"He got the ball"...

[mypost]

LolololololoLOLZ coming from you. Seriously.

Lol all you like. You're still wrong.


I'll even attack your post

A change of tack so.


Heaven forbid that in a discussion about how the laws of the game should judge a tackle, I look up said laws and show said incident. Whatever was I thinking?

At least geysir has looked up the laws.

Geysir has like a good ref should, used his judgement to make his call, not looked up every rule and every law for every action.


No, I think he just lunged. The rule is to clamp down on potential leg-breakers.

No it isn't. The rule is there to punish dangerous fouls. It's not there to eliminate clean ball-winning challenges. Tackling is allowed in football.


Look at the contents in the pdf; the guidelines take up about half the document. In fact, you've quoted from the guidelines, not the laws.

The guideline you just quoted...........I've asked for you to show me this in the rules.

He doesn't have to. This is not a court case stretched out over 6 months, it's about a split second moment at a sports event. He just has to use his judgement, and get it right. Much like the ref did re: Johnson.

[pineapple stu]

Geysir has like a good ref should, used his judgement to make his call, not looked up every rule and every law for every action.
Tell me so - in your opinion, what are the laws of the game for? Are they vague suggestions which the ref can improve on at his whim? Is it like licencing - has to be done, but can then be ignored? Do you think trainee referees sit around and discuss what they think of an incident for their course? And maybe FIFA put the document up on their website for the hell of it?

Referees, believe it or not, actually have to learn the laws of the game, and consider the guidelines. The laws of the game, and the guidelines, should determine a referee's decision. You absolutely should look up the laws if you want to make an intelligent comment on the game. And I'm baffled as to how you still think "dangerous fouls" and "potential leg-breakers" are different things.

If you want to actually consult the laws of the game, feel free. I'll get back to you then. Otherwise, you're just screaming your ignorance from the roof-tops with that last post.

[mypost]

The guidelines and laws of the game are open to interpretation, as we've seen on this thread. They're not decision makers. There are times when the eye is a better judge than the script.

I don't think they're different things, but I'm baffled at how you want to judge something on it's "potential", rather than what has actually happened.

[geysir]

You've stated this numerous times, but I've asked for you to show me this in the rules. Seemingly you can't?
I never claimed there was a definition of a tackle in the rules, I asked you check up on what defines a tackle in football.
I believe I have given a good concise definition of what constitutes a tackle in football.
If you have another definition, perhaps a better one, then please offer it.


No, I think he just lunged.

Well then, I was misled when you wrote "because I think Johnson has lunged at yer man".
I took it as gospel that you believed Johnson lunged at the other player. I missed the part in the discussion where you change your viewpoint from he lunged at yer man, to he lunged at the ball.

If you believe he lunged at the ball, then there is nothing in the law on serious foul play which applies. Unless you offer a definition of a tackle that includes a lunge to win the ball, which is not in the possesion of another player and doesn't even involve physical contact.


A player is guilty of serious foul play if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play.

A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force and endangering the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

[pineapple stu]

I never claimed there was a definition of a tackle in the rules, I asked you check up on what defines a tackle in football.
If there's no definition in the laws of the game (which there's not), where do you suggest I start looking?

The rest of your post depends on their being such a definition, so it's moot for the moment.


The guidelines and laws of the game are open to interpretation.
No they're not. That would kind of defeat the purpose of them being "laws".

[Stuttgart88]

I haven't been able to post for a few weeks so a few posts made much earlier in this thread are the subject of this post.

I have actually played the game so any ad hominem response on that basis doesn't apply to me.

The whole "tackling is allowed in football" / "it's a contact sport " / "they're trying to change it into a non-contact sport" argument holds no water whatsoever. They're just meaningless soundbites that muppets like Alan Shearer like to drop in. He has also played the game - does that mean he's worth listening to? I expect we all agree the answer is no.

"They're trying to change it into a non-contact sport" - that's just not true. Anyone who has played the game knows that you need strength to hold off opponents, or to win tackles. There's plenty of contact allowed , and plenty happens. It's actually a very physical game even without lunge tackles.

