Turn on thread page Beta

The Football League thread II watch

Announcements
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scott129)
    Exactly.

    Check out O'Neil's classy tweets after the game as well:

    Gary O'Neil ‏@Gazoneil 4h

    To the fans sending me abuse! I thought Russell was going to score and knew I was getting a red! But decided to do it to ... 1/2


    Gary O'Neil ‏@Gazoneil 4h

    ..help the team and thankfully it worked out! First red in 15 years!! Worth it now tho eh? #ladssaiditwasagooddecision



    Buck-toothed ****.
    I wouldn't be happy if my defender didn't do what O'Neil did.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Scott129)
    Exactly.

    Check out O'Neil's classy tweets after the game as well:

    Gary O'Neil ‏@Gazoneil 4h

    To the fans sending me abuse! I thought Russell was going to score and knew I was getting a red! But decided to do it to ... 1/2


    Gary O'Neil ‏@Gazoneil 4h

    ..help the team and thankfully it worked out! First red in 15 years!! Worth it now tho eh? #ladssaiditwasagooddecision



    Buck-toothed ****.
    Well that first tweet opens up the question of whether just a red is suitable in such situations - Russell is in with a one-on-one if he doesn't get fouled, I think it was Clint Hill on his right, but he wasn't going to get across to stop Russell. He would have had one chance, and almost certainly a free strike at any rebounds - by fouling him, O'Neil may have got a red card, but he's allowed QPR to get their defence set, and also got the defence back to cover - in the end blocking the shot from the free-kick. A red for O'Neil is certainly preferable to conceding as far as QPR are concerned, but does that just encourage cheating?

    Pretty classless person though - hope they go straight back down.

    What does that mean for derby though - with the hype around Hughes I can't imagine you could keep hold of him without offering Prem football?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    Well that first tweet opens up the question of whether just a red is suitable in such situations - Russell is in with a one-on-one if he doesn't get fouled, I think it was Clint Hill on his right, but he wasn't going to get across to stop Russell. He would have had one chance, and almost certainly a free strike at any rebounds - by fouling him, O'Neil may have got a red card, but he's allowed QPR to get their defence set, and also got the defence back to cover - in the end blocking the shot from the free-kick. A red for O'Neil is certainly preferable to conceding as far as QPR are concerned, but does that just encourage cheating?
    I agree with you here. In an ideal world there would be some further punishment. Not sure what that would be though. Whilst the rules are what they are though, you do what O'Neil did.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheMagicRat)
    I wouldn't be happy if my defender didn't do what O'Neil did.
    Bragging about it on a social networking site though? As I say, pretty damn classless.

    By all means, celebrate, congratulate the fans, whatever. Just don't make a joke about it with a hashtag like that. "Lads said it was a good decision HUR HUR HUR".
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    Well that first tweet opens up the question of whether just a red is suitable in such situations - Russell is in with a one-on-one if he doesn't get fouled, I think it was Clint Hill on his right, but he wasn't going to get across to stop Russell. He would have had one chance, and almost certainly a free strike at any rebounds - by fouling him, O'Neil may have got a red card, but he's allowed QPR to get their defence set, and also got the defence back to cover - in the end blocking the shot from the free-kick. A red for O'Neil is certainly preferable to conceding as far as QPR are concerned, but does that just encourage cheating?

    Pretty classless person though - hope they go straight back down.

    What does that mean for derby though - with the hype around Hughes I can't imagine you could keep hold of him without offering Prem football?
    I don't have an issue with the challenge, as such. I wouldn't be against retrospective action against him as he's admitted to not even trying to win the ball but, as MagicRat said, I'd expect my defenders to do the same probably. It's just the way he's chosen to address it which makes him a ****.

    Wouldn't be too bothered if we sold Hughes, I'd much rather have Bryson and Hendrick in midfield. If it gave us some sizeable funds to go and buy George Thorne permanently, I'd snap a bidder's hand off. It seems sad but the only thing going through my mind when the FT whistle went was that we may never see the likes of Thorne, Wisdom and Bamford in a Derby shirt again. I genuinely think we could be a considerably weaker team without them next season
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scott129)
    I don't have an issue with the challenge, as such. I wouldn't be against retrospective action against him as he's admitted to not even trying to win the ball but, as MagicRat said, I'd expect my defenders to do the same probably. It's just the way he's chosen to address it which makes him a ****.

