbie The King Mainoo (U10026)
posted 2 hours, 45 minutes ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 40 minutes ago
Maybe it should just go on the xG of the opportunity when the foul took place. As soon as you accumulate the equivalent to, let's say, 75% the xG of a penalty, then you get a penalty.
The reason you get it before you've accumulated the full xG equivalent of a penalty is that there has to be some kind of deterrent for the defender fouling his opponent.
This is guaranteed to be a huge success in Sunday League.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Edin will be in heaven reading this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by Michael Mellon (U1734)
posted 3 hours, 17 minutes ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 6 minutes ago
Maybe it should just go on the xG of the opportunity when the foul took place. As soon as you accumulate the equivalent to, let's say, 75% the xG of a penalty, then you get a penalty.
The reason you get it before you've accumulated the full xG equivalent of a penalty is that there has to be some kind of deterrent for the defender fouling his opponent.
This is guaranteed to be a huge success in Sunday League.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
75% seems a bit high. Even at 50% where half the time I'd score, I'd be wanting a penalty if a defender takes me out to stop my 50/50 chance. Maybe it could be used for deciding whether an automatic goal should be awarded instead of a penalty. If penalty conversion rate is 80% then it's not fair to award that instead of what would have been a goal 90%+ of the time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If a the xG of a penalty is 0.8, then 75% of that would be a chance with an xG of 0.6.
Every team could have a Hafi-like assistant computing xG values in real time and telling defenders whether or not to put a boot in and forwards whether or nor to do down easily. This could be done via aynal beads, which have already proved to be a huge success in other sports.
BigAnge and Klopp not big fans of this idea either. Jusayin
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 2 hours, 53 minutes ago
comment by Kobbie The King Mainoo (U10026)
posted 2 hours, 45 minutes ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 40 minutes ago
Maybe it should just go on the xG of the opportunity when the foul took place. As soon as you accumulate the equivalent to, let's say, 75% the xG of a penalty, then you get a penalty.
The reason you get it before you've accumulated the full xG equivalent of a penalty is that there has to be some kind of deterrent for the defender fouling his opponent.
This is guaranteed to be a huge success in Sunday League.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Edin will be in heaven reading this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Someone explain
Blue cards
Page 5 of 20
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 9/2/24
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Kobbie The King Mainoo (U10026)
posted 13 minutes ago
I’d like to see indirect free kicks being given for cheap ‘fouls’ in the box rather than pens.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And handballs apart from goalsaving or obviously deliberate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes to both of the above
posted on 9/2/24
It is often the easier option to try and get a penalty than it is to try and go for goal. Rashford has perfected this over the years by running at the box with more intention of getting fouled than actually creating a goalscoring chance. May be being cynical but I am pretty sure many teams use this tactic and practice trying to get penalties in training.
It is easier to draw a foul from the opposition than it is to put the ball into the net. BUT the way football is, that foul then means goal. And that needs to change.
posted on 9/2/24
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Kobbie The King Mainoo (U10026)
posted 13 minutes ago
I’d like to see indirect free kicks being given for cheap ‘fouls’ in the box rather than pens.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And handballs apart from goalsaving or obviously deliberate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think the rule about 'unnatural' positions is wrong in and of itself, but its application is god awful at times. Refs and VAR officials sometimes give the impression not only that they've never played football, but that they've never actually jumped.
posted on 9/2/24
Yeah I’m handballs in with cheap fouls, should have clarified.
It would be better if refs just applied sensible laws so that the punishment does fit the crime, as Barry says. I don’t see how. A player running away from goal, getting touched, then diving warrants almost a guaranteed goal. Same with the bullshiiiit handballs. Indirect free kicks could be a good solution if these priiiiicks still want to pretend that they’re fouls.
posted on 9/2/24
We need a variation of the below experiment to test fairness in football. We could use monkeys.
If the monkey has to do a certain task in order to receive a grape, but there is the other monkey in the cage next to him who has to do a much easier task in order to get the grape, the first monkey will see the unfairness and either start doing the easier task he sees the other monkey is doing or he will get pissssed off and start kicking off.
As Darren suggested, one monkey is actually having to put in a big effort to score a goal by let's say throwing a ball through a small hole which is difficult to do, in order to get the grape. The other monkey just needs to fall on the ground anywhere in his cage and he gets the same reward of a grape.
