Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Sports, Hobbies & Interests => Topic started by: jeremyp on August 20, 2020, 11:14:55 AM
-
And they're off!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53846138
Arsenal are playing Liverpool away in their third match. Hope it is not as awful as the same fixture last year.
-
Harry Maguire is in some trouble.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53903703
-
Harry Maguire is in some trouble.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53903703
Guilty
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53903703
-
Quo vadis, Lionel?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football
-
Quo vadis, Lionel?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football
I'm not sure he would be a good buy for any club at whatever price he is likely to command - he's 33. However, if he came to England, it would be amazing to go and watch him play.
I voted for Man City in the poll.
-
I'm not sure he would be a good buy for any club at whatever price he is likely to command - he's 33. However, if he came to England, it would be amazing to go and watch him play.
I voted for Man City in the poll.
Presumably a lot could be made from products and sponsorship.
When C Ronaldo went to Juve they got big boost from that.
-
Scotland playing Israel tonight in the 2020-2021 Nations League, just over a month before Scotland play Israel in the play off qualifiers for the delayed 2020 European Championships which they both qualified for via the 2018 - 2019 Nations League.
-
Presumably a lot could be made from products and sponsorship.
When C Ronaldo went to Juve they got big boost from that.
I should have read the story more closely. He actually thinks he can leave Barcelona on a free transfer, but La Ligua thinks there is a €700 million release clause.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54019076
To put that in perspective, you could give them Newcastle United twice over and it wouldn't be enough.
https://www.shieldsgazette.com/sport/football/newcastle-united/newcastle-united-takeover-sale-price-could-drop-ps300m-yasir-al-rumayyan-sets-new-company-2523473
-
I should have read the story more closely. He actually thinks he can leave Barcelona on a free transfer, but La Ligua thinks there is a €700 million release clause.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54019076
To put that in perspective, you could give them Newcastle United twice over and it wouldn't be enough.
https://www.shieldsgazette.com/sport/football/newcastle-united/newcastle-united-takeover-sale-price-could-drop-ps300m-yasir-al-rumayyan-sets-new-company-2523473
Yes, leaving is dependent on the release clause being invalid or waived.
Also in the comparison stakes Apple is worth about 3000 Messis
-
Yes, leaving is dependent on the release clause being invalid or waived.
Also in the comparison stakes Apple is worth about 3000 Messis
Apple has $200 billion in cash in the bank at the moment. They could afford to buy him out 300 times over without even having to raise any capital.
-
First game of the season behind us and another openning day defeat in a game that we really needed to win. Can't see us getting any points until November when we play Fulham. My prediction is West Ham will be relegated. It's been on the cards for a while. You can't invest fuck all in a squad and expect to stay up. I'm not a fan of Moyes but it really doesn't matter who our manager is as long as those three clowns are in charge. GSBOUT!
-
Quite a game first up between Liverpool and Leeds. I would have imagined that Leeds would have groaned when the fixture list came out, but maybe they saw the first game of the season behind closed doors as perhaps the best opportunity to get something from Liverpool.
That said Liverpool have recently developed a habit for appalling (and costly in terms of goals conceded if not games lost) defensive errors. Given that they were so strong mid season last year defensively this is strange. I imagine that it was largely irrelevant in the post lockdown tail end of the season as they'd effectively won the title regardless, but if they don't improve they are going to start dropping points unnecessarily.
-
Quite a game first up between Liverpool and Leeds. I would have imagined that Leeds would have groaned when the fixture list came out, but maybe they saw the first game of the season behind closed doors as perhaps the best opportunity to get something from Liverpool.
That said Liverpool have recently developed a habit for appalling (and costly in terms of goals conceded if not games lost) defensive errors. Given that they were so strong mid season last year defensively this is strange. I imagine that it was largely irrelevant in the post lockdown tail end of the season as they'd effectively won the title regardless, but if they don't improve they are going to start dropping points unnecessarily.
After Liverpool have already secured the title might be better, bot OTOH, Leeds wouldn't want to be facing them if they (Leeds) are mired in a relegation battle. Win or lose, it's probably best that they have got this match out of the way.
-
After Liverpool have already secured the title might be better, bot OTOH, Leeds wouldn't want to be facing them if they (Leeds) are mired in a relegation battle. Win or lose, it's probably best that they have got this match out of the way.
Yes probably correct - and Leeds would have worked on an assumption that they'd get nothing from this game, which is what happened in the end. I wonder what this will do psychologically to their players - give them a big boost from going toe to toe with the champions for most of the game or leave them massively deflated from getting so close to a draw and then blowing it at the death.
-
OK - the world has gone officially bonkers.
I was watching Wolves/Man City last night and from a distance Man City's kit looked to be a broadly white affair. Get closer and it is Paisley, yes PAISLEY - I mean WTF:
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/liam-gallagher-reacts-man-citys-18293481
The only Paisley shirt that should be allowed in football as a St Mirren one.
I'm beginning to think this season may be a new low in kit design.
-
Something needs to be done about that new handball rule. Must be one of the stupidest thungs ever.
-
Something needs to be done about that new handball rule. Must be one of the stupidest thungs ever.
How long before strikers start deliberately kicking the ball at defenders' arms to try to get the penalty?
-
How long before strikers start deliberately kicking the ball at defenders' arms to try to get the penalty?
Exactly!
-
OK - the world has gone officially bonkers.
I was watching Wolves/Man City last night and from a distance Man City's kit looked to be a broadly white affair. Get closer and it is Paisley, yes PAISLEY - I mean WTF:
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/liam-gallagher-reacts-man-citys-18293481
The only Paisley shirt that should be allowed in football as a St Mirren one.
I'm beginning to think this season may be a new low in kit design.
https://www.queensparkonlineshop.co.uk
-
https://www.queensparkonlineshop.co.uk
Oooo that's nasty.
The home kit is quite nice though.
-
Lose first game to Newcastle. First points of the season against Fulham at start of November maybe? Fucking hate this season already. Beat Wolves and Leicester well. Man I love being a West Ham fan.😁
-
Anyone have a double on Man U 1 - Spurs 6, Villa 7 - Liverpool 2?
-
Anyone have a double on Man U 1 - Spurs 6, Villa 7 - Liverpool 2?
No-one ... in the history of the world ... ever ;)
Unbelievable.
-
Anyone have a double on Man U 1 - Spurs 6, Villa 7 - Liverpool 2?
Last night, I was having a laugh about the Man U on the phone with my friend who is a Liverpool supporter. At the time, Liverpool were only one nil down.
-
This is obviously loose change to Ozil but it's a nice gesture
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54440357
-
This is obviously loose change to Ozil but it's a nice gesture
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54440357
They're questioning Gunnersaurus's experience and I agree. I think he's a bit green.
-
So Scotland after a rank match and first penalty shootout are one match away from qualifying for their first major international tournament in 22 years. Pity that Serbia look quite good.
-
Interesting stuff on possible reforms
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54499998
-
Big win for England over Belgium
-
Interesting stuff on possible reforms
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54499998
Horrible propsal.
-
Big win for England over Belgium
Belgium who are #1 in the World apparently.
-
Belgium who are #1 in the World apparently.
Why add the word apparently as if it is some how a surprise that Belgium are number one in the FIFA rankings - they have been for the best part of 2 years I think.
-
Big win for England over Belgium
Indeed - I think a lot of us were surprised by the team England put out, but they certainly did a job, albeit with a bit of luck. Sometimes you just need to win, even if you win ugly.
-
Why add the word apparently as if it is some how a surprise that Belgium are number one in the FIFA rankings
Because it is surprising, to me at least.
Seriously, reading the reports in the run up to the England - Belgium match was the first time I heard it.
-
Because it is surprising, to me at least.
Seriously, reading the reports in the run up to the England - Belgium match was the first time I heard it.
Really?!? Suggests to me you don't pay much attention to football. Belgium have been number one since late 2018. I think anyone who actually bothers to follow football would have known they were number one.
But then you are a bit more of a rugger chap aren't you Jeremy?
-
Big win for England over Belgium
I wonder if Belgium will suffer from the Euros being kicked back from 2020 to 2021. I think they'd have been in absolute poll position to win had the tournament been held this summer, given their record over the past couple of years. However I wonder whether a further year might mean they had gone beyond their peak. The very best teams carefully plan towards a tournament and having it delayed can thrown that off.
-
Really?!? Suggests to me you don't pay much attention to football. Belgium have been number one since late 2018. I think anyone who actually bothers to follow football would have known they were number one.
Who is the number one team in the World is only of passing interest. What actually matters to me is who is going to win/has just won the Wold Cup or European Championships. I'd think of beating France as a bigger achievement than beating Belgium.
But then you are a bit more of a rugger chap aren't you Jeremy?
The Six Nations is, as you know, the greatest sporting tournament in the World.
-
Who is the number one team in the World is only of passing interest. What actually matters to me is who is going to win/has just won the Wold Cup or European Championships. I'd think of beating France as a bigger achievement than beating Belgium.
Which shows you really aren't paying attention. The rankings effectively work out the best team across a whole range of matches, competitions etc. France briefly were number one shortly after their world cup win, but since then they have drifted back, currently being ranked 2nd. On that basis Belgium are a harder team to beat. And I think anyone looking at the wealth of talent Belgium have had over the past couple of years would understand that they are worthy top dogs in the rankings at the moment.
-
Which shows you really aren't paying attention. The rankings effectively work out the best team across a whole range of matches, competitions etc. France briefly were number one shortly after their world cup win, but since then they have drifted back, currently being ranked 2nd. On that basis Belgium are a harder team to beat. And I think anyone looking at the wealth of talent Belgium have had over the past couple of years would understand that they are worthy top dogs in the rankings at the moment.
Would you rather England were ranked number one for a couple of years or won the World Cup? Would you rather be a France supporter of a Belgium supporter?
-
Would you rather England were ranked number one for a couple of years or won the World Cup? Would you rather be a France supporter of a Belgium supporter?
We aren't talking about fans' views but rankings based on results.
-
We aren't talking about fans' views but rankings based on results.
We're talking about why I was unaware that Belgium was ranked number one in the World. Part of my explanation for that gap in my knowledge is that the rankings are not that important as far as fans are concerned. So yes, we are talking about fans' views.
-
We're talking about why I was unaware that Belgium was ranked number one in the World. Part of my explanation for that gap in my knowledge is that the rankings are not that important as far as fans are concerned. So yes, we are talking about fans' views.
