Uruguay -v- Ghana, Q-Final

namloc1980

Pro. F wrote: »

I'm suggesting that when a clear goal (note, not a goal scoring opportunity but a goal) is denied by a deliberate breaking of the laws then a penalty goal should be awarded. Why would that not work? And just saying ''it's madness'' is not an argument.

It's a fundamental change to the sport where it would now permit goals to be awarded without a goal being scored. That is nonsense. Either a goal is scored or it's not.

Julez

Pro. F wrote: »

I'm suggesting that when a clear goal (note, not a goal scoring opportunity but a goal) is denied by a deliberate breaking of the laws then a penalty goal should be awarded. Why would that not work? And just saying ''it's madness'' is not an argument.

When does it become clear or unclear though? What if the goalie wasn't in net, and someone shoots and a player commits a handball 10 yards out? Its looks as though its going in? But how can u be certain?

Pro. F

ullu wrote: »

There is a risk/reward ratio attached to every decision we make, including sport. Suarez was suitably punished after assessing his options in a splits second.

The rules currently in place are fair and balanced and I feel people are over reacting as the missed penalty was the last kick of the game. There would not be a furore if Suarez handballed three minutes into extra time.

If you were to introduce a 'deserved' goal rule or whatever you want to call it, it would make a mockery of the current punishment system and would require an overhaul of how football is played (imo anyway).

There should be no reward for breaking the rules when you're caught and punished. The rules currently favour the transgressor in this situation as he trades a certain goal for an uncertain goal (a penalty). Suarez broke the laws of the game, was caught and punished and yet still came out with having gained a clear advantage for his team.

This hasn't just come up now. I'm almost certain it's been discussed before on here and I know I've discussed it before in rl.

namloc1980

Pro. F wrote: »

There should be no reward for breaking the rules when you're caught and punished. The rules currently favour the transgressor in this situation as he trades a certain goal for an uncertain goal (a penalty). Suarez broke the laws of the game, was caught and punished and yet still came out with having gained a clear advantage for his team.

This hasn't just come up now. I'm almost certain it's been discussed before on here and I know I've discussed it before in rl.

I really don't see the issue. He got sent off AND conceded a penalty! The fact that Ghana missed it is down to the Ghana player not Suarez.

Pro. F

Julez wrote: »

When does it become clear or unclear though? What if the goalie wasn't in net, and someone shoots and a player commits a handball 10 yards out? Its looks as though its going in? But how can u be certain?

Good point.
As I said earlier, I do think the new rule would require a tmo. But the situation you're talking about would need more than a tmo.
I would think that technology would sort this. In cricket they can tell whether the ball would have hit the stumps to within a few millimeters (it's called hawkeye iirc). It might need to be modified or something new used. Whatever the solution I'm sure something could be found.

namloc1980 wrote: »

It's a fundamental change to the sport where it would now permit goals to be awarded without a goal being scored. That is nonsense. Either a goal is scored or it's not.

Sigh... I'm going to have to answer this bit by bit:

namloc1980 wrote: »

It's a fundamental change to the sport

It is nowhere near a fundamental change to the sport. It would stop one activity - players deliberately handling on the line - it wouldn't effect any other part of the game that I can see. Something that prevents one rare activity, which is illegal anyway, is not a fundamental change.

namloc1980 wrote: »

where it would now permit goals to be awarded without a goal being scored.

Yes in this rare circumstance that is what it would permit.

namloc1980 wrote: »

That is nonsense.

Again, simply repeating ''madness'' or ''nonsense'' is not an argument.

namloc1980 wrote: »

Either a goal is scored or it's not.

This is just a re-hash of the earlier bits.

Pro. F

namloc1980 wrote: »

I really don't see the issue. He got sent off AND conceded a penalty! The fact that Ghana missed it is down to the Ghana player not Suarez.

He traded a certain goal for an uncertain goal (the penalty) so he gained an advantage by breaking the rules, even though he was caught and punished. Uruguay were in a better position after he broke the rules and was punished. Whether Ghana went on to score or not isn't important to the design of the rules. That's the issue.

namloc1980

Pro. F wrote: »

It is nowhere near a fundamental change to the sport.