That's not to confuse the issue with due regard to opponents' safety. Even in rugby, a full-on contact sport, there is a duty of care to execute tackles safely (e.g., Sam Warburton incident).

I watch Barcelona regularly. They are quite frankly the best tackling side I have ever seen yet I have seen them go whole games without a single sliding tackle. Why? Because they are skilled in the ART of tackling.

A culture that tolerates, even welcomes, reckless tackling because it raises a cheer is never going to be one where the skill of tackling properly is nurtured. Strength and contact are required in tackling, studs-up lunges aren't.

I'm not saying there should be a stop to sliding tackling. A good slide tackle (great to watch) is made with the defender on his side, sweeping the ball with the top of his foot - not presenting his studs to his opponent, and definitely not presenting both sets of studs whilst airborne. And I'm somewhat sympathetic to Geysir's "no man's land" argument. Getting that type of call wrong is a lesser evil than letting a dangerous lunge go unpunished though.

But just stop this "it's a contact sport" nonsense. It's a totally fallacious argument, as is the argument that if the ball is won then it's a fair tackle. By mypost's reasoning above dangerous driving is only dangerous if it causes a crash. Driving that might well cause a crash but doesn't isn't dangerous.

Also, just because bad tackles happen in lower levels of football doesn't mean it should be allowed in lower levels of football. At lower levels they copy what they see on TV but do it worse. Cutting it out at the top of the game is exactly what's needed to cut it out at the lower levels. Maybe when blood and guts approach is taken out of Irish junior football we might actually develop a culture of skillful football, rather than the hoofball the dominates large parts of our game - and which some of the same posters on this thread are happy to criticise.

[the bear]

there is a big difference between going in hard and going in to cause damage. players who go in to cause damage should be dismissed regardless of what contact they make. in 20 years of playing football i have never come across a situation where i needed to or gained an advantage by jumping in the air 2 feet outstreched in front of me diving into a tackle. in fairness ive seen more of these tackles on the telly in the epl then in matchs ive played in. our match on saturday in the aul went into extra time, the pitch cut up so bad it was like oxygen by the end of it. there were a lot of hard tackles going in but nobody was flying around like that.

on the flip side of the arguement watching the chelsea man utd game yesterday it seemed that united were playing to try and win penalties, welbeck in particular. as soon as he got into a decent position in the box he would look for any sort of contact and go down. for the peno that was given he actually kicked ivanovic and threw himself to the ground. its terrible to watch. the game should be about skill and technique in the final third not this pantomime playacting. i think the commentator said that was 4 pens in 2 games for utd. how is evra still getting a game , he has been muck for a while now.

[Lionel Ritchie]

moved post to NP championship thread

[Stuttgart88]

Objection. Relevance?

[Lionel Ritchie]

Objection. Relevance?

Sustained. In my incandesent rage I posted in the wrong thread. Not even a near miss either. I'll now up stumps and repair to the pavillion ...though I should probably keep that remark til a day comes I accidently wander in to a cricket thread.

As you were.

[OwlsFan]

Do ex-professional footballers not even know the rules? Last night on Match of the Day, way after my bedtime, I heard Didi Hamann say that the sending off wasn't even a foul because the Swansea player got the ball. I haven't looked round to see if it's on Youtube as yet but when a player shows his studs with a lunge towards the ball it is a foul for dangerous play every day of the week even though the ball is touched. The "I played the ball" argument went out the door in the 1990s.

[BonnieShels]

Do ex-professional footballers not even know the rules? Last night on Match of the Day, way after my bedtime, I heard Didi Hamann say that the sending off wasn't even a foul because the Swansea player got the ball. I haven't looked round to see if it's on Youtube as yet but when a player shows his studs with a lunge towards the ball it is a foul for dangerous play every day of the week even though the ball is touched. The "I played the ball" argument went out the door in the 1990s.

GAH!!!

This is one of the things you'll see me rail against every time I hear it. Drives me up the wall. Also "showing studs" is as bad of a makey-uppy reference to the rule. But I accept what you are attempting to do there.

[DeLorean]

I think the red card was harsh in the extreme but agree regarding the stupidity of the "he got the ball" argument. I don't think it was a dangerous tackle though, he was well in control of what he was doing.