No we are talking about your view (who doesn't really seem to be much of a fan) - don't tar other fans with your lack of knowledge.
I imagine most real fans have a good understanding about the rankings, will have known in advance of last night's game that Belgium were number one in the world. Not least because it matters in terms both of the competition last night's game was part of (the Nations League), but also importantly which group teams end up in the the group stages of both the Euros and the World Cup.
-
No we are talking about your view (who doesn't really seem to be much of a fan) - don't tar other fans with your lack of knowledge.
I imagine most real fans have a good understanding about the rankings, will have known in advance of last night's game that Belgium were number one in the world. Not least because it matters in terms both of the competition last night's game was part of (the Nations League), but also importantly which group teams end up in the the group stages of both the Euros and the World Cup.
'Real fans' here is a No True Scotsman
-
'Real fans' here is a No True Scotsman
Fair enough, although the point remains.
You really can't have been paying attention if you claim to be a football fan, yet haven't recognised that over the past few years Belgium have been right at the top of the heap in terms of world rankings. Even if you hadn't realised they've been ranked 1st for the past 2 years (in which case where have you been) it surely wouldn't have been a surprise to discover they are ranked top - unless you haven't been paying attention and aren't really that interested in football.
-
Fair enough, although the point remains.
You really can't have been paying attention if you claim to be a football fan, yet haven't recognised that over the past few years Belgium have been right at the top of the heap in terms of world rankings. Even if you hadn't realised they've been ranked 1st for the past 2 years (in which case where have you been) it surely wouldn't have been a surprise to discover they are ranked top - unless you haven't been paying attention and aren't really that interested in football.
That's just you repeating your No True Scotsman changing 'real fana' into 'aren't really that interested in football'.
-
That's just you repeating your No True Scotsman changing 'real fana' into 'aren't really that interested in football'.
Which I stand by - I struggle to see how you could be really interested in football yet have failed to recognise that Belgium are one of the best teams around at the moment (even if you hadn't clocked that they were top which would therefore come as no great surprise). And for football fans based in England so many of the Belgium players are (or have been) based in England so they, and their quality, is hardly unknown.
-
Which I stand by - I struggle to see how you could be really interested in football yet have failed to recognise that Belgium are one of the best teams around at the moment (even if you hadn't clocked that they were top which would therefore come as no great surprise). And for football fans based in England so many of the Belgium players are (or have been) based in England so they, and their quality, is hardly unknown.
But jeremy hasn't said they weren't aware Belgium are one of the best teams. Just not aware that they were no 1 and that they aren't that bothered by the rankings.
-
But jeremy hasn't said they weren't aware Belgium are one of the best teams. Just not aware that they were no 1 and that they aren't that bothered by the rankings.
Nope he went further than not being aware they were top, he said he was surprised that they were top.
I get that someone who purports to be interested in football might not be aware that they are ranked top (particularly if they aren't really interested in rankings), however I'm struggling to see how someone who purports to be interested in football would be surprised that they were top. That's my point.
Where on earth would you have to have been over the past few years to be surprised that Belgium are top.
-
NS - to move on from true Scotsmen and Jeremy's knowledge or lack thereof of football I wonder whether you have a response to my comments in reply
Specifically - I wonder if Belgium will suffer from the Euros being kicked back from 2020 to 2021. I think they'd have been in absolute poll position to win had the tournament been held this summer, given their record over the past couple of years. However I wonder whether a further year might mean they had gone beyond their peak.
If you look are their team they are hugely experienced - I think 6 of their top ten capped player of all time are in the current squad, albeit not all were available last night. As good as that is for experience it does mean they have a load of players at the heart of their team are over 30. These may be players where one more year brings a decline in their abilities, rather than for a young team where an extra year may improve them.
-
Looking at the squad and missing players, Vertonghen, Vermaelen and Mertens are the players who would definitely be at the far end of playing age. That could be significant. Their defence looks most affected by age.
-
Looking at the squad and missing players, Vertonghen, Vermaelen and Mertens are the players who would definitely be at the far end of playing age. That could be significant. Their defence looks most affected by age.
And of those that played, Mignolet, Alderweireld and Witsel are over 30 and Boyata and Meunier are 29, as are deBruyne and Eden Hazard.
I think perhaps 2018 was their best chance with their own 'golden generation' (remember Kompany was also playing then), by 2021 I'd be concerned that quite a number will be past their peak, and as this generation has been so dominant there isn't much experience waiting in the wings.
-
No we are talking about your view (who doesn't really seem to be much of a fan)
I tell you what. Why don't you fuck off?
I made an off the cuff remark about not knowing that Belgium were the number one football team in the world. And now you seem determined to make a huge deal out of it. What is your problem?
-
Can I just say I had no idea Belgium was the no 1 club. I thought it was Mansfield Town.
Seriously Prof. my partner who is an avid football fan (I know a gay football fan who'd have thunk it) had no idea it was Belgium either.
As he said, it just seems unlikely somehow.
-
And of those that played, Mignolet, Alderweireld and Witsel are over 30 and Boyata and Meunier are 29, as are deBruyne and Eden Hazard.
I think perhaps 2018 was their best chance with their own 'golden generation' (remember Kompany was also playing then), by 2021 I'd be concerned that quite a number will be past their peak, and as this generation has been so dominant there isn't much experience waiting in the wings.
Mignolet doesn't count here because (a) he's second choice and (b) he's a goalkeeper and so tends to have an extended career. Boyata is a useful fringe player.
I also think you overestimate the effect of being 30+. For many positions it can be managed and CR7 is older now than any of the players we have talked about than they will be in 2021 tournament. And given you mentioned Kompany he was 32 at the World Cup and had a significant injury history
The midfield would be likely to DeBruyne, Hazard, Carrasco and Tielemens which doesn't seem too old. DeBruyne's game should not be too affected by age but that is less true of Hazard.
I think they might not be quite the 2018 team in 2021 but that was true for 2020 but if the main players particularly Courtois, DeBruyne, Hazard, and Lukaku are fit and in form, they will have a strong chance. The effects of Covid on the flow of the season end of 2020 has made it difficult to judge teams' development and the integration of younger players so I don't think it's at all clear about comparisons. I suspect that may be true for this season as well with its interrupted and packed calendar. Unless they have significant injuries they will be amongst the favourites.
-
Can I just say I had no idea Belgium was the no 1 club. I thought it was Mansfield Town.
Seriously Prof. my partner who is an avid football fan (I know a gay football fan who'd have thunk it) had no idea it was Belgium either.
As he said, it just seems unlikely somehow.
I think many fans are not really that bothered by who is ranked no1 by an algorithm, as Jeremy notes more by competitions won. Also while it can have imports for which pot teams go into in draws, it's mainly a geek thing to know what current rankings are, I say that as a geek.
I should note though my geekery leans more to knowing who are the unofficial world champions, currently Italy, though that interest may be sparked by the all time rankings.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unofficial_Football_World_Championships
-
Can I just say I had no idea Belgium was the no 1 club. I thought it was Mansfield Town.
Seriously Prof. my partner who is an avid football fan (I know a gay football fan who'd have thunk it) had no idea it was Belgium either.
As he said, it just seems unlikely somehow.
I am genuinely surprised that anyone who follows international football is surprised that Belgium are ranked number 1. Sure I understand that you might not be aware specifically on rankings, but surely the notion that Belgium are right at the top has been common knowledge for a while - certainly since the 2018 world cup.
And just thinking about their current crop of players means it is pretty obvious they are going to be right up there. Perhaps number 1, perhaps number 2, but to be surprised that Belgium are ranked number 1 suggests someone hasn't really been paying attention.
Worth noting too that there was loads of press when the Nation League groups were drawn that England would be playing the number one team in the world, and this was reiterated prior to the game at the weekend.
-
I made an off the cuff remark about not knowing that Belgium were the number one football team in the world. And now you seem determined to make a huge deal out of it. What is your problem?
No Jeremy - it isn't that you didn't know who was top of the rankings that was my issue. My point was that you were surprised that Belgium were top of the rankings - it isn't a surprise at all if you've been watching international football over the past few years or understand the quality of players they have available to them.
That's my point. To be surprised that they are number one suggest you either haven't been paying attention or are stuck in a stereotypical view that Belgium are a small nation so can't possible be number one and that the number one spot can somehow only be held by one of the big established nations.
-
No Jeremy - it isn't that you didn't know who was top of the rankings that was my issue. My point was that you were surprised that Belgium were top of the rankings - it isn't a surprise at all if you've been watching international football over the past few years or understand the quality of players they have available to them.
That's my point. To be surprised that they are number one suggest you either haven't been paying attention or are stuck in a stereotypical view that Belgium are a small nation so can't possible be number one and that the number one spot can somehow only be held by one of the big established nations.
False dichotomy
-
False dichotomy
You are absolutely right NS.
To be surprised that Belgium are number you could have been failing to pay attention to what was going on in international football and are stuck in a stereotypical view that Belgium are a small nation so can't possible be number one
-
You are absolutely right NS.
To be surprised that Belgium are number you could have been failing to pay attention to what was going on in international football and are stuck in a stereotypical view that Belgium are a small nation so can't possible be number one
And many other things as well. You are just back at your No true Scotsman, and then adding on some made up stuff about jeremyp's motivation. And also stating that about Trebtvoyager's partner. It's not your best look.
Btw you seem to have lost interest in discussing Belguim's chances..
-
I did know they were ranked number one but it surprises me nonetheless. Belgium got knocked out of Euro 2016 in the quarter finals and the semi finals of the 2018 World Cup. France got to the final of both and won the latter. But then I have absolutely no idea how the FIFA world rankings work. I think it's a complete mystery to most fans.
-
I did know they were ranked number one but it surprises me nonetheless. Belgium got knocked out of Euro 2016 in the quarter finals and the semi finals of the 2018 World Cup. France got to the final of both and won the latter. But then I have absolutely no idea how the FIFA world rankings work. I think it's a complete mystery to most fans.
Details are here
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_World_Rankings
-
And Cristiano Ronaldo has Covid.
-
I did know they were ranked number one but it surprises me nonetheless. Belgium got knocked out of Euro 2016 in the quarter finals and the semi finals of the 2018 World Cup. France got to the final of both and won the latter. But then I have absolutely no idea how the FIFA world rankings work. I think it's a complete mystery to most fans.