Awarding a goal when it actually hasn't been scored is fundamental whether you like it or not.

namloc1980

Pro. F wrote: »

He traded a certain goal for an uncertain goal (the penalty) so he gained an advantage by breaking the rules, even though he was caught and punished. Uruguay were in a better position after he broke the rules and was punished. Whether Ghana went on to score or not isn't important to the design of the rules. That's the issue.

Where was the outrage and people getting their knickers in a twist when Harry Kewell handled on the line in the Oz-Ghana game?

Pro. F

namloc1980 wrote: »

Awarding a goal when it actually hasn't been scored is fundamental whether you like it or not.

So if this would be a fundamental change to football, what would theses dramatic effects be? How would the game, as it is played, change fundamentally? If something is a fundamental change then you would expect the way the game is played to change fundamentally...

Pro. F

namloc1980 wrote: »

Where was the outrage and people getting their knickers in a twist when Harry Kewell handled on the line in the Oz-Ghana game?

Link to a post where I was raging.

I didn't see that Oz game btw but like I said earlier I've discussed this issue before. This particular rules discussion is not new.

namloc1980

Pro. F wrote: »

So if this would be a fundamental change to football, what would theses dramatic effects be? How would the game, as it is played, change fundamentally? If something is a fundamental change then you would expect the way the game is played to change fundamentally...

So you think awarding a goal when it actually has not been scored isn't a fundamental change to the game?!? O.K.

28064212

Pro. F wrote: »

So if this would be a fundamental change to football, what would theses dramatic effects be? How would the game, as it is played, change fundamentally? If something is a fundamental change then you would expect the way the game is played to change fundamentally...

If the Suarez incident had happened in the first minute of the game, do you think the goal should have been awarded straight away and Suarez sent off?

What about a situation where the goalie has come right out, the attacker has rounded him, is 10 yards from an open goal, and is only stopped from putting it in by a defender who takes him out of it? Is a goal awarded then?

namloc1980

Pro. F wrote: »

Link to a post where I was raging.

I didn't see that Oz game btw but like I said earlier I've discussed this issue before. This particular rules discussion is not new.

I didn't say you in particular but read back through the thread, there was people calling for TMOs, penalty goals, calling for Suarez to be banned, calling Uruguay blatant cheats, blaming FIFA etc. I just want to know where was this outrage and calls for penalty goals etc after the Harry Kewell incident.

_Bella_

Confirmed: Uruguay's Luis Suarez has NOT been given an extra one-match ban

Carcharodon

_Bella_ wrote: »

Confirmed: Uruguay's Luis Suarez has NOT been given an extra one-match ban

If he was given an extra game it would of been a total joke and would of turned me off watching the rest of the World Cup.

However, Suarez should be given a good slap for the crap he spouted after the game, total nonsense.

namloc1980

_Bella_ wrote: »

Confirmed: Uruguay's Luis Suarez has NOT been given an extra one-match ban

Good. It would have been a joke if he had considering Harry Kewell got a 1 match ban as well.

Pro. F

namloc1980 wrote: »

So you think awarding a goal when it actually hat been scored isn't a fundamental change to the game?!? O.K.

No I don't think it would be a fundamental change. And you haven't been able to provide any argument to the contrary.

28064212 wrote: »

If the Suarez incident had happened in the first minute of the game, do you think the goal should have been awarded straight away and Suarez sent off?

I definitely think the goal should be awarded. Whether he should be sent off or not is a bit more tricky. I was thinking about that earlier and I'm going for the rule should be: the goal is awarded and the player gets a yellow. This would prevent unfair sendings off - sometimes it's just impossible to tell if a hand ball is intentional or not - while still de-incentivising the breaking of the rules.

28064212 wrote: »

What about a situation where the goalie has come right out, the attacker has rounded him, is 10 yards from an open goal, and is only stopped from putting it in by a defender who takes him out of it? Is a goal awarded then?

