Yet Another Cycling Forum
Off Topic => The Pub => The Sporting Life => Topic started by: Asterix, the former Gaul. on 28 May, 2017, 06:34:28 am
-
Arsenal 2; Chelsea only 1.
I was quite surprised.
-
It was a good match for a change.
So, now what for Arsene?
-
Red triumphs over blue. 'tis an omen, I tells 'ee!
-
As an Arsenal supporter since I first saw them play as a boy in 1968, I must admit I was extremely pleased not only by the result but by how well the team played. ;D
So okay we may have finished outside the top 4 for the first time in 20 odd years, but at least we won something.
-
As an Arsenal supporter since I first saw them play as a boy in 1968, I must admit I was extremely pleased not only by the result but by how well the team played. ;D
So okay we may have finished outside the top 4 for the first time in 20 odd years, but at least we won something.
I'm a Man U fan and finishing 5th is a curse unless you win the Europa League. A huge amount of extra games, on a Thursday, in places where former Soviet countries mine Uranium, in February.
It makes it even harder to finish top-4.
Fortunately we won it and get a free pass into the Champions League.
-
This should be in first world problems, I think.
-
Why is it that one never tires of enjoying the misfortunes of Leeds United F.C.?
:)
-
It was equally gratifying to observe the look on
Juge Roban Wenger's face when Arsenal went down 4-2 to Forest. Like unto a smacked Arse, in fact.
-
Yes, I noticed that but I was unaware until I checked that NF are in the second division.
Edit: Leeds seem to have come adrift against supposedly "lesser" sides quite a few times over the years. The first I was aware of was Colchester in about 1971. I was still at school. Sunderland wasn't long afterwards ('73?). My younger son has a pal who supports two teams - Leeds, and Histon, near Cambridge. He was speculating one day who he would support if the two were to meet in the FA Cup. "Of course, it would be very one-sided..." said he. I don't think Histon 1 - 0 Leeds Utd. is all that one-sided.
And now Newport. Are they even a league side? (googles). Oh yes, there they are, 11th in Division 4.
-
I think these results are quite normal. Most 'big' clubs tend to field their second teams, or ' the kids' in early cup games.
Sort of "If we get through, we get through. If we don't, we don't. So what?" philosophy.
-
You certainly get some every year. When Liverpool can to Southend they fielded their full team. Mind you, that was 1978.
-
Yesterday I had the pleasure of seeing a 'big' team play the second string team of a Div One team.
(They kept their bigger guns back for tuesdays match against Man City)
-
And now Newport. Are they even a league side? (googles). Oh yes, there they are, 11th in Division 4.
Newport had a miraculous escape last year (they won something like 7 of their last 11 games, including the last one with 5 minutes left) to finish 1 place ahead of the relegation zone. This year they have been reasonably competitive in the league (only 4 or 5 points off the playoffs), and done OK in the cups.
They lost 5-1 in the EFL cup at Leeds earlier this season, so Leeds made 9 changes for the FA cup game. Ooops. :)
Spurs visit Rodney Parade in the 4th round. They will be astounded by the lack of grass on the pitch - currently Newport County share the stadium with Newport Gwent Dragons (professional rugbi) and Newport Rugby Club (amateur rugbi). Should be interesting...
-
Newport were perhaps a little unlucky not to beat Spurs today, the latter equalising a few minutes from time. They will have an early visit to Wembley for the replay, it seems.
I am totally unfamiliar with the VAR business with football. Presumably this has recently been introduced. It was instrumental in a WBA goal v Liverpool being disallowed. The impression I gained was that someone was adjudged to be offside, but the "goal" was a direct header from a corner and you can't (so far as I am aware) be offside at a corner.
What am I missing?
-
The impression I gained was that someone was adjudged to be offside, but the "goal" was a direct header from a corner and you can't (so far as I am aware) be offside at a corner.
What am I missing?
I think it was the WB player who impeded the goalie who was adjudged as being off-side rather than the one who headed the ball.
In any case, a lamentable performance from the bi-polar Reds.
-
I didn't think anyone could be offside at a corner because everyone is behind the ball when it is struck.
-
It wasn't the corner that he was offside from, but the header towards goal that came from the corner.
It's about 1:15 on the highlights here: -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42756218
-
... and this is (probably) the offence:
http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-11---offside
Offside offence
A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
interfering with an opponent by:
preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision
*OR*
In situations where:
a player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball this is an offside offence if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball; if the player moves into the way of an opponent and impedes the opponent's progress (e.g blocks the opponent) the offence should be penalised under Law 12 [fouls/misconduct]
-
I didn't think anyone could be offside at a corner because everyone is behind the ball when it is struck.