Here is how it works:
https://www.goal.com/en-us/news/fifa-world-ranking-how-it-is-calculated-what-it-is-used-for/16w60sntgv7x61a6q08b7ooi0p
So it is based on a combination of:
1. Raw result - win, draw, loss
2. The quality of the opposition
3. The significance of the match - friendly, qualifier, euro (or equivalent finals), world cup finals.
4. Overall strength of the confederation - e.g. UEFA, Concaf etc.
It doesn't surprise me that Belgium are top as they lost just one game in the World Cup finals (to the then top ranked team and they beat Brazil on the way), having won their qualifying group with 9 wins and a draw (only bettered by Germany in Uefa section).
Since then they've recorded 16 wins, one draw and one defeat going into the match with England at the weekend, including a 100% record of 10 wins in their Euro 2020 qualification tournament in which they scored 40 goals and conceded just three (the best qualification record across all teams).
Since Martinez took over as manager in 2016 they've won 36 or their 47 games with just 7 draws and four defeats (and that includes Sunday's against England and a defeat by Spain in a friendly in his first game in change).
Sounds like world number one form to me, unless you can think of a team with a better overall record. France are, of course, second in the rankings.
-
Cheers NS and Prof.👍
-
Cheers NS and Prof.👍
Hi AO
I think one of the things about the ranking is that it is based on results of individual matches, while taking into account the opponent and the tournament, rather that the result of the tournament per se.
So Belgium will have received almost as many ranking points for the games in world cup 2018 with 7 games, 6 wins, 1 defeat, compared to France with 7 games, 6 wins, 1 draw - possibly more so if Belgium's opponents were deemed to be tougher than France's.
Although this might seem odd it probably makes sense as the rankings are used for further prediction, particularly for draws for qualifying tournament and the group stages of the finals. So winning is tournament (for example compared to being beaten finalist or semi-finalist) isn't really a good indication that you will do better in the subsequent qualifying competition compared to that beaten finalist or semi-finalist. Not least because a finals tournament is based on a small number of games (usually 6 or 7) and there can be an awful lot of luck involved. Rankings take a longer look, over more games, and you'd expect luck to become less significant over that longer range.
I think the ranking is based on 4 years results, with most weighting to the most recent 12 months - so likely based on up to 50 matches. Knowing this, and knowing Belgium's record over the past 4 years, and their exceptional run of form in the last 12 months it should come as no surprise that they are top.
-
And Cristiano Ronaldo has Covid.
And from what I've read the positive test result came in just hours after he had a meal with the rest of the Portugal squad. Suspect we may be seeing more cases.
-
And from what I've read the positive test result came in just hours after he had a meal with the rest of the Portugal squad. Suspect we may be seeing more cases.
I can see there being cancellations in the near future.
-
I can see there being cancellations in the near future.
I agree.
I'm actually quite surprised that there have been so few cancellations since football returned in the summer.
-
I agree.
I'm actually quite surprised that there have been so few cancellations since football returned in the summer.
Yes, I think that the Czech Republic v Scotland match in the Nations League should have been postponed.
-
Far from vintage England performance last night
-
That's my point. To be surprised that they are number one suggest you either haven't been paying attention or are stuck in a stereotypical view that Belgium are a small nation so can't possible be number one and that the number one spot can somehow only be held by one of the big established nations.
OK, let's deal with this.
Belgium is a small nation (no need to poison the well with your "stereotypical view"), it's about a fifth the size of England, for example and less than twice the size of Scotland in terms of population. It is surprising if they achieve number one in the World status, especially as they weren't previously well known for being a footballing superpower.
Being surprised is not the same as asserting it is impossible. You're quite intelligent, you should know that.
-
OK, let's deal with this.
Belgium is a small nation (no need to poison the well with your "stereotypical view"), it's about a fifth the size of England, for example and less than twice the size of Scotland in terms of population. It is surprising if they achieve number one in the World status, especially as they weren't previously well known for being a footballing superpower.
Being surprised is not the same as asserting it is impossible. You're quite intelligent, you should know that.
You only need about 30 or so top players to make a great team that can be highly competitive over a number of years. And in that squad you need a few world beaters. Every so often a 'small' country produces such a squad and outcompetes larger countries. Every so often a country produces a golden generation of players.
And yes there is a level of stereotyping going on here. I suspect many people consider the Netherlands to be one of the great footballing nations - not always at the top, but regularly right up there and sometimes with a world beating golden generation. Yet the Netherlands isn't much larger than Belgium in terms of population. So why are we not surprised when the Netherlands ranks really highly and ends up at the sharp end of tournaments, but we are surprised when Belgium does so.
At the moment they have not one, but two of the world's most creative players, in DeBruyne and Hazard plus the striker with just about the best record in international football over the past couple of years. Add a really solid and experienced defence and it should be no surprise they are ranked top or close to top.
And didn't you notice they won every one of their qualifying games for Euro 2020, with a record better than any other team.
-
Far from vintage England performance last night
Have England ever had two players sent off in the same game before?
-
Have England ever had two players sent off in the same game before?
Nope
http://www.englandfootballonline.com/TeamDiscip/PlyrDisc.html
-
Nope
http://www.englandfootballonline.com/TeamDiscip/PlyrDisc.html
I must admit that I was surprised by the team section for both games - there seemed to be a lot of trying out of players whom I doubt would be on the first team teamsheet had this been the first game in the Euro2020 finals rather than a strange half way house tournament somewhere between a friendly and a real competitive game.
I guess some players were unavailable, but nonetheless.
If you give fringe players a start what you hope to achieve is to increase competition and boost confidence - certainly last night did neither, and although England won against Belgium it seemed to be inspire of the performance, rather than because of it.
-
And yes there is a level of stereotyping going on here.
What the hell are you talking about? Belgium is a small nation.
I suspect many people consider the Netherlands to be one of the great footballing nations - not always at the top, but regularly right up there and sometimes with a world beating golden generation.
Yet the Netherlands isn't much larger than Belgium in terms of population. So why are we not surprised when the Netherlands ranks really highly and ends up at the sharp end of tournaments, but we are surprised when Belgium does so.
The Netherlands is about 70% larger than Belgium in population terms. Even so, if you didn't know about their footballing history, it might be surprising to find out they were ranked at number one (only once for a short period of time, as it happens).
And yes, actually, in the context of their size, it is surprising that they have such a good record in Football.
And didn't you notice they won every one of their qualifying games for Euro 2020, with a record better than any other team.
If qualifying performance were an indicator of subsequent brilliance, England would have a whole heap of silverware.
-
I must admit that I was surprised by the team section for both games - there seemed to be a lot of trying out of players whom I doubt would be on the first team teamsheet had this been the first game in the Euro2020 finals rather than a strange half way house tournament somewhere between a friendly and a real competitive game.
I guess some players were unavailable, but nonetheless.
If you give fringe players a start what you hope to achieve is to increase competition and boost confidence - certainly last night did neither, and although England won against Belgium it seemed to be inspire of the performance, rather than because of it.
I think the current situation has affected the Nations League's point in some ways. That Scotland are involved in the later stages of the last one and the stages of this one makes it all a bit messy. I have to admit that the impact on qualification for the World Cup connected with this Nations League feel really arcane.
-
Far from vintage England performance last night
Poor. And Maguire isn't the same player he was at Leicester. Southgate needs to start playing those who are in form. What has Grealish got to do to get a start?
-
Poor. And Maguire isn't the same player he was at Leicester. Southgate needs to start playing those who are in form. What has Grealish got to do to get a start?
It's an odd one. I thought he was going to be in.
-
It's an odd one. I thought he was going to be in.
Southgate seemed reluctant to include his most creative players. I'd have liked to have seen more of Sancho too, but he was only give a brief cameo.
-
Some horrific VAR decisions yesterday. The officials have lost touch withe the original intention of VAR, to correct clear and obvious mistakes.
-
Some horrific VAR decisions yesterday. The officials have lost touch withe the original intention of VAR, to correct clear and obvious mistakes.
I agree - the Mane pass for Henderson's goal didn't seem offside to me, level at best. They need to draw thicker lines and require them not to overlap - then you'd have benefit of the doubt to the attacking side.
But the Pickford challenge is just astonishing - a red card if ever there was, yet somehow completely missed by VAR - how on earth is that possible. There was some talk at the time that it was because it had already been flagged offside, but that simply isn't true - in some angles you can see the official beginning to raise the flag for offside just after Pickford had clattered VanDijk.
I hope they review it and Pickford gets a retrospective red card, but of course that doesn't help Liverpool who surely would have won had Everton been down to 10 men so early, nor VanDijk who may have a serious injury as a result of the challenge.
-
Pickford should be done for assault
-
When Tottenham fucked it up! When Tottenham fucked it up! We're all having a party. We're all having a party. We're having a party, when Tottenham fucked it up!
-
When Tottenham fucked it up! When Tottenham fucked it up! We're all having a party. We're all having a party. We're having a party, when Tottenham fucked it up!
Here you are AO
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54594216
you can vote for the EPL's most extraordinary game. Spurs - West Ham is at 12% at the time of voting but Aston Villa - Liverpool is miles ahead.
-
Cheers! ;D
-
When Tottenham fucked it up! When Tottenham fucked it up! We're all having a party. We're all having a party. We're having a party, when Tottenham fucked it up!
Astonishing - I watched the match on and off until Bale came on after 72 mins. I muttered something to my wife about it being pretty grim when you are 3-0 down with less then 20 minutes to play and the opposition bring on Gareth Bale. I couldn't believe it when I checked the final score on my phone.
There really have been some bonkers games this season.
-
No action against Pickford
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54601721
-
No action against Pickford
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54601721
I just don't understand that.
-
I just don't understand that.
According to the report, the officials saw the incident at the time but chose not to send him off. There's apparently a rule that means they don't usually over-rule a decision made on the pitch.
-
According to the report, the officials saw the incident at the time but chose not to send him off. There's apparently a rule that means they don't usually over-rule a decision made on the pitch.
Wrong - from the news item:
'The FA does have the power to intervene even if a decision is seen, but this is only used in exceptionally rare circumstances.'
They could have intervened - they chose not to.
-
Wrong
Nope.
'The FA does have the power to intervene even if a decision is seen, but this is only used in exceptionally rare circumstances.'
They could have intervened - they chose not to.
Let me draw your attention to the bold bit above. Got that? Now look at my post below.