    Wouldn't be too bothered if we sold Hughes, I'd much rather have Bryson and Hendrick in midfield. If it gave us some sizeable funds to go and buy George Thorne permanently, I'd snap a bidder's hand off. It seems sad but the only thing going through my mind when the FT whistle went was that we may never see the likes of Thorne, Wisdom and Bamford in a Derby shirt again. I genuinely think we could be a considerably weaker team without them next season
    Look no further than Watford as a prime example of how not to come back from playoff despair, and look to Leicester as to how to come back. So long as you don't change the team too much, you should still be up there.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scott129)
    I don't have an issue with the challenge, as such. I wouldn't be against retrospective action against him as he's admitted to not even trying to win the ball but, as MagicRat said, I'd expect my defenders to do the same probably. It's just the way he's chosen to address it which makes him a ****.

    Wouldn't be too bothered if we sold Hughes, I'd much rather have Bryson and Hendrick in midfield. If it gave us some sizeable funds to go and buy George Thorne permanently, I'd snap a bidder's hand off. It seems sad but the only thing going through my mind when the FT whistle went was that we may never see the likes of Thorne, Wisdom and Bamford in a Derby shirt again. I genuinely think we could be a considerably weaker team without them next season
    PRSOM

    I'm less fussed about keeping Hughes as I am about Thorne. He's been great. Bamford & Wisdom I'm less bothered about. Hopefully the Mac will get a couple of signings & loan players in as that's really all we need as long as we don't loose any others.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    Well that first tweet opens up the question of whether just a red is suitable in such situations - Russell is in with a one-on-one if he doesn't get fouled, I think it was Clint Hill on his right, but he wasn't going to get across to stop Russell. He would have had one chance, and almost certainly a free strike at any rebounds - by fouling him, O'Neil may have got a red card, but he's allowed QPR to get their defence set, and also got the defence back to cover - in the end blocking the shot from the free-kick. A red for O'Neil is certainly preferable to conceding as far as QPR are concerned, but does that just encourage cheating?

    Pretty classless person though - hope they go straight back down.

    What does that mean for derby though - with the hype around Hughes I can't imagine you could keep hold of him without offering Prem football?
    It's not cheating, it's a professional foul, no intent to deceive the referee whereas diving is what you should consider cheating as there is attempt to deceive the referee.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by samir12)
    It's not cheating, it's a professional foul, no intent to deceive the referee whereas diving is what you should consider cheating as there is attempt to deceive the referee.
    Its bad sportmansship really. Getting yourself sent off to stop a bloke scoring seems kind of unfair.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CraigWM)
    Its bad sportmansship really. Getting yourself sent off to stop a bloke scoring seems kind of unfair.
    It's not unfair as the other team benefits from having one man extra. It's really no different to a defender commiting a professional foul and getting a yellow as a result to stop the opposition from counter attacking that could potentially lead to a goal. It's called taking one for the team and no doubt players in every team do this.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by samir12)
    It's not unfair as the other team benefits from having one man extra. It's really no different to a defender commiting a professional foul and getting a yellow as a result to stop the opposition from counter attacking that could potentially lead to a goal. It's called taking one for the team and no doubt players in every team do this.
    Not necessarily though, the prime. Example is Suarez v Ghana back in WC2010 - handling it stopped the goal that would have knocked them out, and they went on to win on penalties. Now, how do Ghana benefit in that situation?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    Not necessarily though, the prime. Example is Suarez v Ghana back in WC2010 - handling it stopped the goal that would have knocked them out, and they went on to win on penalties. Now, how do Ghana benefit in that situation?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I feel like that is genuinely what a footballer SHOULD do in that situation.