This is a different matter since the attacker hasn't taken the shot. The attacker still has the chance to miss (and people do miss sitters often enough) so it is definitely only a goal scoring opportunity as opposed to a certain goal. I think the current rule of a red and a penalty for this foul is fair. You might argue that in some situations - if the penalty is more difficult than the denied opportunity and if it's late in the game so the red won't have time to cause effect - then the rules still allowed the rule breaker to benefit. This would be the case some times but just because one aspect of the rules isn't perfect that's no reason not to fix a different area. It's not like that problem doesn't already exist now. This new proposal isn't causing the problem you're describing, that problem is already there.

namloc1980 wrote: »

I didn't say you in particular but read back through the thread, there was people calling for TMOs, penalty goals, calling for Suarez to be banned, calling Uruguay blatant cheats, blaming FIFA etc. I just want to know where was this outrage and calls for penalty goals etc after the Harry Kewell incident.

If you weren't talking about me then why did you quote me? I hate when people do that.

namloc1980

Pro. F wrote: »

No I don't think it would be a fundamental change. And you haven't been able to provide any argument to the contrary.

It's just stupid to give a goal when one hasn't been scored. It makes no sense at all.

Pro. F wrote: »

If you weren't talking about me then why did you quote me? I hate when people do that.

It was a question FFS which you now won't answer.....why wasn't there outcry over Kewell's handball??

Pro. F

namloc1980 wrote: »

It's just stupid to give a goal when one hasn't been scored. It makes no sense at all.

Again I'll ask - why is it stupid?

Here's another question you should think about - if you can't explain why the proposed rule change is stupid then how can you be so certain that it is stupid?


I've given a sensible explanation of why I think a penalty goal should be awarded in this situation. You have failed to provide an argument against it. Are you ever going to try to form an argument or are you going to just keep saying ''it's just stupid''?

namloc1980 wrote: »

It was a question FFS which you now won't answer.....why wasn't there outcry over Kewell's handball??

How the fùck am I supposed to know? I don't speak for the other posters on here and I've said several times that I don't agree with the outcry and I think what Suarez did was understandable. I've also said I didn't even see the Oz game.
If you so desperately want me try and work out why the Suarez incident caused more outcry than Kewell I suppose I can give it a lash:
...eh ...because it was a more important goal ...? Am I right, do I win a prize? Does it really matter?

pickarooney

Self-sacrifice for the sake of the team.

This is bollocks. Without the handball, there is no more Uruguay and by extension, no more Suarez. He would no longer be involved in the competition had he not handled the ball. Barring some silly intervention from FIFA he is still very much involved in the World Cup and still in with an outside chance of being top scorer and upping his transfer value some more.

Where's the sacrifice?

ArmaniJeanss

Pro. F wrote: »

Again I'll ask - why is it stupid?

ProF, your idea is all well and good until it leads to even more (perceived) injustice. All its doing is putting more potential 'in the opinion of' arguments into the game.

To repeat my example from earlier. In the first half Arsenal get a 'penalty goal' awarded when Ferdinand handles on the line. In the second half Rooney heads towards goal and Walcott saves with his hand. The referee opines that Clichy, standing slightly behind Walcott may just possibly have got his head to the ball, so gives a penalty instead of a goal. United miss and lose game.

Cue SAF explosion and major argument for days/weeks with goons on TV pouring over bizarre angles, analysts finding 20 examples from other games to back up why it should/shouldnt have been a goal instead of a penalty. And the usual ex-managers spouting about how 'all they want is consistency' (manager speak for wanting every marginal decision to go their way) and how 'people are losing their jobs over these decisions'. The conspiracists talking about how Chelsea get the 'penalty goals' but the Wigans and Fulhams get forced to take the penalties.

One of the few definitive rules in football is 'to be a goal all of the ball must cross the line', and this rule should be left alone imo.

namloc1980

Pro. F wrote: »

Again I'll ask - why is it stupid?

Here's another question you should think about - if you can't explain why the proposed rule change is stupid then how can you be so certain that it is stupid?


I've given a sensible explanation of why I think a penalty goal should be awarded in this situation. You have failed to provide an argument against it. Are you ever going to try to form an argument or are you going to just keep saying ''it's just stupid''?