If monkeys don't stand for this level of unfairness then why should we?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg
posted on 9/2/24
Actually the below study looks into that so I don't really need to:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.0707182104
The conclusion is that giving an automatic goal for something like falling over when touched in the box is UNFAIR when compared with the effort levels required to actually score a goal directly. As proven with monkeys above.
Has anyone got FIFA's number?
posted on 9/2/24
The other monkey just needs to fall on the ground anywhere in his cage and he gets the same reward of a grape.
---
Correction.
He (Monkey 1) would have to fall down in the other Monkey's (Monkey 2) cage, at which point the is a high chance Monkey 2 would respond to the invasion of territory by attacking Monkey 1's exposed skrotum.
Yes, I think this should be trialled in football.
posted on 9/2/24
comment by Michael Mellon (U1734)
posted 1 minute ago
Actually the below study looks into that so I don't really need to:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.0707182104
The conclusion is that giving an automatic goal for something like falling over when touched in the box is UNFAIR when compared with the effort levels required to actually score a goal directly. As proven with monkeys above.
Has anyone got FIFA's number?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Al Thani, Mansour, Bent Salmon, and probably Boris.
posted on 9/2/24
The monkey experiment also shows that dissent is perfectly natural and shouldn't be punished with a blue card.
Although that could be the next phase of the experiment. Put the monkey in solitary confinement for a few minutes if it shows dissent to being given cucumber instead of a grape. Does the monkey then keep showing dissent or does the monkey accept the decision to only give him cucumber when the other monkey is getting grapes? Even though he sees it as completely unfair, does he simply just not complain due to the punishment or is it natural to still complain at the injustice? If the monkey still complains, we do not bring in blue cards, deal?
I for one do not see a 10 minute sin bin as being fair, simply for disagreeing with injustice.
posted on 9/2/24
Also, who would play each monkey's role?
I thought maybe Ronaldo could be the one throwing the tantrum, but also that he could be the one getting the easy tap-ins.
posted on 9/2/24
Also, who would play each monkey's role?
......
Gareth Bale obvs...
posted on 9/2/24
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 3 minutes ago
Also, who would play each monkey's role?
......
Gareth Bale obvs...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's on golf leave
posted on 9/2/24
id like the 6 yard box extended to 12 yards and have that be the new penalty area, indirect free kicks in the rest of the box
posted on 9/2/24
we had one against city a few seasons ago where Romero went to make a sliding block right on the corner of the box where it meets the byline, it hits his hand so city get a near guaranteed goal.
posted on 9/2/24
Maybe it should just go on the xG of the opportunity when the foul took place. As soon as you accumulate the equivalent to, let's say, 75% the xG of a penalty, then you get a penalty.
The reason you get it before you've accumulated the full xG equivalent of a penalty is that there has to be some kind of deterrent for the defender fouling his opponent.
This is guaranteed to be a huge success in Sunday League.
posted on 9/2/24
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 6 minutes ago
Maybe it should just go on the xG of the opportunity when the foul took place. As soon as you accumulate the equivalent to, let's say, 75% the xG of a penalty, then you get a penalty.
The reason you get it before you've accumulated the full xG equivalent of a penalty is that there has to be some kind of deterrent for the defender fouling his opponent.
This is guaranteed to be a huge success in Sunday League.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
75% seems a bit high. Even at 50% where half the time I'd score, I'd be wanting a penalty if a defender takes me out to stop my 50/50 chance. Maybe it could be used for deciding whether an automatic goal should be awarded instead of a penalty. If penalty conversion rate is 80% then it's not fair to award that instead of what would have been a goal 90%+ of the time.
posted on 9/2/24
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 2 hours, 58 minutes ago
We need to strip back all these innovations that have stripped the game of its soul. It was fine when we just had a pig's bladder and the menfolk of two villages and left them to it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You go walk on your six toes to that particular brand of footy....the rest of us will see the game evolve
posted on 9/2/24
Also not a fan of using xG for anything other than short circuiting Hafi. Goals are individual events that are 1 or 0. You cannot accumulated lots of 10ths of goals to make a "goal".
posted on 9/2/24
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 40 minutes ago
Maybe it should just go on the xG of the opportunity when the foul took place. As soon as you accumulate the equivalent to, let's say, 75% the xG of a penalty, then you get a penalty.
The reason you get it before you've accumulated the full xG equivalent of a penalty is that there has to be some kind of deterrent for the defender fouling his opponent.