You can't be offside from a corner because the rules state you can't (nor can you be offside from a throw-in or a goal kick) regardless of position.
People can be in front of the ball when a corner is taken as the corner can be taken anywhere within the arc that is 1 yard from the corner flag, so it could be taken from against the touchline and 1 yard away from the goal line, anyone standing closer to the goal than this is in front of the ball.
I think it was the WB player who impeded the goalie who was adjudged as being off-side rather than the one who headed the ball.
Yes, by impeding the goalie he [Bareth Garry] was deemed to be "interfering with play" and therefore offside even though he didn't touch the ball as it went past him.
-
Ah. Thanks. Even though the header was the first touch from the corner, there was a guy goal-side of the header who was impeding the goalie's view of the attacker. That makes some sense.
-
... and this is (probably) the offence:
http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-11---offside
Or
clearly attempting to play a ball which is close to him when this action impacts on an opponent
There's nothing controversial in the decision, it's only newsworthy because the ref used the VAR to confirm it. Would he have allowed the goal without it? We'll never know, but I expect he'd have been criticised if he had, it's clearly offside from the camera angle, less so from his position.
This is what VAR is for, it needs speeding up but IMO it proved itself last night.
-
The biggest problem with VAR is the dampener it puts on celebrations (and I don't mean the players).
A team scores, everyone goes wild, ref signals VAR review, crowd quietens, eventually goal is given and the moment isn't quite the same. So I can see how it cheapens the experience for the crowd at the game.
For those watching on TV it's not quite as bad as they have the benefit of watching various replays in order to keep themselves entertained and connected to the action whilst the decision is awaited.
A similar 'problem' is the last batsmen (i.e. the 10th wicket) using one of the remaining reviews at the end of an innings. Seemingly pointless, but the review is there and will be lost regardless of whether it is used or not, but it delays the celebrations enough that even the players don't celebrate as much once the decision is confirmed.
-
Or a challenge on the last shot of a Tennis Grand Slam match.
-
The biggest problem with VAR is the dampener it puts on celebrations (and I don't mean the players).
A team scores, everyone goes wild, ref signals VAR review, crowd quietens, eventually goal is given and the moment isn't quite the same. So I can see how it cheapens the experience for the crowd at the game.
For those watching on TV it's not quite as bad as they have the benefit of watching various replays in order to keep themselves entertained and connected to the action whilst the decision is awaited.
A similar 'problem' is the last batsmen (i.e. the 10th wicket) using one of the remaining reviews at the end of an innings. Seemingly pointless, but the review is there and will be lost regardless of whether it is used or not, but it delays the celebrations enough that even the players don't celebrate as much once the decision is confirmed.
Seems to work fine in Rugby though... I didn't see the game but did they show the VAR on the screen at the same time? (like in Rugby)
-
No big screen for fans at football, hence why Dion Dublin made the comments he did last night on MOTD
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42849355 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42849355)
-
Let's hope tonight's Spurs Newport replay is not Spurs last cup match there this year; even if it is it will be worth £13.50 to be there after being fleeced £43.50 for an uninspiring Prem match against Palace
-
VAR can't come to the PL soon enough. If implemented Spurs wouldn't have conned their way to a draw with Liverpool last week.
Also time to have players sent off for diving (which is one of the worst forms of cheating IMO) which VAR would also help with.
-
Let's hope tonight's Spurs Newport replay is not Spurs last cup match there this year; even if it is it will be worth £13.50 to be there after being fleeced £43.50 for an uninspiring Prem match against Palace
On the contrary, let's hope it is Spurs last match: Rochdale have more chance of beating Newport (even though they will have beaten Spurs).
-
Spurs still have a Champions League tie, so even if they lose it won't be their last cup match.
I suspect their class will show against Newport (who have lost both league matches since the original draw), but it should be a good day out for the >7,000 fans travelling.
-
Maybe Newport can emulate Swansea and knock 8 past Spurs. What odds would I get on that?
-
VAR can't come to the PL soon enough. If implemented Spurs wouldn't have conned their way to a draw with Liverpool last week.
Also time to have players sent off for diving (which is one of the worst forms of cheating IMO) which VAR would also help with.
Apparently, VAR would have confirmed the decisions were correct- which is one of the reasons VAR is a joke, as it's still subjective.
There was no con - dodgy pens have been awarded at the Kop End for all time.