How the fùck am I supposed to know? I don't speak for the other posters on here and I've said several times that I don't agree with the outcry and I think what Suarez did was understandable. I've also said I didn't even see the Oz game.
If you so desperately want me try and work out why the Suarez incident caused more outcry than Kewell I suppose I can give it a lash:
...eh ...because it was a more important goal ...? Am I right, do I win a prize? Does it really matter?

Awarding a goal when none has been scored is flawed. Why?? Because a goal hasn't been scored that's why. It also brings more opinion into it. One ref might think, yeah definitely going in, another might not be so sure. That is not satisfactory. Awarding a penalty and giving the guy a red card is the right thing to do. Why? Because otherwise you are introducing potential massive controversy into it by leaving it to the opinion of the ref as to whether the ball was going in or not.

As for Harry Kewell incident the reason there was not outcry was because the penalty was scored. And that was down to the penalty taker.

Pro. F

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

ProF, your idea is all well and good until it leads to even more (perceived) injustice. All its doing is putting more potential 'in the opinion of' arguments into the game.

To repeat my example from earlier. In the first half Arsenal get a 'penalty goal' awarded when Ferdinand handles on the line. In the second half Rooney heads towards goal and Walcott saves with his hand. The referee opines that Clichy, standing slightly behind Walcott may just possibly have got his head to the ball, so gives a penalty instead of a goal. United miss and lose game.

Cue SAF explosion and major argument for days/weeks with goons on TV pouring over bizarre angles, analysts finding 20 examples from other games to back up why it should/shouldnt have been a goal instead of a penalty. And the usual ex-managers spouting about how 'all they want is consistency' (manager speak for wanting every marginal decision to go their way) and how 'people are losing their jobs over these decisions'. The conspiracists talking about how Chelsea get the 'penalty goals' but the Wigans and Fulhams get forced to take the penalties.

As I said earlier, use a tmo and whatever technology is needed in order to make the vast majority of situations easy to call. On the rare - and it would be very rare - occasion that what you're now talking about happens then there will be some more controversy. That rare additional controversy would be more than cancelled out by the generally less frequent controversy because of the more consistent refereeing with the tmo.

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

One of the few definitive rules in football is 'to be a goal all of the ball must cross the line', and this rule should be left alone imo.

Just because there aren't many rules in football that doesn't mean they shouldn't be altered or added to. No one rule is so important that it is above examination and debate. (cue somebody asking me to defend the general hand ball law )

Pro. F

namloc1980 wrote: »

Awarding a goal when none has been scored is flawed. Why?? Because a goal hasn't been scored that's why.

This is still not an argument against penalty goals.

namloc1980 wrote: »

It also brings more opinion into it. One ref might think, yeah definitely going in, another might not be so sure. That is not satisfactory. Awarding a penalty and giving the guy a red card is the right thing to do. Why? Because otherwise you are introducing potential massive controversy into it by leaving it to the opinion of the ref as to whether the ball was going in or not.

See all my previous posts on the necessity of a tmo and technology.

namloc1980 wrote: »

As for Harry Kewell incident the reason there was not outcry was because the penalty was scored. And that was down to the penalty taker.

And how is that relevant to the argument for or against penalty goals?

UnknownSpecies

The ref dealt with the incident in the exact way he would be expected to, fair play to him! And to all the people who think it should be an automatic goal, cop on, of course it shouldn't be! Do any of ye think Ghana were unhappy with a penalty until they missed it?? NO, of course not...

Pro. F

dorgasm wrote: »

The ref dealt with the incident in the exact way he would be expected to, fair play to him!

Nobody is saying the ref did anything wrong, he enforced the law as it is now. Some people are just suggesting a change to the laws of the game.

dorgasm wrote: »

And to all the people who think it should be an automatic goal, cop on, of course it shouldn't be! Do any of ye think Ghana were unhappy with a penalty until they missed it?? NO, of course not...

Before the penalty was struck the Ghanaians would have been much more happy with a goal than a penalty, that is obvious if you think about it for a second.