According to the report, the officials saw the incident at the time but chose not to send him off. There's apparently a rule that means they don't usually over-rule a decision made on the pitch.
I said the same thing as the article. You clearly didn't read my post properly and you clearly didn't read the article properly, or you wouldn't have written
I just don't understand that.
-
Let me draw your attention to the bold bit above. Got that? Now look at my post below.
I said the same thing as the article. You clearly didn't read my post properly and you clearly didn't read the article properly, or you wouldn't have written
The rule allows them to intervene (that this only happens rarely is a red herring and does alter their authority to intervene). So they had the authority under the rules to intervene - they chose not to. Exactly as I said. The implication of your comment was that they were not allowed to intervene under the rules - that isn't correct.
-
The rule allows them to intervene (that this only happens rarely is a red herring and does alter their authority to intervene). So they had the authority under the rules to intervene - they chose not to. Exactly as I said. The implication of your comment was that they were not allowed to intervene under the rules - that isn't correct.
I don't think jeremyp is implying that they couldn't rather he is misreading your post that you couldn't understand it as saying something other than you don't understand why they didn't in this case.
-
I don't think jeremyp is implying that they couldn't rather he is misreading your post that you couldn't understand it as saying something other than you don't understand why they didn't in this case.
That may be correct - it would appear that the FA were authorised to take action, even if such action is rare. I would have thought this would be exactly the type of case (so appalling was the challenge) where allowed, but rare, retrospective action was warranted.
-
That may be correct - it would appear that the FA were authorised to take action, even if such action is rare. I would have thought this would be exactly the type of case (so appalling was the challenge) where allowed, but rare, retrospective action was warranted.
Yep, that was my reading of your post and I agree.
-
Astonishing - I watched the match on and off until Bale came on after 72 mins. I muttered something to my wife about it being pretty grim when you are 3-0 down with less then 20 minutes to play and the opposition bring on Gareth Bale. I couldn't believe it when I checked the final score on my phone.
There really have been some bonkers games this season.
Yep, there have been some really extraordinary games. When Balbuena scored I thought shame, just a consolation goal. Then we quickly got another and my hope grew. When that Lanzini strike went in I jumped up and down in the pub. The best thing was one Spurs mate in England started giving me jip on Whatsapp when they went 3-0 up, but he got it back after fulltime.
-
Yep, there have been some really extraordinary games. When Balbuena scored I thought shame, just a consolation goal. Then we quickly got another and my hope grew. When that Lanzini strike went in I jumped up and down in the pub. The best thing was one Spurs mate in England started giving me jip on Whatsapp when they went 3-0 up, but he got it back after fulltime.
And no 0-0 matches so far in the Premiership
-
And no 0-0 matches so far in the Premiership
Didn't know that. Wow! Goals galore!
-
And no 0-0 matches so far in the Premiership
Nice one NS - you jinxed it ;)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54504242
-
Nice one NS - you jinxed it ;)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54504242
the power
-
Journalist apologises to Ansu Fati
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54641455
-
Going back to the discussion about whether the delay to the Euros had affected Belgium's chances, one question is that of Eden Hazard. If it had gone ahead when it was scheduled, it's likely that he would have been unfit. The question is will he be fit when it is held.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54623127
-
Going back to the discussion about whether the delay to the Euros had affected Belgium's chances, one question is that of Eden Hazard. If it had gone ahead when it was scheduled, it's likely that he would have been unfit. The question is will he be fit when it is held.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54623127
Yup
I think for any tournament there are a number of teams potentially good enough to win, but to actually win you need a bunch of things to align in your favour, including lack of injuries for key players, players hitting form at the right time (and that includes longer-range career performance peak) plus a good old fashioned dollop of good luck.
Actually Belgium could easily have won the world cup in 2018 - they were pretty unlikely to lose by a single goal margin to France in the semi-finals (which, let's face it contained the best two teams left in the tournament) and had they made it through to the final I think they'd likely have beaten either Croatia or England (had they made it through).
-
The goal Roofe scored for Rangers against Standard Liege tonight is one of the best I have ever seen. Will put up video whem there is an accessible good version.
-
The goal Roofe scored for Rangers against Standard Liege tonight is one of the best I have ever seen. Will put up video whem there is an accessible good version.
Nah - crap, not interested in someone scoring from by the touchline in their own half, I want to see them scoring from their own penalty area ;)
-
Nah - crap, not interested in someone scoring from by the touchline in their own half, I want to see them scoring from their own penalty area ;)
To be honest, I'm usually fairly blasé about goals from the half way line, it's the bits before combined with that that make this as extraordinary.
-
To be honest, I'm usually fairly blasé about goals from the half way line, it's the bits before combined with that that make this as extraordinary.
I only saw the actual goal, without any build-up in the briefest of snippets on the news last night.
-
I only saw the actual goal, without any build-up in the briefest of snippets on the news last night.
This is the best on Youtube that I can find. The very start doesn't show him winning the ball in the tackle but it makes clear that it was not just a shot but contained a dribble past three players, add on the tackle and it's just extraordinary.
https://youtu.be/O7x7Z2roJ7s
-
This is the best on Youtube that I can find. The very start doesn't show him winning the ball in the tackle but it makes clear that it was not just a shot but contained a dribble past three players, add on the tackle and it's just extraordinary.
https://youtu.be/O7x7Z2roJ7s
Nice
-
The rule allows them to intervene (that this only happens rarely is a red herring and does alter their authority to intervene). So they had the authority under the rules to intervene - they chose not to. Exactly as I said. The implication of your comment was that they were not allowed to intervene under the rules - that isn't correct.
No the implication of my post is that they only rarely intervene. It didn't say they are not allowed.
By the way, a rule doesn't have to be written down in a rule book to be a rule.
-
No the implication of my post is that they only rarely intervene. It didn't say they are not allowed.
In which case I think you are perhaps agreeing with my view that they were allowed to intervene (permitted within the rules) and that this incident was of sufficient severity to warrant that rare intervention.
By the way, a rule doesn't have to be written down in a rule book to be a rule.
Can you explain what you mean. Interpretation of the rules or laws may not be written down, but I believe the actual rules or laws themselves are, by definition, written down.
-
Points to Southampton's twitter account - posted a picture of the Premier League with Southampton on top after their win over Newcastle with the comment STOP THE COUNT!
-
Points to Southampton's twitter account - posted a picture of the Premier League with Southampton on top after their win over Newcastle with the comment STOP THE COUNT!
;D
-
Can you explain what you mean. Interpretation of the rules or laws may not be written down, but I believe the actual rules or laws themselves are, by definition, written down.
There's a rule in our family that you do not open the Christmas presents until after church, everybody has sat down with a glass of champagne (or non alcoholic beverage). Also, the youngest person distributes the presents. This is a rule that has been in force for at least 50 years and has never been written down - until just now.
Rules do not have to be written down.
-
Points to Southampton's twitter account - posted a picture of the Premier League with Southampton on top after their win over Newcastle with the comment STOP THE COUNT!
Count all the legal matches. Don't count the illegal matches.
-
There's a rule in our family that you do not open the Christmas presents until after church, everybody has sat down with a glass of champagne (or non alcoholic beverage). Also, the youngest person distributes the presents. This is a rule that has been in force for at least 50 years and has never been written down - until just now.
Rules do not have to be written down.
We aren't talking about your Christmas traditions JP, we are talking about the rules and laws of professional football. Give me an example of a rule or law in professional football (not the interpretation of rules or laws) that isn't written down.
And regardless what you call a 'rule' in your family isn't a rule at all, merely a tradition. What sanction arises if the second youngest member of the family starts distributing presents? Are they banned for the next three Christmasses!
-
Given the staggered start to matches, it's possible that there could be 4 different clubs to have been at the top of the Premier League this weekend.
-
We aren't talking about your Christmas traditions JP, we are talking about the rules and laws of professional football.
No we are not. I said there is a rule. It didn't say it was part of the official rules of professional football. You can think of it as an informal convention if you like.
And regardless what you call a 'rule' in your family isn't a rule at all, merely a tradition.
You say tradition, I say rule and we adhere to it strictly.
-
No we are not. I said there is a rule. It didn't say it was part of the official rules of professional football. You can think of it as an informal convention if you like.
Given that the discussion is on a thread called 'Football 2020-2021' and was about the rules associated with retrospective action for could play in a football match I think it was pretty clear that we were talking about the rules (or laws) of football.
So again please can you give me an example of a rule or law in professional football (not the interpretation of rules or laws) that isn't written down.
-
Given that the discussion is on a thread called 'Football 2020-2021' and was about the rules associated with retrospective action for could play in a football match I think it was pretty clear that we were talking about the rules (or laws) of football.
And it was pretty clear that the rule I mentioned was not part of the official rules in question but more of a convention (or tradition, if you like).
So again please can you give me an example of a rule or law in professional football (not the interpretation of rules or laws) that isn't written down.
The one we were discussing.
Whether you call the rule I mentioned a rule, a convention, tradition or whatever, it doesn't alter the point I was making or make me wrong. I suggest you start addressing the arguments instead of fixating on petty points about labelling.
-
The one we were discussing.
It is written down in the FA rules on discipline - specifically within the Disciplinary Regulations in the FA Handbook (which is their rule book).
-
This is a nonsense
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54855596
-
This is a nonsense
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54855596
I agree - it is crazy and there seem to be so many sensible ways around it, the easiest being to make the guide lines thicker are require there to be no overlap (therefore providing benefit of the doubt to the attacker). Alternatively make the point of reference the body centre of each player, e.g. central position of the body core at waist level.
-
Given the staggered start to matches, it's possible that there could be 4 different clubs to have been at the top of the Premier League this weekend.
On track for that to happen. That said for it to occur it will require Liverpool to beat Man City and I'm not confident that is going to happen later this afternoon.
-
Which they didn't. But it's an odd league now.
-
3 penalties and an o.g for Valencia v Real Madrid
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54859896
-
This is a nonsense
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54855596
It's not nonsense.
It's a consequence of the new handball law and VAR. He was technically off side because a part of his body that can score was in front of the offside line. The BBC report that you linked to shows exactly why the decision was correct.
I think the new handball rule is wrong and this is a good example of why, but the decision make complete sense to me given the current laws of the game.
-
It's not nonsense.
It's a consequence of the new handball law and VAR. He was technically off side because a part of his body that can score was in front of the offside line. The BBC report that you linked to shows exactly why the decision was correct.
