blonde poker forum

Sepp Blatter says he's fed up of players rolling around like they've been shot and coming back magically restored to fitness seconds later.

He wants there to be a timeframe where players who leave the field for treatment (or after treatment on the pitch) have to wait before being able to come back on.

Is this a good idea? Will it work?

Would the game be better if, if the physio and his magic sponge are required, you have to go off for, say, two minutes?

Would refs have to be tougher on heavy challenges, designed to get key players off the pitch? Would players be forced to play on despite being injured?

Reckon this could be an interesting debate.

Seems unfair, and unworkable.

Isn't this what injury time is for?

In before fergie gags.

Whatever method is decided, something has to be done, it is bad beyond belief now. Every other sport must be laughing their heads off at football.

A lad goes down, rolls 8 times, bangs the ground in supposed agony, after even the tiniest of bangs. Anyone genuinely badly injured ain't doing no 8 roll drama. 

Can't they just use video evidence retrospectively.  If the idiocy of Oscar is clear for all to see just give him a 10 game ban.  They will soon stop doing it if they get proper suspensions.

At the moment the risk/reward is out of line.  Penalty and red card for keeper if referee falls for it.  Yellow card and some minor embarassment if he doesn't.

FWIW I think this isn't a new thing - I remember world cups in the 1980s/1990s where the theatrics were absurd from the likes of Argentina, Portugal, Brazil, Germany and Uruguay.  Remember when Rivaldo got that Turkish guy sent off?  That was far more repellant than the Oscar dive.  It is only because it didn't used to happen too much in England that people think it is a new issue.

And the flip side of the coin is the constant shirt pulling by defenders.  I have some sympathy with a forward feeling that he needs to make a referee aware of what is going on by exaggerating as it seems to go unpunished 95% of the time.

Just don't see that the idea is workable.  Big centre back goes straight through the other team's star player and gets a yellow card.  Star player has to sit off the field for 5 mins.  How is that fair?  It won't stop a player diving and then jumping to his feet as soon as the ref has given a penalty so no need for treatment?

This^^^^
Sooo much video evidence about nowadays that this should be standard, same for the shirt pulling

Retrospective action has a downside, though.

Barry Gale is a superb left footed player. He has the unfortunate habit of going to ground. Sometimes, it's because he's targeted by slower defenders. Sometimes, he's genuinely evading a tackle and can't keep his balance. But sometimes it's he's just going down. Every time he hits the deck, you'd think he's just found out his wife has died in an horrific accident, such are the anguished writhing and the heart-piercing shriek that accompanies it.

On one of these naughty occasions against Kensington Rovers, Gale sees the defender coming and gives it the full Eddie the Eagle. The ref clocks it. He gets a yellow card for simulation, wins the ball after the free kick, beats three men and scores. The FA have him up before their panel the next day and give him a ten game ban for impersonating a Frogman.

He is back in time to face the return fixture at Kensington.

Every team benefits from the absence of Gale besides the one team who should: Kensington. Actually, Kensington lose twice because their rivals all have a higher expected chance of winning their game because of the absent player.

Now, what Blatter is saying is that Gale should have to go off the field (say for 2 mins) every time he has treatment.  He can still be punished by the FA but it suddenly becomes riskier for him to be rolling about if he has to stay on the sidelines on an exercise bike. There are lots of pros and cons to this, but it does have the advantage of benefiting the team that is the victim of the incident.

It's true it doesn't help the team involved in the match, but it's no different to when players get 5 match bans for dreadful tackles that the referee hasn't seen.  I think they should get rid of that stupid rule that if the ref gives you a yellow card then you can't be punished again.

The key is to bring the risk reward into balance.  The yellow simply isn't enough deterrent compared to the upside.

Dungbeetle should be the new FIFA president.

/thread.

It would start with the odd pocketed Toblerone and a knowing raised eyebrow, but before I knew it I'd be caught up in a frency of dancers and cash before awarding the 2022 World Cup to El Salvador.