Couple of handball penalty decisions lately too. What is the actual rule because they keep saying "it wasn't deliberate"? Does it have to be deliberate all of a sudden? Whatever happened to gaining an unfair advantage or having your hand in an unnatural position? For what it's worth, I think the referees got the two I'm referring to correct. The first was Tottenham's late penalty to rescue a draw in the F.A. Cup against Leicester. I don't think the Leicester player necessarily meant to handle it, but even after coming into contact with the ball he seemed to push it away from Danny Rose, and would have definitely gained an unfair advantage. I'd have been annoyed if my team didn't get a penalty for it. The second one was Manchester United's penalty in the first few minutes against Newcastle. Again, the defender may not necessarily have meant to handle it, but his hands were all over the shop and it was always likely they would come into contact with the ball, such was his carelessness.

[OwlsFan]

Stelling and McAnally gave out yards about the handball decision when they first saw it in the same game and then had to eat humble pie.

In the old days it had to be deliberate. Now it's if your hands are in an unusual position plus a few other vague ones. Nightmare for refs having a split second to determine these matters with cameras and pundits breathing (or a camera can't breathe) down their necks.

[Stuttgart88]

I think the red card was harsh in the extreme but agree with the stupidity of the "he got the ball" argument. I don't think it was a dangerous tackle though, he was well in control of what he was doing.

I thought it was a foul and a possible yellow.

[Stuttgart88]

One bugbear of mine is the current zero-tolerance of any aggression, like a slap or a tiny nudge with the forehead. I hate hearing "you can't raise your hands anymore" even if it's true. When the rule was introduced I presume it was to stamp out people hitting each other. Now I think it just makes the game look weak and it also has had more unintended consequence, namely players hamming up any minor slap or push etc.

Refs should be allowed discretion at least to be able to show a yellow. Mandatory red has been a disaster.

[DeLorean]

I thought it was a foul and a possible yellow.

Yeah, I wouldn't disagree with that. His foot ended up being a small bit high, but more because of the bounce of the ball rather than any malicious intent.

Definitely agree with the zero-tolerance post also, common sense is always the best approach. There should some leeway when it comes a bit of aggression, especially in a heat of the moment situation. People will mostly agree on what a 'real' red card offence looks like, no point in overreacting to the petty stuff. The referees are really put in an awkward position, but they rarely get criticised for applying common sense, even if it does contradict the letter of the law. Amongst the pundits and general public that is, probably a different story when it comes to their infamous assessors.

[OwlsFan]

One bugbear of mine is the current zero-tolerance of any aggression, like a slap or a tiny nudge with the forehead. I hate hearing "you can't raise your hands anymore" even if it's true. When the rule was introduced I presume it was to stamp out people hitting each other. Now I think it just makes the game look weak and it also has had more unintended consequence, namely players hamming up any minor slap or push etc.

Refs should be allowed discretion at least to be able to show a yellow. Mandatory red has been a disaster.

I suppose it has stopped the brawls like you see in rugby if players know any sort of hand raising gets red. "A tiny nudge with a forehead" - do you want refs to now have to arbitrate whether it was a tiny nudge or a reasonable nudge or a full blown Glasgow kiss ? With the players rolling round in all three instances, it will be another nightmare for the ref. I think the zero tolerance is for a reason.

[geysir]

I think the red card was harsh in the extreme but agree regarding the stupidity of the "he got the ball" argument. I don't think it was a dangerous tackle though, he was well in control of what he was doing.
The Swansea player was intent on winning the ball but was reckless in the use of his foot with studs showing in close proximity of the opposition players kneecap.
The reckless use, was at least a foul for sure.
I'd say it was the Sunderland player's somersault and feigned agony, simulating getting clobbered by the raised studs, which persuaded the ref that it was a red card challenge.

[DeLorean]

Yeah I think reckless is way too strong a word though, slightly careless maybe.

[geysir]

Yeah I think reckless is way too strong a word though, slightly careless maybe.
You're sliding Del, you have already agreed with Stutts' "a foul or a yellow card", which in description terms is already a proven 100% careless challenge which could be deemed a reckless compulsory yellow card challenge.
A "slightly careless maybe" description is not worthy of note by the ref.