I think the new handball rule is wrong and this is a good example of why, but the decision make complete sense to me given the current laws of the game.
I think NS (and I) think it is a non-sense law, or actually interpretation of the law. I think we both recognise that the decision is correct under the current interpretations of the offside rule, but we think that interpretation is crazy and should be changed.
-
It's not nonsense.
It's a consequence of the new handball law and VAR. He was technically off side because a part of his body that can score was in front of the offside line. The BBC report that you linked to shows exactly why the decision was correct.
I think the new handball rule is wrong and this is a good example of why, but the decision make complete sense to me given the current laws of the game.
And actually I'm not sure the decision was right.
If you look at the image of the Bamford 'offside' they seem to have taken a line from a point about half way between the shoulder and elbow.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54855596
Yet under the actually laws the boundary between the shoulder and the arm is defined as the bottom of the armpit.
https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/2020-21-law-changes-explained
So in retrospect I think the decision was actually incorrect as well as the current interpretation of the offside rules being crazy.
-
I think NS (and I) think it is a non-sense law, or actually interpretation of the law.
I think the law was interpreted correctly, but it is a bad law.
I think we both recognise that the decision is correct under the current interpretations of the offside rule, but we think that interpretation is crazy and should be changed.
Agreed.
-
I think the law was interpreted correctly, but it is a bad law.
Not sure it was. The rules state that the point that the offside line should have been taken was the bottom of the armpit. The images show that the point was taken much further down the arm. Actually if the point is the bottom of the armpit then it make no meaningful difference whether the arm is outstretched or not, that point is pretty well in the same position.
So stupid law and not correctly applied (from the image of the offside circulated on the media).
-
This is a nonsense
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54855596
The more I look at this the more convinced I am that the VAR officials got it wrong.
Look at the image and you will see that they have taken their point for offside at exactly the point on the arm where there is a darker coloured ring. Look at the later picture and you can see exactly what and where that dark ring is. And anyone who thinks that is 'the bottom of the armpit' really needs a lesson in anatomy.
-
Not sure it was. The rules state that the point that the offside line should have been taken was the bottom of the armpit. The images show that the point was taken much further down the arm.
I don't agree. But of course we could argue all day about where the bottom of the armpit is and where the line was. I think I'd rather say there was no intent and the ball didn't actually hit him on the arm anyway and so the referee should have been given discretion to allow the goal as he would have been in previous years.
-
I don't agree. But of course we could argue all day about where the bottom of the armpit is and where the line was. I think I'd rather say there was no intent and the ball didn't actually hit him on the arm anyway and so the referee should have been given discretion to allow the goal as he would have been in previous years.
If you think your armpit ends half way between your shoulder and your elbow then you definitely need a lesson in anatomy. So I cannot see how the line take was in the correct place as from the image later in the BBC article that line around the shirt is clearly some way further down the arm than the armpit.
Regardless VAR is only supposed to be used to correct a 'clear and obvious' error by the on field match officials. In no way was the 'error' clear and obvious - indeed I don't think it was an error at all.
-
How is it possible for a single person in a single meeting to make completely inappropriate discriminatory language about four separate and distinct groups - black people, people of South Asian origin, gay people and women. Five if you separate out the comments about black people from that about people of Africa Caribbean origin.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54894864
It is jaw dropping.
-
I think the 'coloured people' gaffe is the least there. There was a time recently when that was acceptable and the more acceptable phrase 'people of colour' is not significantly different. The rest of it is a mess.
-
I think the 'coloured people' gaffe is the least there. There was a time recently when that was acceptable and the more acceptable phrase 'people of colour' is not significantly different. The rest of it is a mess.
Yes, I agree - I can understand why someone might have 'mis-spoken' in using an inappropriate term, albeit someone in that kind of leadership position should know better.
But his comments on gay people, women and people with South Asian vs Afro-Caribbean origin goes way beyond mis-speaking, his comments were crass stereotyping in a manner that should have no place in the FA, let alone at its highest levels. It does make you think about the broader culture in the organisation if their Chair feels able to make these comments in a formal hearing with MPs.
-
If you think your armpit ends half way between your shoulder and your elbow then you definitely need a lesson in anatomy. So I cannot see how the line take was in the correct place as from the image later in the BBC article that line around the shirt is clearly some way further down the arm than the armpit.
Jesus fucking christ. Give it a rest.
-
How is it possible for a single person in a single meeting to make completely inappropriate discriminatory language about four separate and distinct groups - black people, people of South Asian origin, gay people and women. Five if you separate out the comments about black people from that about people of Africa Caribbean origin.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54894864
It is jaw dropping.
I heard the one about coloured people and people of colour and I heard the one about young girl footballers not liking being hit hard by the ball (I'm pretty sure I didn't like it much either - in fact, I still don't) but I have not heard the insults directed at black people and South Asians. What did he say?
People of African Caribbean origin are a subset of black people, so yes, I would treat them as separate (with Afro-Carribbeans being insulted twice).
-
I heard the one about coloured people and people of colour and I heard the one about young girl footballers not liking being hit hard by the ball (I'm pretty sure I didn't like it much either - in fact, I still don't) but I have not heard the insults directed at black people and South Asians. What did he say?
People of African Caribbean origin are a subset of black people, so yes, I would treat them as separate (with Afro-Carribbeans being insulted twice).
His comments were gross stereotyping:
On women - he said that 'young female players did not like having the ball hit hard at them' - the issue is that he is only applying it to female footballers, so your comment isn't relevant and indeed is precisely the point on the stereotyping, not implying that young male footballers also might not like it.
On gay people - he described them as making a 'life choice'.
On South Asian vs Afro-Caribbean - he said that there were "a lot more South Asians than there are Afro-Caribbeans" in the FA's IT department because "they have different career interests".
-
Regardless VAR is only supposed to be used to correct a 'clear and obvious' error by the on field match officials. In no way was the 'error' clear and obvious - indeed I don't think it was an error at all.
Exactly this! If they can't do it (which looks like they can't or won't) then get rid of it. I would say that if you can't spot the error within one replay at normal speed then it wasn't clear and obvious and then get on with the bloody game.
-
Am I correct in thinking that it's the VAR officals who make the final decision?
-
Exactly this! If they can't do it (which looks like they can't or won't) then get rid of it. I would say that if you can't spot the error within one replay at normal speed then it wasn't clear and obvious and then get on with the bloody game.
I don't have a fundamental problem with VAR - indeed I think it is good on a range of aspects. My issue is with 'clear and obvious' mistakes and benefit of the doubt. In cricket for LBW decisions there is an 'umpire's call' approach for close decisions. Something similar could be adopted, but perhaps with benefit of doubt to the attacker in off-side for example. I've mentioned this a few times, but a simple route forward would be to simply make the lines they add to the still image thicker and require there to be no overlap for an offside to be called. This would, as a stroke provide benefit of the doubt and get rid of the armpit width decisions.
-
... the referee should have been given discretion to allow the goal as he would have been in previous years.
As far as I'm aware the referee did give the goal and the line officials didn't flag it as offside. But it was ruled out by VAR who over-ruled the decision of the on-field officials. If the on-field referee is able to over-rule VAR then there isn't much point in having VAR is there?
-
I don't have a fundamental problem with VAR - indeed I think it is good on a range of aspects. My issue is with 'clear and obvious' mistakes and benefit of the doubt. In cricket for LBW decisions there is an 'umpire's call' approach for close decisions. Something similar could be adopted, but perhaps with benefit of doubt to the attacker in off-side for example. I've mentioned this a few times, but a simple route forward would be to simply make the lines they add to the still image thicker and require there to be no overlap for an offside to be called. This would, as a stroke provide benefit of the doubt and get rid of the armpit width decisions.
I think I broadly agree with you. At least I welcomed the introduction of VAR. From the fans' perspective speed is an issue but that, I believe, is due to checking milimetres intsead of the "clear and obvious"
. I would argue that it's implementation goes against the spirit of the game, in otherwords, against the attacking side.
-
As far as I'm aware the referee did give the goal and the line officials didn't flag it as offside. But it was ruled out by VAR who over-ruled the decision of the on-field officials. If the on-field referee is able to over-rule VAR then there isn't much point in having VAR is there?
VAR should be advice. "We think you might have made a mistake". "Let me check". " I was right/wrong". Should stay with the referee. Any decent referee will want to correct a mistake and will surely be seen to be good for that. But one real time replay.
-
I think I broadly agree with you. At least I welcomed the introduction of VAR. From the fans' perspective speed is an issue but that, I believe, is due to checking milimetres intsead of the "clear and obvious"
. I would argue that it's implementation goes against the spirit of the game, in otherwords, against the attacking side.
I don't think we want to go back to the world where blatant errors occur - for example ball clearly over the line and no goal awarded, or clear offside or on-side and the wrong decision. I think VAR should sort this out, but the VAR officials perhaps need to look in super-slow motion and static frame to determine whether there is an error, but then in real time to determine whether it is a clear and obvious error from the match officials, who clearly can only make on-field decisions in real time.
-
I don't think we want to go back to the world where blatant errors occur - for example ball clearly over the line and no goal awarded, or clear offside or on-side and the wrong decision. I think VAR should sort this out,...
Agreed.
...but the VAR officials perhaps need to look in super-slow motion and static frame to determine whether there is an error, but then in real time to determine whether it is a clear and obvious error from the match officials, who clearly can only make on-field decisions in real time.
Speed for me. Of course it can't be instant but this checking and checking, no.
-
Bloody hell, that was tense. Scotland make the Euros
-
Bloody hell, that was tense. Scotland make the Euros
I have just opened a bottle of very old rum which I have been saving for a very long time!
-
Bloody hell, that was tense. Scotland make the Euros
Anyone got those false fingernail thingies?
(T' Laphroaig's good.....)
-
Bloody hell, that was tense. Scotland make the Euros
Good for Scotland - didn't watch the match but the clip on the news suggests that it would be fantastic to watch as a neutral and would take years off your life if you had skin in the game.
-
Good for Scotland - didn't watch the match but the clip on the news suggests that it would be fantastic to watch as a neutral and would take years off your life if you had skin in the game.
And after all these years, we've had our first 2 penalty shootouts at the senior level within a couple of months!!!
