The one thing I'd change about sport

[sovietsong]

Everybody to support their local team.

Ticket prices affordable.

Love arbs no drug testing for 100m

Surely you can't enforce a rule that dictates who people support. How would that work sovvy?

Sadly it's not enforceable. My worry is in 20 years we'll have 4 clubs with all the support & a lot of smaller clubs going out of business.

Wasn't if always the way? Not many Bradford City fans in my school, loads of Liverpool, Man U and dirty Leeds fans.  One of my brothers even started supporting Everton when they were doing well.  

My daughter's school is the same.  They all support the current glory teams and Spurs.  Not sure any of them support the nearest teams.  My daughter, of course, supports Bradford City, but they are 150 miles up the road.  

Possibly, I just think that it seems worse now. Maybe it's because dirty leeds aren't getting any glory supporters & I'm bitter

[hhyftrftdr]

Would like to see the rule they had in Serie A in the 90s where by four foreigners per squad with only 3 allowed to play a game in football. Not sure how it lies with euopean employment law or whatever but it has to be the way to develop the talent in our country. If that is a no goer then penalise unsportsmanlike behaviour and make it effective.

Think the reverse would be more effective, let teams use whoever they want in any format. Would stop man city etc buying english to line their bench.


Should get rid of all the federations from boxing and have a more natural system for who should fight who.

I would ban elements of the media that peddle myths which bear no resemblance to the facts and then are lapped up  by punters as a truth and shape an erroneus perception which is repeatedly regurgitaed in social media and internet forums.

Case in point is City buy English to line their bench. Really? Since the takeover nearly 7 years ago only 2 young  and established English have been bought by City and not used and one of them was a sicknote.

Or just make up stats to make a point. What about all the players they have failed to release, like lescott, or paid far too much so they end up running their deal?

Chose a great word to misspell there as well.

Lescott, Barry, Milner all had successful careers at the club. Richards was made of glass and is far inferior to Zabaleta. Remember though that Richards picked up 12 caps for England whilst in our first team a few years ago. Hart plays week in week out. Johnson showed promise but couldn't follow Mancini's tactics and also had a penchant for the Manchester nightlife. To get £12m for him was a great deal for us. Setting the world alight at Sunderland? Hardly. Rodwell might have got more of a look in had he remained fit. Also at Sunderland, also not a world beater. Sinclair, well yes that's the one that will always baffle. Blame Marewood for that!

But yes, let's all take the tabloid pieces as gospel. Clearly Man City are at fault for England being shit for the last 40 years.

Back on topic, I'd probably sack off the national team.

[JohnCharver]

Would like to see the rule they had in Serie A in the 90s where by four foreigners per squad with only 3 allowed to play a game in football. Not sure how it lies with euopean employment law or whatever but it has to be the way to develop the talent in our country. If that is a no goer then penalise unsportsmanlike behaviour and make it effective.

Think the reverse would be more effective, let teams use whoever they want in any format. Would stop man city etc buying english to line their bench.


Should get rid of all the federations from boxing and have a more natural system for who should fight who.

I would ban elements of the media that peddle myths which bear no resemblance to the facts and then are lapped up  by punters as a truth and shape an erroneus perception which is repeatedly regurgitaed in social media and internet forums.

Case in point is City buy English to line their bench. Really? Since the takeover nearly 7 years ago only 2 young  and established English have been bought by City and not used and one of them was a sicknote.

Or just make up stats to make a point. What about all the players they have failed to release, like lescott, or paid far too much so they end up running their deal?

Chose a great word to misspell there as well.

Lescott, Barry, Milner all had successful careers at the club. Richards was made of glass and is far inferior to Zabaleta. Remember though that Richards picked up 12 caps for England whilst in our first team a few years ago. Hart plays week in week out. Johnson showed promise but couldn't follow Mancini's tactics and also had a penchant for the Manchester nightlife. To get £12m for him was a great deal for us. Setting the world alight at Sunderland? Hardly. Rodwell might have got more of a look in had he remained fit. Also at Sunderland, also not a world beater. Sinclair, well yes that's the one that will always baffle. Blame Marewood for that!

But yes, let's all take the tabloid pieces as gospel. Clearly Man City are at fault for England being shit for the last 40 years.

Back on topic, I'd probably sack off the national team.

You cant really say how useful they would have been if city didnt need to sign/retain english players/totally over pay them to keep them/convince them to retire at 20-25. All the players you named took too long to leave. I dont blame city, I blame any system which stops you signing whoever you want or having anybody you want in the club.

England are shit because its too easy to get a deal you dont deserve then do nothing for 5 years.

Johnson hasnt been the same since he played with the under 15s

[hhyftrftdr]

Would like to see the rule they had in Serie A in the 90s where by four foreigners per squad with only 3 allowed to play a game in football. Not sure how it lies with euopean employment law or whatever but it has to be the way to develop the talent in our country. If that is a no goer then penalise unsportsmanlike behaviour and make it effective.