    Tactically it makes sense.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    Not necessarily though, the prime. Example is Suarez v Ghana back in WC2010 - handling it stopped the goal that would have knocked them out, and they went on to win on penalties. Now, how do Ghana benefit in that situation?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    In the case of somebody preventing a goal by deliberate handball I think a 'penalty goal' should be awarded and the offender booked.

    For cases where it's denying an 'obvious goalscoring opportunity' it's a bit harder. I recently re-qualified as a referee and we were told that IFAB is considering an amendment to the rules on this whereby only if the penalty is missed does the offender get sent off and if it's outside the area I assume automatic red.

    This is still open to abuse though as a team might decide to deliberately miss to get a one man advantage.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    I feel like that is genuinely what a footballer SHOULD do in that situation.

    Tactically it makes sense.
    SLF is criticising the rules, not the player.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    Not necessarily though, the prime. Example is Suarez v Ghana back in WC2010 - handling it stopped the goal that would have knocked them out, and they went on to win on penalties. Now, how do Ghana benefit in that situation?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    They get a penalty to still have a chance of scoring and one man extra on the field? It's not Uruguays fault that Ghana missed the penalty straight after and then lost on penalty shoot out.

    No different to a last defender fouling a striker inside the box who could of scored to concede a penalty and get sent off and if they miss its their own fault.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Midlander)
    In the case of somebody preventing a goal by deliberate handball I think a 'penalty goal' should be awarded and the offender booked.

    For cases where it's denying an 'obvious goalscoring opportunity' it's a bit harder. I recently re-qualified as a referee and we were told that IFAB is considering an amendment to the rules on this whereby only if the penalty is missed does the offender get sent off and if it's outside the area I assume automatic red.

    This is still open to abuse though as a team might decide to deliberately miss to get a one man advantage.
    But even if the penalty is missed they were still given the 'obvious goalscoring opportunity' by having that penalty - there is no guarantee that the attacking team would have scored had the foul not been committed...
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex_hk90)
    But even if the penalty is missed they were still given the 'obvious goalscoring opportunity' by having that penalty - there is no guarantee that the attacking team would have scored had the foul not been committed...
    No but it's as much to do with the intent to stop someone scoring as it is with the goal being prevented. It's the sort of attitude FIFA want to phase out. A penalty 9 times out of 10 will be harder to score than the opportunity which got denied by a foul.

    Open goals, for instance.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Midlander)
    SLF is criticising the rules, not the player.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Yeah, I know, I just don't really have a problem with them as they are.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Midlander)
    No but it's as much to do with the intent to stop someone scoring as it is with the goal being prevented. It's the sort of attitude FIFA want to phase out. A penalty 9 times out of 10 will be harder to score than the opportunity which got denied by a foul.

    Open goals, for instance.
    I can see the logic, but I'm not sure if I agree that the penalty will be harder to score than the chance that was denied. A quick search suggests that 85% of penalties are scored (OK, those are stats for the Premier League but I don't imagine the Football League will be too different), whereas I would guess less than 85% of the chances which result in a red card for denying a goal-scoring opportunity are scored (the attacker could miss, the keeper could save it, one of the defenders might get back and make a fair challenge). I couldn't quickly find any stats on one-on-one chances though, so maybe it would be over 85% scored I don't know...
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex_hk90)
    I can see the logic, but I'm not sure if I agree that the penalty will be harder to score than the chance that was denied. A quick search suggests that 85% of penalties are scored (OK, those are stats for the Premier League but I don't imagine the Football League will be too different), whereas I would guess less than 85% of the chances which result in a red card for denying a goal-scoring opportunity are scored (the attacker could miss, the keeper could save it, one of the defenders might get back and make a fair challenge). I couldn't quickly find any stats on one-on-one chances though, so maybe it would be over 85% scored I don't know...
    I think what is being got at is that cheating your opponent of a clear chance of scoring a goal is the sort of thing the higher ups are keen to phase out. It's a difficult thing to decide on as both sides of the coin are equally valid I think, but stopping a ball going in with your hands being punished with a penalty is something I don't agree with. You take what would have been a certain goal and replace it with a chance of missing.

    A penalty goal and yellow card for the offender would be enough.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.