Have another look to refresh memory and unfortunately for Naughton the refs line of view just happens to be the most damning.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3ma5ee_kyle-naughton-red-card-for-studs-up-vs-sunderland_sport

[DeLorean]

You're sliding Del, you have already agreed with Stutts' "a foul or a yellow card", which in description terms is already a proven 100% careless challenge which could be deemed a reckless compulsory yellow card challenge.

I agreed that it was a foul and a 'possible' yellow card, meaning a free kick and a yellow is the maximum punishment that should have been applied. Reckless would mean that Naughton acted with a total disregard for his opponent, I don't think he did. That wording is just too severe in my opinion, I associate it more with a wild lunge.


A "slightly careless maybe" description is not worthy of note by the ref.

Yellows are dished out for relatively minor offences all the time, and free kicks certainly are. It would have been no major issue if he had been booked, but I don't think it would have been all that noteworthy if he wasn't either. All fairly subjective.

[geysir]

It was red in this Naughton example because the ref was fooled by the Sunderland player's dramatic simulation of contact being made.

[DeLorean]

No doubt.

[geysir]

Actually Del, you may be glad to hear I've now come to the agreement that it was just a slightly careless maybe challenge, but totally legal challenge.
Having the studs up is not regarded as a football crime in a challenge if it is executed perfectly and I'd have to say now that Naughton executed it perfectly with no risk to the other player.
Somewhere there is an interpretation that (taking that challenge as an example) if the studs are up and cause the other player to lose the ball/lose the challenge for safety reasons, then the studs up are deemed dangerous, even if he got the ball and didn't touch the other player.
Here, Naughton pick-pocketed the ball with a deft studs-up flick which held no risk of doing damage. The sunderland player did not lose the ball out of fear that the studs would have crashed into his knee cap.

Naughton's type of challenge would more fall under the overhead kick, which is allowed in some circumstances but deemed dangerous in others.

[DeLorean]

Actually Del, you may be glad to hear I've now come to the agreement that it was just a slightly careless maybe challenge, but totally legal challenge.

Framing that :)

[DeLorean]

Thought this was quite funny from F365 (http://www.football365.com/news/mediawatch-its-easy-to-win-the-title-pep).


The official statement

One of the most difficult aspects of refereeing is that each incident is only seen once, in real-time, often from a distance. Decisions are then replayed multiple times after the incident in order to victimise said referee with the benefit of glorious hindsight.

And so to Graham Poll in the Daily Mail and Mark Halsey in The Sun, former referees wheeled out to discuss Michael Oliver’s performance in Bournemouth vs Arsenal and paid to do so. Nice work if you can get it. At least with the benefit of infinite replays, they can agree:


‘Michael Oliver got two key decisions wrong – especially the red card for Bournemouth captain Simon Francis. The challenge was not dangerous and it did not endanger the player’s safety. It was a challenge worthy of a yellow card’ – Halsey.

‘Oliver finished the game with another correct call as he dismissed Simon Francis for an over-the-top challenge on Ramsey. Overall a very composed display – well done, Michael’ – Poll.



Oh. All we’re asking for is consistency.

[NeverFeltBetter]

I hate those backstage ref things. They have Howard Webb on BT, and all he does is echo the commentators.

[DeLorean]

Except when it's Robbie Savage. :)

Howard knows best though, he refereed a World Cup final after all...

http://www.gifbin.com/bin/072010/1278928433_de-jong-vs.xabi_-alonso.gif (https://www.google.ie/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiRyYuX66jRAhVrK8AKHTAvCv8QjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gifbin.com%2F984421&psig=AFQjCNEnR129hPDia4YqwzdtLwZUmvC7kg&ust=1483631228868353)

[Stuttgart88]

Thought this was quite funny from F365 (http://www.football365.com/news/mediawatch-its-easy-to-win-the-title-pep).That passage only highlights a flaw in the argument that technology can eradicate refereeing errors. Under the rules, a referee makes a subjective decision, a "consideration". It's not the same as the ball is/is not over the line, a player has a foot in touch/doesn't have a foot in touch, a pass is forward/not forward. I didn't see the World Club Cup and would liked to have seen how technology was used. The Dutch experiment was interesting, a referee watch the game on telly having 15 seconds to alert the ref to an obvious mistake. By all accounts it improved things but did not result in perfection. I'm still not convinced technology will correctly differentiate things like a dive versus evading a dangerous tackle.