-
Yes, Sir, I Can Boogie
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-54930718
-
Salah out of Liverpool's next two games vs Leicester and Atalanta because of Covid
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54935734
-
The top league tables in England, Spain, Germany, and Italy seem a lot tighter than they have been in the past couple of years at this time.
-
Yeah. Has to do with lack of fans and fixture congestion for clubs with European games. As for the latter, I have little sympathy. Don't like the model. European cups should be straight knockout, like they used to be.
Good win for West Ham today. Last couple of seasons we would have rolled over and let our bellies be tickled.
-
Bilic sacked
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55253670
-
And replaced by Allardyce
-
Deserved winner of Puskas award
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/football/55338235
-
Everton v Man City off due to positive tests for Covid
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55468576
-
Tottenham v Fulham off due to Covid
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55420342
Some calls to have a 'circuit break' but it wouldn't be easy with timings
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55480666
-
And Burnley v Fulham off due to Covid
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55456854
-
Aston Villa with lots of Covid
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55575321
-
Restriction in lower men's leagues, women's leagues, and Scottish Cup
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55616399
-
Last team standing?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55617486
-
'Is football on its final warning after continued breaches of rules and protocols?' Hmm...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55615893
-
It is not often I agree with Sam Allardyce but it's got to stop.
-
Not sure when Aston Villa will finish this season
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55644144
-
You would think that footballers would be beginning to realise not to travel like this.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55670668
-
I presume given the closeness of the league and the staggered start times that this season will have the most changes in the top spot for the Premiership/First Division
-
Lampard about to be sacked
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55794158
-
Lampard about to be sacked
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55794158
Your article has been updated. He's gone.
-
Not even eleven men could carry Lampard! ;D
-
West Ham into top four!
And surely Steve Bruce is not far from the sack?
-
Think this could be a long ban for Ibrahimovic
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55831122
-
Be interesting to see what happens with this.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55836237
-
Southampton got well and truely shafted by VAR last night. There shoild be explanations. More openness.
-
It's beginning to look a lot like Man City but Moyes might be in with a chance of manager of the year. Liverpool have become an enigma with the best record against the other 5 of the 'Big 6' and yet losing against Brighton.
-
Another awful decision by Mike Dean, who we all know lives to be the centre of attention. Hiw he gets to keep his job I'll never know.
-
Burnley saved from a fine by Bournemouth
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56000437
-
The best 'free' football team in the world?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55907793
-
West Ham into 4th
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55975613
-
Down to 5th after Chelsea win but still phenomenal
-
The air's thin up ere. Irons!
-
Premier League managers as animals
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1364917486093803520.html
-
The 'celebration' in the centre of Glasgow was about 2 blocks from my flat. It was like Guy Fawkes from about 2 pm till 9pm.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-56312051
-
Proper cup upset
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55512595
-
Dit fucking to
https://youtu.be/x2XcPq5d_0o
-
The 'celebration' in the centre of Glasgow was about 2 blocks from my flat. It was like Guy Fawkes from about 2 pm till 9pm.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-56312051
If I were Nicola Sturgeon, I would delay the next phase of coming out of lock down by two weeks and I'd make it very clear as to why I was doing that.
-
Dit fucking to
https://youtu.be/x2XcPq5d_0o
I can't tell you how disappointed I am that the club I support is part of this.
It ought to be fairly easy to kill though because it looks like nobody wants this except the top executives of the involved clubs.
-
Early radio reports that Mourinho has just been fired...
Now confirmed by BBC.
-
Early radio reports that Mourinho has just been fired...
Now confirmed by BBC.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56799400
As an Arsenal supporter, I'd normally be heartened by this news because Spurs have fired the entire coaching team which cannot be good for their prospects in the remainder of the season. Unfortunately, the super league story casts its shadow over all things football and this is peanuts by comparison.
-
I can't tell you how disappointed I am that the club I support is part of this.
It ought to be fairly easy to kill though because it looks like nobody wants this except the top executives of the involved clubs.
I suspect this is largely a negotiating tactic from the biggest clubs aimed at changes to the Champions League, so hopefully will disappear as a suggestion soon. Albeit I image that the outcome will be no European Super league but with the biggest clubs having greater influence over the Champions League, so still putting more power into the hands of the biggest clubs.
In a broader sense I've no issue with a European Super league - indeed isn't the Champions League already this. The big issue being that there is no 'relegation' and therefore no promotion. So no other team can get in on merit. That seems inherently unfair, but will also impact on quality and competitiveness - if there is no downside for losing, where is the motivation later in the tournament where teams can't progress but will be back again next year regardless of their results.
-
I suspect this is largely a negotiating tactic from the biggest clubs aimed at changes to the Champions League, so hopefully will disappear as a suggestion soon. Albeit I image that the outcome will be no European Super league but with the biggest clubs having greater influence over the Champions League, so still putting more power into the hands of the biggest clubs.
The only problem with that theory is that the big clubs have already won that battle, I believe. UEFA is due to announce changes to the CL either today or tomorrow that will put more power in the hands of the big clubs (i.e. those likely to do well in the CL).
In a broader sense I've no issue with a European Super league - indeed isn't the Champions League already this. The big issue being that there is no 'relegation' and therefore no promotion. So no other team can get in on merit. That seems inherently unfair, but will also impact on quality and competitiveness - if there is no downside for losing, where is the motivation later in the tournament where teams can't progress but will be back again next year regardless of their results.
All that is true but also, this super league would contain only twelve clubs determined by their financial clout rather than current form (as evidenced by the fact that Arsenal and Spurs are involved). It's certainly not fair but I think the biggest objection is that it is an attempt to syphon off as much of the European football revenue stream as possible into the pockets of the owners of those twelve clubs.
ETA: I think this will die before it gets off the ground. If the twelve clubs get expelled from their respective domestic leagues and banned from European competition, it'll kill them.
-
The only problem with that theory is that the big clubs have already won that battle, I believe. UEFA is due to announce changes to the CL either today or tomorrow that will put more power in the hands of the big clubs (i.e. those likely to do well in the CL).
I suspect they are looking to wring out some further last minute concessions from UEFA - hence the timing.
All that is true but also, this super league would contain only twelve clubs determined by their financial clout rather than current form (as evidenced by the fact that Arsenal and Spurs are involved). It's certainly not fair but I think the biggest objection is that it is an attempt to syphon off as much of the European football revenue stream as possible into the pockets of the owners of those twelve clubs.
ETA: I think this will die before it gets off the ground. If the twelve clubs get expelled from their respective domestic leagues and banned from European competition, it'll kill them.
Agreed - a ban from domestic competitions would kill this dead. But would the Premier League have the guts to throw out these six teams.
A case of who blinks first.
-
And clubs to be thrown out of the Champions League?
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/european/champions-league-teams-chelsea-city-b1833966.html
-
The Premier League has to take some of the blame. It set the trend and is now a victim of its own success. I was against it 30 years ago. Football needs a fans' revolution. Unfortunately I can't see it happening. These clubs know there are a billion plastics out there who actually think this is a good idea and will part with their dough as a result. A sad day for football. Even if this doesn't go through these clubs will still get a bigger slice of the cake, that's for sure.
Was thinking this morning, when will Karren Brady write an article about this in The Scum. Of course she'll condemn it but we all know had West Ham been invited GSB would be on this like a flock of seagulls on a bag of chips. Feel sorry for the fans of these clubs. They don't want it either. Seriously considering do I want to invest my time and hard earned in football.
-
A good piece from one of my favourite football bloggers.
http://thehlist.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-first-day-of-rest-of-our-lives.html?m=1
-
From elsewhere:
The irony of Boris Johnson explaining why English football clubs are wrong to want to leave an established, successful European set-up on the vague promises of more riches elsewhere has not been lost here.
-
From elsewhere:
The irony of Boris Johnson explaining why English football clubs are wrong to want to leave an established, successful European set-up on the vague promises of more riches elsewhere has not been lost here.
They don't want to leave the established set up: they want to have their cake and eat it. If they leave the Champions League, it'll be because of a ban.
-
I can't tell you how disappointed I am that the club I support is part of this.
It ought to be fairly easy to kill though because it looks like nobody wants this except the top executives of the involved clubs.
This subject is clearly not about "sports, hobbies and interests". Do the mods not consider that this has become more about international business politics, culture and interests? Should not the contributions to this particular discussion be moved to a more appropriate location?
-
This subject is clearly not about "sports, hobbies and interests". Do the mods not consider that this has become more about international business politics, culture and interests? Should not the contributions to this particular discussion be moved to a more appropriate location?
Feel free to report the thread if you feel it is in the wrong section.
-
Looks like Chelsea are preparing to backout of the Super League. Been reported by BBC and ITV now.
-
And now Man City.
-
All falling apart now. Woodward has resigned as Man U chairman.
-
Points to Chelsea for saying they were leaving first, but this has done damage to all of the clubs.
-
And looking like Andrea Agnelli resigned as Juventus chairman.
-
Article from earlier today from BBC saying the clubs were prepared for the reaction. Ha!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56807310
-
And looking like Andrea Agnelli resigned as Juventus chairman.
This has yet to be confirmed despite some good sources but Atletico and Barcelona also gone
If the European Super League was a Craig David relationship it would have ended after he took her for a drink
-
The BBC now reporting that all 6 English clubs have stepped back from this.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56823501
-
It seems inevitable that a Tory review of football will end with all clubs being owned by relatives of Matt Hancock.
-
The short term goal has been achieved. However, if this is not used as a catalyst for real change then we will have learnt nothing. The only real long term solution, in my opinion, is less, not more, money in the game. The more money, the bigger the inequalities. The stakes have to be lowered. Will this happen? Probably not.
The SL clubs should not escape punishment. Something that hits the owners more than the fans. Some sort European ban. But again will it happen? Probably not.
-
The short term goal has been achieved. However, if this is not used as a catalyst for real change then we will have learnt nothing. The only real long term solution, in my opinion, is less, not more, money in the game. The more money, the bigger the inequalities. The stakes have to be lowered. Will this happen? Probably not.
The SL clubs should not escape punishment. Something that hits the owners more than the fans. Some sort European ban. But again will it happen? Probably not.
I don't think that the fan owned 50 + 1 model in Germany is a panacea but I think it does have benefits. This article from the Coop Party makes it clear that the UK Tory Govt's sudden interest is shallow and opportunistic.
https://party.coop/2021/04/20/we-are-and-always-will-be-the-party-of-fan-owned-football/
The recent reforms in the Champions League show UEFA are just continuing to bolster the largest clubs, and the ESL has completely distracted from it. Add in the nonsense of the World Cup in Qatar next year for FIFA, and the moral outrage expressed by them on this becomes just stinkingly ripe hypocrisy.