Think the reverse would be more effective, let teams use whoever they want in any format. Would stop man city etc buying english to line their bench.


Should get rid of all the federations from boxing and have a more natural system for who should fight who.

I would ban elements of the media that peddle myths which bear no resemblance to the facts and then are lapped up  by punters as a truth and shape an erroneus perception which is repeatedly regurgitaed in social media and internet forums.

Case in point is City buy English to line their bench. Really? Since the takeover nearly 7 years ago only 2 young  and established English have been bought by City and not used and one of them was a sicknote.

Or just make up stats to make a point. What about all the players they have failed to release, like lescott, or paid far too much so they end up running their deal?

Chose a great word to misspell there as well.

Lescott, Barry, Milner all had successful careers at the club. Richards was made of glass and is far inferior to Zabaleta. Remember though that Richards picked up 12 caps for England whilst in our first team a few years ago. Hart plays week in week out. Johnson showed promise but couldn't follow Mancini's tactics and also had a penchant for the Manchester nightlife. To get £12m for him was a great deal for us. Setting the world alight at Sunderland? Hardly. Rodwell might have got more of a look in had he remained fit. Also at Sunderland, also not a world beater. Sinclair, well yes that's the one that will always baffle. Blame Marewood for that!

But yes, let's all take the tabloid pieces as gospel. Clearly Man City are at fault for England being shit for the last 40 years.

Back on topic, I'd probably sack off the national team.

You cant really say how useful they would have been if city didnt need to sign/retain english players/totally over pay them to keep them/convince them to retire at 20-25. All the players you named took too long to leave. I dont blame city, I blame any system which stops you signing whoever you want or having anybody you want in the club.

England are shit because its too easy to get a deal you dont deserve then do nothing for 5 years.

Johnson hasnt been the same since he played with the under 15s

wp gg!

[HutchGF]

Bristow's commentary a close 2nd to that horrendous 'stand-up' chant.

What would you set the over/under on his use of the word 'lovely' at on his next stint?

[RickBFA]

On the same line as the beautiful thread, if you were king or queen of sport for a day, what would be your royal decree?












Swamping the ref doesn't tend to change his mind, but still they try...

Click to see full-size image.

How many times out of 100 does the ref change his mind, or yield to player pressure? I bet it's less than 1% of the time.

And yet the players do it every time.

How dumb, & what a waste of energy, is that?

Rugby Union solved that problem, football needs to. It's so easy to solve, too.

You want to argue son? The free kick gets moved forward 10 yards, & you get a card.

Still arguing? OK, it's a penalty & a red now.

It's a classic case of group think, or collective think. Our team mate argues, so we all join him.

If I were a ref, & one player politely asked to discuss a decision, I'd happily listen to him, & maybe even change my mind. If a crowd of 10 players, all pushing shoving & pressurising me get on my case, they have got no chance, ever. That's O Level psychology, we learn that at the age of 5.   

The Managers & Coaches must share a part of this blame, too, as must the Captain. They just have to tell the players "cut it out, it's pointless, only the Captain can query a decision, nobody else".

For all his greatness, Sir Alex must take part of this blame - he encouraged his players to argue, backed them up when they did, as Don Revie did two decades earlier. So it became accepted.

When we compare the various sports & how players react to officialdom, it's quite revealing. In, say, snooker, golf, RU, players don't argue with the ref, & accept decisions.

In golf & snooker, they declare fouls or penalties against themselves, as we saw at The Open this week. Can you imagine that in football, where every decision, be it a throw in, corner, free kick, or penalty, results in both sets of players appealing? And they get rewarded for a "professional foul", rather than reprimanded.

It's all so easy to solve, but we don't seem to want to.

100% agree Tikay.

The football authorities could solve the problem with the types of changes you mention but don't seem interested.

Same with diving. For me it should be a straight red card and minimum 2 match ban.

For some reason they see content with things as they are. Makes no sense to me.

[TheDazzler]

On the same line as the beautiful thread, if you were king or queen of sport for a day, what would be your royal decree?












Swamping the ref doesn't tend to change his mind, but still they try...

Click to see full-size image.

How many times out of 100 does the ref change his mind, or yield to player pressure? I bet it's less than 1% of the time.

And yet the players do it every time.

How dumb, & what a waste of energy, is that?

Rugby Union solved that problem, football needs to. It's so easy to solve, too.

You want to argue son? The free kick gets moved forward 10 yards, & you get a card.

Still arguing? OK, it's a penalty & a red now.

It's a classic case of group think, or collective think. Our team mate argues, so we all join him.