Liverpool fans moaning is a bit rich too... Google "Gerrard dive" for some outstanding examples of balance issues. Or cast your minds back to the days of Suarez, or Dalglish, or Owen.
Diving is a total smokescreen for all the other unpunished cheating in the sport. From time wasting to false appeals to feigning injury.
-
VAR can't come to the PL soon enough. If implemented Spurs wouldn't have conned their way to a draw with Liverpool last week.
Also time to have players sent off for diving (which is one of the worst forms of cheating IMO) which VAR would also help with.
Apparently, VAR would have confirmed the decisions were correct- which is one of the reasons VAR is a joke, as it's still subjective.
There was no con - dodgy pens have been awarded at the Kop End for all time.
Liverpool fans moaning is a bit rich too... Google "Gerrard dive" for some outstanding examples of balance issues. Or cast your minds back to the days of Suarez, or Dalglish, or Owen.
Diving is a total smokescreen for all the other unpunished cheating in the sport. From time wasting to false appeals to feigning injury.
VAR last week would have confirmed the ref's view that Ali dived (in a clear attempt to con the ref into giving a penalty) - the law should be changed to make this a red-card offence.
VAR would have shown Kane to have gone down with practically no contact other than with a deliberately trailing leg. It's almost impossible for a ref to decide on these border-line cases in real time. VAR would lead to more correct decisions - still subjective yes, but with the benefit of hindsight, several camera angles and cooler heads away from the baying crowd. Are you really saying that wouldn't lead to fairer decisions?
Even the third incident with van Dijk was extremely dubious - why did the ref think the linesman (or whatever they are called these days) had a clearer view than him despite being much further far away? Again that's one of the tamest penalties awarded this season.
I'm certainly not saying that any team are innocent of the nefarious arts, but the Spurs/Lpool game was a shocker and the result turned on those decisions. If the technology is available to make games fairer then it should be used. Together with rule changes it would certainly greatly reduce the incidence of diving for penalties which make a mockery of the game.
-
VAR can't come to the PL soon enough. If implemented Spurs wouldn't have conned their way to a draw with Liverpool last week.
Also time to have players sent off for diving (which is one of the worst forms of cheating IMO) which VAR would also help with.
Apparently, VAR would have confirmed the decisions were correct- which is one of the reasons VAR is a joke, as it's still subjective.
There was no con - dodgy pens have been awarded at the Kop End for all time.
Liverpool fans moaning is a bit rich too... Google "Gerrard dive" for some outstanding examples of balance issues. Or cast your minds back to the days of Suarez, or Dalglish, or Owen.
Diving is a total smokescreen for all the other unpunished cheating in the sport. From time wasting to false appeals to feigning injury.
VAR last week would have confirmed the ref's view that Ali dived (in a clear attempt to con the ref into giving a penalty) - the law should be changed to make this a red-card offence.
VAR would have shown Kane to have gone down with practically no contact other than with a deliberately trailing leg. It's almost impossible for a ref to decide on these border-line cases in real time. VAR would lead to more correct decisions - still subjective yes, but with the benefit of hindsight, several camera angles and cooler heads away from the baying crowd. Are you really saying that wouldn't lead to fairer decisions?
Even the third incident with van Dijk was extremely dubious - why did the ref think the linesman (or whatever they are called these days) had a clearer view than him despite being much further far away? Again that's one of the tamest penalties awarded this season.
I'm certainly not saying that any team are innocent of the nefarious arts, but the Spurs/Lpool game was a shocker and the result turned on those decisions. If the technology is available to make games fairer then it should be used. Together with rule changes it would certainly greatly reduce the incidence of diving for penalties which make a mockery of the game.
"Extremely dubious" is one opinion. Most experts saw Lamella clobbered on the calf and called it a clear penalty. So, who's opinion counts when we use VAR?
Ali's dive was spotted without VAR and was correctly punished. Do you think diving is worse than the other cheating I mentioned above ? Why aren't we calling for similar punishment ?
There are so many other issues with VAR that I don't know where to start.
-
Looking forward to Spurs at Rochdale in the cup. Consummate divers like Alli and Kane are likely to come up with mouthsful of sand and asbestos.
-
Do you think diving is worse than the other cheating I mentioned above ? Why aren't we calling for similar punishment ?
Yes, because it has only one objective and that is to con the referee into unfairly awarding a penalty, the consequences of which may, and often does, change the outcome of games. It makes a complete farce of the game. It's not "tactics" or gamesmanship like time wasting - it's cheating.