Breaking the rules was a beneficial trade for the Uruguayans, even before the penalty was taken. That is a fault in the rules.

Ush1

Pro. F wrote: »

Read my post and you will see what I'm proposing.


I didn't say it favoured either team. I said it favoured the team that broke the rules in that situation. That is clearly a flaw in the rules.

Just because both teams agreed to the rules before the game doesn't mean the rules are perfect. I wouldn't expect the average professional footballer to know much about game design and balancing.



I agree. Suarez did what anybody would do considering the current rules.

It favoured the person who broke the rules in that instance, so in that instance you would have given a penalty goal?

Pro. F

Ush1 wrote: »

It favoured the person who broke the rules in that instance, so in that instance you would have given a penalty goal?

Yes. But more over, the rule change I suggest would be to give a penalty goal at any time in the game that someone prevents a certain goal with a hand ball. That would prevent the problem of having to decide whether or not the rule breaker was set to benefit. I think the red card should be dropped to yellow so as to not harshly punish possible accidental hand balls.

Edit: oops, I copied and pasted into this post instead of out of it. It's back to the way it originally was now I think.

Ush1

Pro. F wrote: »

Yes. But, more over, the rule change I suggest would be to give a penalty goal at any time in the game that someone prevents a certain goal with a hand ball. That would prevent the problem of having to decide whether or not the rule breaker was set to benefit. I think the red card should be dropped to yellow so as to not harshly punish possible accidental hand balls.

Well you're opening an obvious can of worms. More reasons for and possibilities to get things badly wrong by a human ref.

A pk governs a foul inside the box. The ball hadn't crossed the line but they were denied a clear goal scoring oppurtunity. The man gets sent off and they are given another goal scoring oppurtunity with a pk.

A ref trying to award penalty goals for handballs that he THINK may have been certain goals would be a mess.

Pro. F

Ush1 wrote: »

Well you're opening an obvious can of worms. More reasons for and possibilities to get things badly wrong by a human ref.
...A ref trying to award penalty goals for handballs that he THINK may have been certain goals would be a mess.

Read the thread tbh. I've been discussing the necessity of a tmo and maybe even extra technology for this proposed rule. Overall, on handball calls, there would be a MASSIVE reduction in human error with a tmo.

Ush1 wrote: »

A pk governs a foul inside the box. The ball hadn't crossed the line but they were denied a clear goal scoring oppurtunity. The man gets sent off and they are given another goal scoring oppurtunity with a pk.

If, for example, a player is ten yards out and about to shoot at the goal with a defender and keeper on the line and he gets hacked down before he gets his shot away - then he's been denied a clear goal scoring opportunity. If, for example, an attacker strikes the ball and it is heading into the goal but a defender stops it with his hand on the line - then the attacker has been denied a clear goal. With video replays (which are needed anyway for lots of reasons) it is relatively easy to tell when a goal has been blocked by a hand.

Ush1

Pro. F wrote: »

Read the thread tbh. I've been discussing the necessity of a tmo and maybe even extra technology for this proposed rule. Overall, on handball calls, there would be a MASSIVE reduction in human error with a tmo.



If, for example, a player is ten yards out and about to shoot at the goal with a defender and keeper on the line and he gets hacked down before he gets his shot away - then he's been denied a clear goal scoring opportunity. If, for example, an attacker strikes the ball and it is heading into the goal but a defender stops it with his hand on the line - then the attacker has been denied a clear goal. With video replays (which are needed anyway for lots of reasons) it is relatively easy to tell when a goal has been blocked by a hand.

Well that's 2 seperate issues. So you want TMO first? Well you'd have to see how that works out.

Let's be honest, it's only an issue because Suarez done it in the last minute of extra time and it was genius. If it had happened in the 10th minute of normal time we wouldn't have this conversation because the red card would have "felt" sufficient.

Suarez gets a one match ban confirmed now and will be a hero in Uruguay.

flahavaj

Suarez used the rules to his advantage, end of. If that seems unfair or unjust on Ghana, thats the fault of the rules, not the fault of Suarez. He had nothing to lose and everything to gain and it paid off in spades for him.