The McClean non-penalty in Lille may have been correctly upheld due to the defender getting a good toe to the ball, enough to justify the subsequent collision with McClean. Howard Webb stood by the ref's decision while we all raged. But it probably took more than 15 seconds to see it.

Anyway, last night: the red card was harsh, the penalty award was bang on (daft challenge by Zhaka) and I thought Bellerin was clearly pushed over. I think Bellerin looked a bit complacent though, which is probably what influenced the ref.

[DeLorean]

That passage only highlights a flaw in the argument that technology can eradicate refereeing errors.

There's no disputing the fact that technology isn't going to eradicate errors but at least it'll take the burden off the man in the middle of everything. Plus, it would sort out a massive percentage of the stonewallers which is the main thing. If a decision is that subjective then nobody is going to be that hard done by. I don't see a negative side really while appreciating that it wouldn't be as smooth as it is in rugby.

I had another look at the third Bournemouth goal and I'd have to agree with you. There's one angle in particular (from behind Cech's goals) that shows the push pretty clearly. I'd feel for Oliver becasue in most of the other angles it wasn't nearly as clear, including his own. He could have just copped out as refs usually do with those ones but he was brave and got it wrong. They seriously need some assistance, one way or another.

[BonnieShels]

I suppose this is our "Laws of the Game " thread..

What are the thoughts of Van Basten's plans?

Some good? Some bad?



PENALTY SHOOTOUTS
Rather than burdening players with an additional 30 minutes of action when cup games are level after 90 minutes, Van Basten is suggesting going straight to penalties.
'I think everybody is pretty tired after 120 minutes,' Van Basten said.
Now penalties are a test of nerves with players having one chance to beat the goalkeeper from the penalty spot.
'Maybe the player should start 25 metres from goal and then you can dribble the goalkeeper or shoot early,' he said. 'But you have to make a goal within eight seconds. It's more skill and less luck. It's maybe a bit more spectacular. It's more football but it's still nervous for the player.'

NO OFFSIDE
Scrapping the offside rule could make football more visually appealing, Van Basten advises.
'I think it can be very interesting watching a game without offside,' he said.
'Football now is already looking a lot like handball with nine or ten defenders in front of the goal. It's difficult for the opposition to score a goal as it's very difficult to create something in the small pieces of space they give you.
'So if you play without offside you get more possibilities to score a goal.'

FOUR QUARTERS
Soccer is increasingly intense and gruelling, with a single 15-minute break between 45-minute halves.
'We are trying to help the game, to let the game develop in a good way,' Van Basten said. 'We want to have a game which is honest, which is dynamic, a nice spectacle so we should try to do everything to help that process.'
Introducing four quarters could be advantageous.
'The coach can have three times with his players during the game,' Van Basten said.

SIN BINS
Now there is no middle ground between players being shown a yellow card and receiving a red card and then being removed for the rest of the game.
'Maybe an orange card could be shown that sees a player go out of the game for 10 minutes for incidents that are not heavy enough for a red card,' Van Basten said.
Such an instance could be when a player commits repeat fouls that didn't warrant yellow cards or obstruct opponents. Five misdemeanors could earn a player a place in a sin bin for 10 minutes, Van Basten said.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-4133072/Marco-van-Basten-offers-ideas-revolutionise-football.html#ixzz4WExrFXQY
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Forgive me for grabbing it from the Mail. They were the first one I saw with a list and I'm off out.

WRT penalty shootouts, I think that having the shootout before the ET would be worth a try as one team may well have to chase goals. I don't like the idea of the ice hockey style "run up".

As for the no offside and 4 quarters he can get effed!

[DeLorean]

I'd like to see a few games with no offside just for the craic but would be very sceptical about it going forward (yuck, horrible corporate term). No interest in even trailing the hockey style run up and don't really agree with one off games going straight to penalties. Two legged ties should absolutely go straight to penalties though and scrap that awful away goals rule while they're at it.