VAR would go a very long way in eliminating diving from the game.
-
Looking forward to Spurs at Rochdale in the cup. Consummate divers like Alli and Kane are likely to come up with mouthsful of sand and asbestos.
;D
-
Do you think diving is worse than the other cheating I mentioned above ? Why aren't we calling for similar punishment ?
Yes, because it has only one objective and that is to con the referee into unfairly awarding a penalty, the consequences of which may, and often does, change the outcome of games. It makes a complete farce of the game. It's not "tactics" or gamesmanship like time wasting - it's cheating.
VAR would go a very long way in eliminating diving from the game.
Opinions again... I'd say timewasting IS cheating and does affect the outcome. False appeals are also conning the ref.
-
Give the team 2 appeals similar to Tennis, if it's vindicated then they still have 2 left. Maybe 1 appeal would make them less inclined to use them to stop the game.
-
Yellow card = Sin bin
Set the clock to 45 mins per half and stop it when time wasting or other stuff happens
Shirts should come apart if tugged too much.
-
Yellow card = Sin bin
Set the clock to 45 mins per half and stop it when time wasting or other stuff happens
Shirts should come apart if tugged too much.
Oooh, topless football! ;D :o :hand:
-
Maybe we should encourage fupbol teams to experiment with body paint or tattoos instead of shirts.
Mind you, the latter could wreak havoc with the transfer deadline.
-
Might work in football, but let's not extend it to cyclists' skin suits! :hand: Though then again, perhaps it wouldn't make any difference...
-
Looking forward to Spurs at Rochdale in the cup. Consummate divers like Alli and Kane are likely to come up with mouthsful of sand and asbestos.
;D
Rochdale 2 Great Southern Divers 2 !!!
Dale even re-laid the pitch so that Kane and Alli wouldn't hurt themselves horizontally. Circumstances forced me to enjoy this the old-fashioned way on the radio. A fantastic cup-tie and a susrprising humiliation for the normally excellent Spurs team. I think possibly not so surprising, isn't it their third replay against real-world opposition in this year's competition? Whatever happens at Wembley in the replay, this has been a fantastic result for the town. I've had a great week: Newcastle beat Manchester Unlimited, with football's most expensive (and over-rated) haircut taken off and now this!
And before you ask, I'm from the NORTH EAST but live in Rochdale.
-
Small clubs have been making Totnum work for their victories, haven't they? Good work Rochdale!
-
My grate frend Mr Sheen* even took to Farcebok to call Mr Alli a Rude Name, because we don't like Tottenham on this side of the Lea.
* diehard O's supporter.
-
In a nice quirk, Harry Kane was returning to the scene of his first league match, I think, as a loan-player for the O's. No idea what the score was then.
ETA 1 - 1. No dive reported!
-
Well done Wigan!
Curiously, Southend beat Wigan 3 - 1 only 9 days ago.
-
Marvellous! What a final Rochdale v Wigan would be.
-
Yellow card = Sin bin
And/or allow retrospective punishments for items that were punished by the referee during the game.
Right now it's something like:-
Dive during the game and get spotted by the ref = yellow card and no chance of further punishment
Dive during the game and it is missed by the ref but picked up retrospectively = red card and 2 game ban
The current discrepancy means players will still chance it during the game.
Set the clock to 45 mins per half and stop it when time wasting or other stuff happens
30 minutes per half is the proposed plan by the FA, that's about how long the ball is in play in a typical game. Would certainly be worth a trial in some matches to check for unintended consequences (I can see some teams with lower fitness using tactics to give their players more time to recover).
Shirts should come apart if tugged too much.
A great opportunity for time wasting and conning the referee by tugging ones own shirt (no innuendo intended).
-
An interesting post but in the light of tonight's result, it should wait until tomorrow!
-
30 minutes per half is the proposed plan by the FA, that's about how long the ball is in play in a typical game. Would certainly be worth a trial in some matches to check for unintended consequences (I can see some teams with lower fitness using tactics to give their players more time to recover).
60 is generous. Some managers make it one of their main tactics to have the ball-in-play time as short as possible. I half wonder if it was a KPI for Tony Pulis!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40993250
-
This is the thread from last year, but it's the same team making the noise! :) That was a great game.
The pitch is going to be a real problem for City to play down the middle, but when they get onto the grass I think they might cause one or 2 problems. However, I don't think their backline will enjoy fighting for headers in the mud for 90 minutes. The crowd is going to be absolutely mental as well - let's hope it's proper welsh weather. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eijc2tGe-zM
-
That was an impressive result!