Footballers spend 90 minutes pretending they're injured. Rugby League players spend 80 minutes pretending they're not.

Pretty simple answer. Do what they do in rugby. Stop the clock when the game stops for an injury. Sin bin players for a yellow. Pretty radical solution but it would eliminate both sides of the cheating/timewasting. No valid reason why either wouldn't work.

Central timing.  Why on earth the ref has to be the one who monitors the time in professional football is beyond me.

Posted this on a thread about 20 months ago, good to see they are getting there  :)


They need to have a panel to ref the games afterwards to log what actually happened.Then ban the players when they reach a certain amount of retrospective cards, every ban you get you don't get paid, 3 week ban means you lose 3 weeks money. The refs too, they should get points awarded for each decision, ones with the least amount of points get x amount of games ban depending on how bad it is.

If you did that at the moment no team in the land would have a squad big enough to play the fixtures, there wouldn't be any officials to ref the games and eventually they would all stop cheating when their teams were playing 6 versus 9 one week and as happened in a Scottish game a few years ago there was a guy from the crowd running the line.

Then when it goes bust we can start again and have the real game back

Sin binning for a yellow would stop any strong challenges from going in, really. Thus destroying the quite often aggressive nature of the English game that makes it so visibly appealing. Would be unfair if the tackler comes in hard but has every intention of getting the ball fairly, just gets beat by the man who nudges it on and clatters into him. It is a yellow, nothing more, but then he has to have a sin bin? Would end up with slide tackles not having much chance of existing anymore imo.


I don't like Sepp's idea. What if you have taken a knock, you have a dead leg that initially hurts a lot for 60 seconds, you stay grounded for as long as it takes to get your bearings, and then you are disciplined with a timeout. Seems wholly unfair.

I like the retrospective bans or yellows for outright dives with the player turning around and appealing it, or if they have playacted injured to induce harsher punishment for their opponent when really they are fine.

There is a problem though with referees and the fact they do not give foul often if the player stays on their feet. It goes for shirt pulling and a little nibble with the feet. It is never enough for one to go down, but under the letter of the law if it is a deliberate and illegal hindrance, it shouldn't matter how soft it is as it is there and has happened. The ref should be giving penalties for times when the player remains on his feet, despite a foul, especially in the box. So the players react by over-hyping the incident.

As for playing the advantage for penalties that is sometimes seen when it looks as if despite the incident a goal looks likely. I find that pretty annoying in incidences where the defender would have been sent off for it but have been saved by the guy that they tried to haul down getting up again to slot home. Example here:

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZ16fQM2kbc

If the keeper gets sent off there, its 10 against 11 and Ireland may have slotted home the pen and gone on to win the match, as it stood they go on to lose, despite that goal.

Think the referee's need to enforce smaller offenses better to stop players play acting, because they only play act because they are trying to overhype an incident they know otherwise they wouldn't get, even though it should be a foul. Also they do it to cheat when there isn't a foul, but I think their urge to do that comes from referees not punishing fouls often enough when they are.

Re OP.
Can't think of a worse new rule than this. It's already ridiculous that the player, and remember it's most likely a player who has been fouled, has to leave it and then wait for permission to come back on.

SinBin though has merits, think it needs a lot of thinking through and shouldn't be a direct swap for the Yellow Card but should be for offences between Yellow and Red.

Would love to see a stop to all the fuss about shirt pulling though. Maybe another issue that Rugby Union can lead us on. They put lifting loops on players legs and shorts, perhaps football shirts should be skin tight and Teflon coated?

We were discussing this the other day. Why aren't the shirts as skin tight as rugby shirts now are? Was watching the programmes on sky showing the premier league players who scored 100 goals, and it's amusing to see just how baggy the shirts were in the 90s. They're a tighter fit now, but not so tight to discourage grabbing.

An alternative would be removable sections, so if someone grabs it, they get a segment of the shirt in their hand, but the player can escape their grasp. Like those lizards that can release their tails to escape a predator.

:D