[Stuttgart88]

http://foot.ie/threads/219343-RTE-Video-technology-vital-to-save-soccer-says-Dunphy

Where does one start?

I actually think diving is less bad now than a year ago. The Euros was notable for a lack of it (Delle Ali apart).
"save" soccer? It's doing rather well
Nothing wrong with saying Sterling should have gone down. Not the same as encouraging diving
"No debate". Of course there is.
Rugby is enhanced by TMO? Plenty of fans moaning about refs not having the conviction to make a decision. It's not that black v white

First step is for refs to stop making remarkably bad decisions. How the ref missed the Sterling push is beyond me.

I think some form of video intervention will be advantageous but the rule-makers need to be careful.

[OwlsFan]

http://foot.ie/threads/219343-RTE-Video-technology-vital-to-save-soccer-says-Dunphy

First step is for refs to stop making remarkably bad decisions. How the ref missed the Sterling push is beyond me.

I think some form of video intervention will be advantageous but the rule-makers need to be careful.

The trouble with football is that referees/linesmen across the world continue to miss vital infringements. Therefore it can't be a coincidence. The game is just too hard to referee. What amazes me is that linesmen get so many offsides correct. An almost impossible job. Sky and their pundits have led the way in attacking referees and their interviews after the game encourage the managers to attack the referees. Is it any wonder therefore that this has permeated down to grassroots where referees are getting physically as well as verbally assaulted, so much so that they threatened a strike.

I think that rather than having a visual play back for every decision, like cricket perhaps the Captain can challenge two or three decisions. Not sure how it would work though (e.g. Team A claims a peno and Team B are counter-attacking and looks like they might score a goal - can Team A immediately claim a video review). Or possibly the referee's assistant on the sideline, rather than just being an object for vitriol by the managers, could have a monitor to make decisions. I always thought that this would have been very useful in Paris for the Henry handball.

In summary, the football referee needs help.

[pineapple stu]

I'd like to see a few games with no offside just for the craic but would be very sceptical about it going forward (yuck, horrible corporate term). No interest in even trailing the hockey style run up and don't really agree with one off games going straight to penalties. Two legged ties should absolutely go straight to penalties though and scrap that awful away goals rule while they're at it.
Fairly sure it was tried in some lower leagues previously, and games turned into long-ball, goal-hanging affairs.

Offside was brought in for a reason (i.e. long-ball/goal-hanging), and any proposal to get rid of it should at least address the whole point of offside.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Football is the most popular sport in the world; why does it need a host of rule changes?

Daft stuff.

[DeLorean]

What's wrong with goal-hanging? :)

Nah, I'd say getting rid of offside would be a disaster but changes here and there can be a good thing. Stop messing around the the offside rule itself would be a good start. The 'daylight' interpretation was by far the best that I can remember.

The introduction of the back pass rule was pretty radical and improved the game no end. Football was still the most popular sport in the world previous to that no doubt but I'm glad they didn't take a 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' stance at that point.

And I really despise the away goals rule, I might have mentioned that.

[OwlsFan]

And I really despise the away goals rule, I might have mentioned that.

The "away goals rule" was brought in because away teams used literally to park the bus ending up with some pretty torrid games. I don't mind the rule, ignoring the mystic powers attributed to it by some commentators.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Van Basten's suggestions seem very American-centric: I've read the exact same list of suggestions from a few different Yank commentators as far back as France 98 (including other things, like widening the goals and eliminating injury time), all in the name of promoting the game there. They had those penalties for a while, and I think they were scrapped after too many injuries (keepers having a tendency, intentionally or not, of bringing the attacker down in the process of trying to stop them in that situation). Eliminating offside would destroy the game as a spectacle for sure, unless we want 6-5 to be a common score.

[NeverFeltBetter]

The "away goals rule" was brought in because away teams used literally to park the bus ending up with some pretty torrid games. I don't mind the rule, ignoring the mystic powers attributed to it by some commentators.

I think the rule is fine: the only thing worth changing is removing its applicability in the event of extra time.