-
I don't think that the fan owned 50 + 1 model in Germany is a panacea but I think it does have benefits. This article from the Coop Party makes it clear that the UK Tory Govt's sudden interest is shallow and opportunistic.
https://party.coop/2021/04/20/we-are-and-always-will-be-the-party-of-fan-owned-football/
The recent reforms in the Champions League show UEFA are just continuing to bolster the largest clubs, and the ESL has completely distracted from it. Add in the nonsense of the World Cup in Qatar next year for FIFA, and the moral outrage expressed by them on this becomes just stinkingly ripe hypocrisy.
50+1 would be a good start. Also agree about UEFA and FIFA. Unfortunately us fans (especially those of us who support PL clubs) aren't completely without blame either. We have stood by too long amd let it happen.
-
Feel free to report the thread if you feel it is in the wrong section.
I thought that that is what I had done.
The post which have followed my earlier posts provide affirmation of this. I consider that this specific subject does not belong in Football 2020-2021 because it relates to the culture of club ownership and the business of football rather than the game as it is played. It would be better located in Politics and Current Affairs.
-
I thought that that is what I had done.
The post which have followed my earlier posts provide affirmation of this. I consider that this specific subject does not belong in Football 2020-2021 because it relates to the culture of club ownership and the business of football rather than the game as it is played. It would be better located in Politics and Current Affairs.
Moderator:
HH
First of all you didn't report this: there is a 'Report to moderator' link on the bottom right of all posts, and if you feel that there is something about either that post, or the thread in which the post occurs, that you want to bring to our attention then you should click on that. You will then be able to note what your concern is, and this creates a formal report that Moderators are then prompted to consider and discuss how to respond.
In this case we currently see this issue as being primarily a 'football' story, in that some of the responses have been on the basis of 'sporting integrity' and the reactions of fans and, therefore, we regard it as being it is 'on topic' in the context of what is clearly a dedicated football thread. As such, we see no need to split any posts discussing the ESL proposal into a separate thread on another board
Gordon
-
Here are some of Levy's comments after Spurs withdrew from the ESL. Comedy Gold! ;D
The ESL was "a possible new structure that sought to better ensure financial fair play and financial sustainability whilst delivering significantly increased support for the wider football pyramid"
"I thought the Super League would be a brilliant idea because we could compete amongst the biggest clubs within the world."
"I must stress the pressures we face at Spurs are enormous and the Super League was a chance to keep Harry Kane at the club."
"In the end we decided as a club we would in all probability be losing every week we played."
"This took some days to accept, but we have now realised we are not Elite or indeed a Super League club, we don't deserve it, this is the history of Tottenham."
-
I don't think that the fan owned 50 + 1 model in Germany is a panacea but I think it does have benefits.
How would you even implement it? You would have to take a controlling interest off the existing owners. How would you do that?
-
I thought that that is what I had done.
No, I meant use the "report to the moderators" button.
The post which have followed my earlier posts provide affirmation of this. I consider that this specific subject does not belong in Football 2020-2021 because it relates to the culture of club ownership and the business of football rather than the game as it is played. It would be better located in Politics and Current Affairs.
Whatever.
-
Here are some of Levy's comments after Spurs withdrew from the ESL. Comedy Gold! ;D
The ESL was "a possible new structure that sought to better ensure financial fair play and financial sustainability whilst delivering significantly increased support for the wider football pyramid"
"I thought the Super League would be a brilliant idea because we could compete amongst the biggest clubs within the world."
"I must stress the pressures we face at Spurs are enormous and the Super League was a chance to keep Harry Kane at the club."
"In the end we decided as a club we would in all probability be losing every week we played."
"This took some days to accept, but we have now realised we are not Elite or indeed a Super League club, we don't deserve it, this is the history of Tottenham."
Wow. Of course, with £3.5 billion they could have done a lot to strengthen the club so they wouldn't be losing every week.
-
I thought that that is what I had done.
The post which have followed my earlier posts provide affirmation of this. I consider that this specific subject does not belong in Football 2020-2021 because it relates to the culture of club ownership and the business of football rather than the game as it is played. It would be better located in Politics and Current Affairs.
No it doesn't.
While there is the issue of big business in football I think the real reason why this was so toxic was the fact that the 'founders' would have a permanent place in the competition for over 20 years. So that breaks the whole notion that your achieve (or fail) on merit. If you are good enough you get promoted, or qualify for Europe. If you are bad you get relegated. That is integral to how our football works. Once you break that link football is changed forever.
So we see right now that perhaps four of those big six clubs may fail to qualify for the Champions league next season, simply because Leicester and West Ham may take two of the top four places in the Premier League. That's right and proper - why should teams automatically end up in the big league in perpetuity regardless of their quality, but simply because they are deemed a 'big' club.
So it is inherently a football issue, as it is about performance on the field and whether or not that should be linked to promotion, relegation and qualification. I think it should - the European Super League plans meant it wouldn't.
-
This is how deluded these big clubs are.
Florentino Perez: “It cannot be that in England, the six lose money, and 14 make money. In Spain the top three lose money, and the others make money. It cannot continue - at the moment the rich are those who are losing money.”
Paying over £100 million on a 28 year old player on £400,000 a week wages doesn't help mate. Is this not your own fault?
-
Florentino Perez: "People say this isn't about football merit, but it's wrong. Those 15 clubs earned it on the pitch, they've been winning trophies for the last 20 years. How can you say they haven't earned it?"
LOL!
-
Florentino Perez: "People say this isn't about football merit, but it's wrong. Those 15 clubs earned it on the pitch, they've been winning trophies for the last 20 years. How can you say they haven't earned it?"
LOL!
Spurs have a sniff of the Carabao Cup this weekend...
-
Spurs have a sniff of the Carabao Cup this weekend...
Elite! ;)
-
This is how deluded these big clubs are.
Florentino Perez: “It cannot be that in England, the six lose money, and 14 make money. In Spain the top three lose money, and the others make money. It cannot continue - at the moment the rich are those who are losing money.”
Paying over £100 million on a 28 year old player on £400,000 a week wages doesn't help mate. Is this not your own fault?
Whither financial fair play?
-
Whither financial fair play?
FFP is a joke. We all know it, these clubs know it too and that's why they continue to do what they do. Barcelona and Real Madrid are in deep shit. It's their fault and I have absolutely no sympathy with them.
-
I've just listened to a very interesting podcast from Dan Snow entitled Football, Money and the European Super League (https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/football-money-and-the-european-super-league/id1042631089?i=1000518286169)
Some very interesting nuggets. For example, Everton - one of the clubs very anti-the ESL - was one of the "big six" that started the English Premier League. Also, the interviewee - Jonathan Wilson - managed to enumerate a number of reasons why the ESL could never have worked.
-
Cheers! I'll listen to that later.
-
Balbuena sending off biggest joke of the season so far. Sent off for kicking the ball.
-
Balbuena sending off biggest joke of the season so far. Sent off for kicking the ball.
Unsurprisingly the red card has been overturned. Second time this season. The standard of refereeing is shocking.
-
Balbuena sending off biggest joke of the season so far. Sent off for kicking the ball.
No he wasn't. He was sent off for using his studs on another player. You can argue that it was accidental (and that seems to have been successful) but his studs definitely made contact with another player's leg.
-
No he wasn't. He was sent off for using his studs on another player. You can argue that it was accidental (and that seems to have been successful) but his studs definitely made contact with another player's leg.
He kicked the ball. His leg had forward momentum. Chilwell came rushing in. Where was he meant to put his leg? Wasn't even a foul.
-
No he wasn't. He was sent off for using his studs on another player. You can argue that it was accidental (and that seems to have been successful) but his studs definitely made contact with another player's leg.
Clearly he wasn't as the card has been overturned.
But it was a crazy decision in the first place - Balbuena kicked the ball and his natural follow-through meant he kicked Chilwell. There was no malice, no intent to foul - he just kicked the ball and guess what, football is about kicking the ball. I don't think it was even a foul let alone a card.
Jeremy - just because one players studs contact another player doesn't make it a foul or a card offence. You seem to be implying that contact of one players studs on another player somehow necessary constitutes a foul - it doesn't.
-
Clearly he wasn't as the card has been overturned.
But it was a crazy decision in the first place - Balbuena kicked the ball and his natural follow-through meant he kicked Chilwell. There was no malice, no intent to foul - he just kicked the ball and guess what, football is about kicking the ball. I don't think it was even a foul let alone a card.
Jeremy - just because one players studs contact another player doesn't make it a foul or a card offence. You seem to be implying that contact of one players studs on another player somehow necessary constitutes a foul - it doesn't.
I was just commenting on being carded for kicking the ball. That’s just not true. He wasn’t.
-
I was just commenting on being carded for kicking the ball. That’s just not true. He wasn’t.
But your response clearly implied that if a players studs made contact with another player that necessarily constituted a foul (or even a card) - that isn't the case.
I think you are on a losing wicket on this one given that pretty well universally the one decision was condemned as being crazy and indeed the authorities ultimately agreed too and rescinded the wrongly awarded red card.
-
Real Madrid player may miss 2nd leg semi final Champions League because of polling duty. Didn't know Spain had this.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56915346
-
But your response clearly implied that if a players studs made contact with another player that necessarily constituted a foul (or even a card) - that isn't the case.
No it doesn't. It implies that the referee looked at the studs making contact with another player (dangerously, even if accidental, I might add) and sent the player off for doing that, not for kicking the ball.
I think you are on a losing wicket on this one given that pretty well universally the one decision was condemned as being crazy and indeed the authorities ultimately agreed too and rescinded the wrongly awarded red card.
I'm not arguing for or against the decision at all. I'm merely pointing out that ad_o's assertion that he was sent off for kicking the ball is wrong.
-
No it doesn't. It implies that the referee looked at the studs making contact with another player (dangerously, even if accidental, I might add) and sent the player off for doing that, not for kicking the ball.