If I were a ref, & one player politely asked to discuss a decision, I'd happily listen to him, & maybe even change my mind. If a crowd of 10 players, all pushing shoving & pressurising me get on my case, they have got no chance, ever. That's O Level psychology, we learn that at the age of 5.   

The Managers & Coaches must share a part of this blame, too, as must the Captain. They just have to tell the players "cut it out, it's pointless, only the Captain can query a decision, nobody else".

For all his greatness, Sir Alex must take part of this blame - he encouraged his players to argue, backed them up when they did, as Don Revie did two decades earlier. So it became accepted.

When we compare the various sports & how players react to officialdom, it's quite revealing. In, say, snooker, golf, RU, players don't argue with the ref, & accept decisions.

In golf & snooker, they declare fouls or penalties against themselves, as we saw at The Open this week. Can you imagine that in football, where every decision, be it a throw in, corner, free kick, or penalty, results in both sets of players appealing? And they get rewarded for a "professional foul", rather than reprimanded.

It's all so easy to solve, but we don't seem to want to.

100% agree Tikay.

The football authorities could solve the problem with the types of changes you mention but don't seem interested.

Same with diving. For me it should be a straight red card and minimum 2 match ban.

For some reason they see content with things as they are. Makes no sense to me.

I'd agree on the badgering of referees. I don't understand why referees allow it, especially when they have rules regarding 'dissent' to adequetely deal with it.

Regarding diving, it seems an insoluble problem to me.
You regularly have football pundits looking at slow motion tv replays dozens of times and still not agreeing on whether something was a penalty or a dive. You do have refs booking players for dives at the moment and they probably get at least 10% of those wrong, maybe as high as 25%?
There might be half a dozen cases a season where someone has very clearly dived and you could take action (Oscar diving 2 years ago) but the vast, vast majority of the time, you're going to have a high % chance of making a huge, game changing error.

[nirvana]

I would change the umpires call relating to referred decisions in cricket. If the technology is as accurate as it says it is, just give it in or out.

There have been so many ridiculous referrals given not out due to umpires call and it makes a mockery of the whole thing. I know the referrals are there to eliminate clangers but there is too much riding on these games nowadays not to be as accurate as possible.

I'd take a contrary view to this - there is literally nothing of any value riding on these games. The only benefit that accrues from DRS is a slight enhancement to the drama factor for broadcasters. I'd happily see it go as it adds nothing to the spectacle for me.

[nirvana]

The reason players argue with the referee is not to get him to change his mind. It's not even close to being 1% of the time that would be successful. The only time I can remember a ref chaging his mind is the 1982 World Cup when the referee over ruled a goal after the Kuwaiti team walked off.
The reason players do it is two fold.
Firstly it is to create a doubt in the mind of the referee as to whether he got that decision right or wrong. If they are successful in creating that doubt, it makes the referee more likely to rule in their favour the next time, to 'even it up'.

The reason that the aggressive, in your face, shouting and swearing goes on is intimidation.
A referee exposed to a snarling group of players shouting and screaming in his face once does not want to experience that a 2nd time. A weak willed individual will 'bottle' a contentious decision if he feels he'll get that treatment.
That's your O level psychology.

Glad I read on before posting, this is of course the right answer

[BulldozerD]

Amongst other things I'd scrap any form of forced handshake before a game passed of as "respect". To me it only means anything if 2 opponents/teams can show respect to each other after the game, irrespective of the result or what has gone before.

[TightEnd]

Making team captains read out a prepared speech by the organiser after the national anthems

"we condemn racism and " etc etc

Often delivered in a monotone voice (and why not, these are sportsmen not trained media professionals) with dodgy acoustics and sound quality, it is assumed that the people to whom the message applies

a) respect the person delivering the message

b) are listening

c) if they do listen understand it

what a waste of time. Changing societal attitudes comes from families and standards of education not force feeding it to an unresponsive audience in the seconds before a big game

[AdamM]

MMA judging/refereeing.

It's horrendously variable.

With Judges, I would insist they were all qualified to judge MMA specifically. Many come from Traditional martial arts or boxing backgrounds and don't seem to understand what they're watching sometimes. Perhaps there should be a panel of current and former fighters, plus the better referees and representatives of the major promotions and athletic commissions to provide a better selection processes for the judges. Even better, perhaps judges should be former fighters.

In terms of referees, I think more often than not it's bad decisions made in the heat of the moment, rather than being bad referees. Even the best refs (Dean, McCarthy, Yamasaki, Goddard, etc) make mistakes or miss things with no ability to reverse split second decisions. If a ref jumps in to stop a fight and becomes immediately aware they've been premature and the fighter is able to continue, they should be able to restart the fight. Even the introduction of the MMA equivalent of a standing 8 count perhaps. Also, there could be assistant refs cage-side to alert the in-cage ref of fouls such as groin strikes or eye pokes that are missed inside the cage due to the line of sight of the ref.