[DeLorean]

The "away goals rule" was brought in because away teams used literally to park the bus ending up with some pretty torrid games. I don't mind the rule, ignoring the mystic powers attributed to it by some commentators.

Yeah, I know the purpose for which it was introduced but I don't think it works at all. For the most part, the away team in the first leg is still quite content with a 0-0 draw and if they nick something extra well and good. On top of that, it makes the home team very cagey about conceding so it's counter productive if anything in my opinion.

The home team in the second leg are often in a position where they can sit back and defend their 1-1 or 2-2 'advantage'. I don't see how this promotes attacking football. If away goals were scrapped I think you'd see far more open games, especially second legs. Two teams that have scored the same amount of goals after 180 minutes both deserve a chance at penalties I think.

[Stuttgart88]

It often kills a game when the away team, already up from the first leg, scores a goal early.

I love the "mystic powers" line! They could actually count a million squared times or 3.7624 times and still have exactly the same practical meaning as counting double.

[Stuttgart88]

Anyone see FRA v ENG yesterday?

Did the VAR get it right? I only read about it this morning. It looks to me like the French guy just caught Alli's heel causing his legs to cross and trip, but Alli is a notorious diver. Keith Hackett says it was a dive, Alli tripping himself.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/football/dele-alli-blunder-shows-the-video-assistant-referee-decision-process-must-be-slowed-down/ar-BBCDW3q?li=AA572I&ocid=spartanntp

[osarusan]

I can't play that ITV video, might be limited to UK only?

Watching last night, I thought he did get a touch on Alli that caused him to go down, so it was probably a penalty.

Was surprised to see a red card shown in a friendly though.

[osarusan]

Even if whoever posted it still thinks it's a dive, this clip shows definite contact between Varane and Alli. Contact that caused Alli's right leg to clip his left leg.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIkOpNb_g6E

[Stuttgart88]

That's what I thought. Varane's left leg clipped Alli's leg. The net result was like a tap tackle in rugby.

[DeLorean]

It's kind of similar to Walters one the last day, isn't it? Does the defender scampering back have a duty to make sure he doesn't make contact with the player, even if the attacker initiates the contact unintentionally by lifting their foot back as they're striking the ball? I thought the Walters one looked like a penalty in real time, but having seem the replays I don't think the contact from the defender is intentional, but maybe it doesn't have to be? Tough ones I think.

Alli isn't about to strike the ball I know, but I'm still not sure the contact from Varane is deliberate. But that one looks a penalty to me.

[osarusan]

It's kind of similar to Walters one the last day, isn't it? Does the defender scampering back have a duty to make sure he doesn't make contact with the player, even if the attacker initiates the contact unintentionally by lifting their foot back as they're striking the ball? I thought the Walters one looked like a penalty in real time, but having seem the replays I don't think the contact from the defender is intentional, but maybe it doesn't have to be? Tough ones I think.

Alli isn't about to strike the ball I know, but I'm still not sure the contact from Varane is deliberate. But that one looks a penalty to me.

I still think Walters one was a penalty, because yes, the defender is being reckless if he doesn't ensure he avoids contact.

Same as if a defender slides in to block a cross and the ball hits his raised arm. No intent, but your fault for being so careless.

[BonnieShels]

Yeah, I know the purpose for which it was introduced but I don't think it works at all. For the most part, the away team in the first leg is still quite content with a 0-0 draw and if they nick something extra well and good. On top of that, it makes the home team very cagey about conceding so it's counter productive if anything in my opinion.

The home team in the second leg are often in a position where they can sit back and defend their 1-1 or 2-2 'advantage'. I don't see how this promotes attacking football. If away goals were scrapped I think you'd see far more open games, especially second legs. Two teams that have scored the same amount of goals after 180 minutes both deserve a chance at penalties I think.

I hate away goals. But counting in ET of the second leg still wrecks my head. How is it fair?

[DeLorean]

How is it fair?

It's not, although it's debatable as to who's at the greater disadvantage. I presume you mean the home side are, but I suppose they do get an extra 30 minutes with home advantage. I'd scrap the rule in a heartbeat though and do away with extra time in second legs also.