This is guaranteed to be a huge success in Sunday League.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Edin will be in heaven reading this.
posted on 9/2/24
comment by Jalisco Red - Gimme Hope Onana (U4195)
posted 6 hours, 44 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 39 minutes ago
comment by Jalisco Red - Gimme Hope Onana (U4195)
posted 6 minutes ago
It's just an utterly ridiculous, absurd idea for so many reasons.
I don't see how it can work with yellow cards still in place. It just seems extremely confusing to have both.
Who is to decide what is a cynical or tactical foul?
What if a player's teammates complain about his blue card? Do they all go and join him in the sin bin?
If a player commits a sinbinnable (even that word is stupid) offence inside the final ten minutes of a match, is his punishment automatically less costly, simply due to the time factor? Is he more likely to receive a yellow or red card for this reason?
Decisions like this make me seriously believe that there is a group of people who sit around a table (or, more likely, meet on Zoom) with the sole intention of figuring out new ways to ruin football.
Leave. The. Game. Alone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've watched several games where it has been tested and it's been very good.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've watched lots of games without blue cards and naughty steps, and many of them have been amazing
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And yet dissent remains a massive problem in the game.
posted on 9/2/24
Red Russian
The 'leave the game alone' people maybe aren't fully aware that at different levels of the sport there are different sets of rules.
---
That's an unnecessary bit of commentary. As someone who's never liked the var and has seen many effects on the game I don't enjoy coming to fruition that were easily predicted (many decisions being subjective so it's not effective or requires changing rules to suit technology) it's not helpful to imply that changes are necessarily good or that is wrong to be sceptical. Yes they're inevitable over time, but like the back pass rule and like goal line technology, they should improve the game.
Will blue cards improve the game? It's certainly possible if dissent and tactical fouls ruin it for you. But there's going to be a change in the way the game is played while teams are a man down. It seems likely teams will just park the bus and waste time. Then there's the realistic implementation. Just on this thread, there's the questions about goalkeepers getting blues, blues in the last few minutes.. refs still making mistakes.. tactical fouls are largely subjective.
If you really just wanted to stop dissent and tactical fouls there's a system in place already - make them red card offences.
posted on 9/2/24
comment by Kobbie The King Mainoo (U10026)
posted 2 hours, 45 minutes ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 40 minutes ago
Maybe it should just go on the xG of the opportunity when the foul took place. As soon as you accumulate the equivalent to, let's say, 75% the xG of a penalty, then you get a penalty.
The reason you get it before you've accumulated the full xG equivalent of a penalty is that there has to be some kind of deterrent for the defender fouling his opponent.
This is guaranteed to be a huge success in Sunday League.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Edin will be in heaven reading this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 9/2/24
comment by Michael Mellon (U1734)
posted 3 hours, 17 minutes ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 6 minutes ago
Maybe it should just go on the xG of the opportunity when the foul took place. As soon as you accumulate the equivalent to, let's say, 75% the xG of a penalty, then you get a penalty.
The reason you get it before you've accumulated the full xG equivalent of a penalty is that there has to be some kind of deterrent for the defender fouling his opponent.
This is guaranteed to be a huge success in Sunday League.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
75% seems a bit high. Even at 50% where half the time I'd score, I'd be wanting a penalty if a defender takes me out to stop my 50/50 chance. Maybe it could be used for deciding whether an automatic goal should be awarded instead of a penalty. If penalty conversion rate is 80% then it's not fair to award that instead of what would have been a goal 90%+ of the time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If a the xG of a penalty is 0.8, then 75% of that would be a chance with an xG of 0.6.
Every team could have a Hafi-like assistant computing xG values in real time and telling defenders whether or not to put a boot in and forwards whether or nor to do down easily. This could be done via aynal beads, which have already proved to be a huge success in other sports.
posted on 9/2/24
BigAnge and Klopp not big fans of this idea either. Jusayin
posted on 9/2/24
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 2 hours, 53 minutes ago
comment by Kobbie The King Mainoo (U10026)
posted 2 hours, 45 minutes ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 40 minutes ago
Maybe it should just go on the xG of the opportunity when the foul took place. As soon as you accumulate the equivalent to, let's say, 75% the xG of a penalty, then you get a penalty.
The reason you get it before you've accumulated the full xG equivalent of a penalty is that there has to be some kind of deterrent for the defender fouling his opponent.
This is guaranteed to be a huge success in Sunday League.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Edin will be in heaven reading this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Someone explain
Page 5 of 20
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10