But realistically neither AdO nor your assertion is really correct. So the ref didn't send the player off for kicking the ball, nor did he send the player off because his studs hit another player (as you've claimed) - he sent the player off, presumably, because he saw it as dangerous play. Now he was wrong in that view as the card has been rescinded. The reality is that had the contact between the onrushing Chilwell (who didn't come close to getting the ball) and Balbuena (who perfectly legitimately cleared the ball) been slightly different, then it would be considered a foul committed by Chilwell, not Balbuena.
-
But realistically neither AdO nor your assertion is really correct. So the ref didn't send the player off for kicking the ball, nor did he send the player off because his studs hit another player (as you've claimed) - he sent the player off, presumably, because he saw it as dangerous play.
Yes. But it wasn't kicking the ball he thought was dangerous.
Now he was wrong in that view as the card has been rescinded. The reality is that had the contact between the onrushing Chilwell (who didn't come close to getting the ball) and Balbuena (who perfectly legitimately cleared the ball) been slightly different, then it would be considered a foul committed by Chilwell, not Balbuena.
Have you even seen the incident?
-
Have you even seen the incident?
Yes several times. Had Chilwell and Balbuena collided in a slightly different manner - (Chilwell clattering into Balbuena's outstretched follow through leg rather than Balbuena's outstretched follow through ending up planted on Chilwells calf) then it would have been a foul to West Ham at the very least. Why - because Balbuena had the ball and had legitimately cleared it prior to the collision.
-
Here's the BBC's clip for the record.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56907307
Yes several times. Had Chilwell and Balbuena collided in a slightly different manner
Well they didn't did they. Chilwell was nowhere near clattering Balbuena as he'd already pulled out of the "tackle" (or was turning away because the ball was flying past him).
- (Balbuena's outstretched follow through ending up planted on Chilwells calf)
Actually, his foot spanned the lower thigh, knee and upper calf. Chilwell could have ended up with a serious injury if his leg had been more side on or if Balbuena had made contact lower down. This is why I said it was dangerous.
But it's pretty obvious that Balbuena was carded not for the kick of the ball but the subsequent contact with Chilwell. Both ad_o and Gary Lineker were wrong to say he was carded for kicking the ball.
-
Here's the BBC's clip for the record.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56907307
Yes - as I say I've seen it serval times.
Well they didn't did they. Chilwell was nowhere near clattering Balbuena as he'd already pulled out of the "tackle" (or was turning away because the ball was flying past him).
So what - in fact the the only scenario where it might have been Balbuena rather than Chilwell sanctioned was the scenario that actually occurred. Had Balbuena's leg been in any other position and there had been contact between the two of them with the ball long gone then it would have been a foul against Chilwell.
Actually, his foot spanned the lower thigh, knee and upper calf. Chilwell could have ended up with a serious injury if his leg had been more side on or if Balbuena had made contact lower down.
That a player might have been injured or was actually injured doesn't necessarily indicate that a foul has been committed, let alone a card offence. Players can, and do, get injured all the time in perfectly legitimate challenges.
This is why I said it was dangerous.
Well I, and the officials who over-ruled the card, don't agree. There was nothing inherently dangerous (in terms of the laws of the game) in what Balbuena did. He legitimately kicked the ball, his follow through was natural and not excessively high. His only issue was that Chilwell's leg happened to be in the place where his natural follow through took him. He did nothing wrong even though the unfortunate set of events could have ended with one, or both of them injured - but to reiterate, just because a player might have been (or even is) injured in a collision doesn't mean it is an offence or considered to be dangerous under the laws of the game.
-
Actually, his foot spanned the lower thigh, knee and upper calf. Chilwell could have ended up with a serious injury if his leg had been more side on or if Balbuena had made contact lower down. This is why I said it was dangerous.
To reiterate - just because a player might be injured in a tackle or a collision, or even is injured, doesn't mean it is an offence, let alone a card offence.
You may remember this incident which in many ways was similar except Gomes suffered a horrendous injury in the tackle. As with Balbuena, Son was ultimately found not to have committed any offence and the card was rescinded.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/50309594.amp
-
From Danny Baker on twitter
The greatest thing, as a script writer, would be if Chelsea make the final tonight.
Chelsea then sign retired John Terry again because they have a hunch.
Final goes to penalties
They bring on JT.
World holds its breath.
And on the run up he slips over, fucking it up again.
-
Yes - as I say I've seen it serval times.
So what - in fact the the only scenario where it might have been Balbuena rather than Chilwell sanctioned was the scenario that actually occurred. Had Balbuena's leg been in any other position and there had been contact between the two of them with the ball long gone then it would have been a foul against Chilwell.
That a player might have been injured or was actually injured doesn't necessarily indicate that a foul has been committed, let alone a card offence. Players can, and do, get injured all the time in perfectly legitimate challenges.
Well I, and the officials who over-ruled the card, don't agree. There was nothing inherently dangerous (in terms of the laws of the game) in what Balbuena did. He legitimately kicked the ball, his follow through was natural and not excessively high. His only issue was that Chilwell's leg happened to be in the place where his natural follow through took him. He did nothing wrong even though the unfortunate set of events could have ended with one, or both of them injured - but to reiterate, just because a player might have been (or even is) injured in a collision doesn't mean it is an offence or considered to be dangerous under the laws of the game.
Oh FFS. For an intelligent person, your reading for comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. I haven't said anything about whether I consider the incident to be a foul or not. All I have said, and defended, is that the idea he was sent off for kicking the ball is false.
-
There was nothing inherently dangerous (in terms of the laws of the game) in what Balbuena did. He legitimately kicked the ball, his follow through was natural and not excessively high. His only issue was that Chilwell's leg happened to be in the place where his natural follow through took him. He did nothing wrong even though the unfortunate set of events could have ended with one, or both of them injured - but to reiterate, just because a player might have been (or even is) injured in a collision doesn't mean it is an offence or considered to be dangerous under the laws of the game.
Things can be dangerous without being deliberate or anybody's fault. Chilton could have been injured by what happened. How you can say that such a contact with a player's knee is not dangerous is beyond me.
But whether something is dangerous is a different question to whether somebody has to be punished for it.
-
Eric Cantona has been inducted into the EPL's Hall of
Martial Arts Fame. He reacted with the same modesty for which we all remember him.
I am very happy and very proud, but at the same time I am not surprised. I would've been surprised not to be elected
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/57157310
-
My favourite non-West Ham.player.
-
My favourite non-West Ham.player.
Who is? Eric Cantona?
-
Who is? Eric Cantona?
Yeah.
-
Brilliant achievement by St Johnstone and Callum Davidson who should have been Manager of the Year
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/57125203
-
Brilliant achievement by St Johnstone and Callum Davidson who should have been Manager of the Year
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/57125203
Yes and yes.
Remarkable; so sad there was no crowd - St Johnstone deserved one today.
-
I hate Leicester. Top four a possibility and they allow themselves to get turned over by Spurs at home. Twonks.
-
I hate Leicester. Top four a possibility and they allow themselves to get turned over by Spurs at home. Twonks.
Was hoping for a Leicester win as well.
-
Was hoping for a Leicester win as well.
Still West Ham in Europe
-
Still West Ham in Europe
Great season. Can enjoy European football next season. For a club like us you never know how much any of this is going to last, so just enjoy it whilst we can.
-
Was hoping for a Leicester win as well.
If they'd even got a draw, Arsenal would have finished above Spurs. Of course that would mean having to do the Europa Conference next year, which might be a poisoned pill.
-
Ha ha ha ha.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/57268046
-
Ha ha ha ha.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/57268046
Can't get more Spursy than that. Ha ha! ;D
-
European club football is in crisis apparently.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/57305261
Barcelona, for example, is €1 billion in debt and they need more money (hence the Super League). 🎻 <= the world's smallest violin.
-
European club football is in crisis apparently.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/57305261
Barcelona, for example, is €1 billion in debt and they need more money (hence the Super League). 🎻 <= the world's smallest violin.
That's what you get for paying silly money for players. No sympathy whatsoever. Clubs might well value players too highly and players might demand too high wages but no one forces clubs to pay them that much. Real value is only determined by how much someone is willing to pay for something. Until these clubs realise that, they will be in trouble. As I said earlier about this, Perez is right about one thing, something needs to change, but the answer isn't more money but less. The stakes need to be lowered.
-
That's what you get for paying silly money for players. No sympathy whatsoever. Clubs might well value players too highly and players might demand too high wages but no one forces clubs to pay them that much. Real value is only determined by how much someone is willing to pay for something. Until these clubs realise that, they will be in trouble. As I said earlier about this, Perez is right about one thing, something needs to change, but the answer isn't more money but less. The stakes need to be lowered.
I am more or less in agreement except there is one problem. Some clubs are now owned by billionaires who are prepared to throw silly money at them. As long as you have such clubs, other clubs that are run in a fiscally prudent manner cannot compete.
-
I am more or less in agreement except there is one problem. Some clubs are now owned by billionaires who are prepared to throw silly money at them. As long as you have such clubs, other clubs that are run in a fiscally prudent manner cannot compete.
Undoubtably.
-
Ancelotti to Real Madrid.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/57319559
-
Being slightly interested in the match :) I turned on FiveLive just before 5:0 p.m. Could someone please tell me who was booing as the teams walked in and why were they booing? Was it against a particular player, and if so why would anyone want to ruin such an occasion in that way?
-
Being slightly interested in the match :) I turned on FiveLive just before 5:0 p.m. Could someone please tell me who was booing as the teams walked in and why were they booing? Was it against a particular player, and if so why would anyone want to ruin such an occasion in that way?
Try and put them off.
-
Being slightly interested in the match :) I turned on FiveLive just before 5:0 p.m. Could someone please tell me who was booing as the teams walked in and why were they booing? Was it against a particular player, and if so why would anyone want to ruin such an occasion in that way?
I'm never entirely sure that the crowd noise and the pictures are necessarily in synch, but it did seem like a section of the crowd at least were vocal any time Manuel Neuer (the German goalkeeper, and captain I think) got the ball, although might just have been a distaste for passing the ball back to the goalkeeper.
O.
-
I'm never entirely sure that the crowd noise and the pictures are necessarily in synch, but it did seem like a section of the crowd at least were vocal any time Manuel Neuer (the German goalkeeper, and captain I think) got the ball, although might just have been a distaste for passing the ball back to the goalkeeper.
O.
Thank you. As I had nothing better to do from 5:0 to 7:0 p.m. I actually enjoyed listening to it all on FiveLive!! It was quite good really and I'm glad the English team won properly, i.e. not because the other team made too many errors!
Susan