Leiva

Ush1 wrote: »

Well that's 2 seperate issues. So you want TMO first? Well you'd have to see how that works out.

Let's be honest, it's only an issue because Suarez done it in the last minute of extra time and it was genius. If it had happened in the 10th minute of normal time we wouldn't have this conversation because the red card would have "felt" sufficient.

Suarez gets a one match ban confirmed and cest la vie.

+1

Also I don't see much discussion about the 2 penalty misses in the shoot out by Ghana.
Probably 2 of the worse penalty kicks in the history of the WC ( yes even worse than Waddles )

pokerface_me

Penalty goals and blah de blah, sounding more like the GAA over here everyday, make the rules up as we go along.

If its not broke don't fix it. The guy handballed, got sent off, incompentant Ghana player misses peno. Tough get on with it.

Pro. F

Ush1 wrote: »

Well that's 2 seperate issues. So you want TMO first? Well you'd have to see how that works out.

Grand, lets introduce the tmo and this rule. In a way, you could see this imbalance in the rules as yet more evidence of the necessity of a tmo.

Ush1 wrote: »

Let's be honest, it's only an issue because Suarez done it in the last minute of extra time and it was genius. If it had happened in the 10th minute of normal time we wouldn't have this conversation because the red card would have "felt" sufficient.

Exactly. The rule becomes ineffective late on in the game. It should never be beneficial to break the rules when you're caught and punished.

flahavaj wrote: »

Suarez used the rules to his advantage, end of. If that seems unfair or unjust on Ghana, thats the fault of the rules, not the fault of Suarez. He had nothing to lose and everything to gain and it paid off in spades for him.

That's exactly my point. So you agree that there is a problem with the rules then.

pokerface_me wrote: »

Penalty goals and blah de blah, sounding more like the GAA over here everyday, make the rules up as we go along.

If its not broke don't fix it. The guy handballed, got sent off, incompentant Ghana player misses peno. Tough get on with it.

But it is broken. I have shown how it is broken. It is simple to understand - as the rules stand, Uruguay gained an advantage by breaking the rules, even though they were caught and punished.

Hippo

Carcharodon wrote: »

Oh dear god, read back on what was said and interpret correctly what he meant.

Try not to be so patronising. I know exactly what he meant, I was just trying to make the point after reading the ludicrous, and I quote, 'fcuk off tbh' attitude that has been displayed by most of the contributors on the 'everything's ok with the laws as they stand' side of the debate.

It's not good enough that Lampard's goal wasn't given for the want of some fairly straightforward technology, and it's not good enough that Uruguay reach a semi-final in this fashion. The fact is that Suarez cheated (instinctively or not) and got away with it. The punishment as it stands does not even begin to fit the crime, whether the incident happens in the final seconds of the game or at some earlier stage as has been pointed out by Pro.F. It's not much help saying that changing the law here would put too much pressure on refs; rugby refs cope fine with that kind of decision in awarding penalty tries. They're pretty rare in rugby and there's no reason to suppose the goal equivalent would be any less so.

All I said was that the point, or injustice if you prefer, was at least worthy of discussion. There's been very little actual discussion on this thread.

Ush1

Pro. F wrote: »

Grand, lets introduce the tmo and this rule. In a way, you could see this imbalance in the rules as yet more evidence of the necessity of a tmo.

Exactly. The rule becomes ineffective late on in the game. It should never be beneficial to break the rules when you're caught and punished.

No, if a man handled the ball on the goal line in the 10th minute, I would rather see him sent off and a pk than a penalty goal given, and I stand by that in the 90th minute.

Rule doesn't become ineffective, you would just have one less player for less time. They broke the rule in late in the game but it's the same story. What would we start doing, give penalty goals when it's late enough in the game that an extra man and penalty kick might not make a difference?

He missed the penalty and I think what happened was fair.

I'm not going to even approach the issue of television reffing as it's totally seperate.

Pro. F

Ush1 wrote: »

No, if a man handled the ball on the goal line in the 10th minute, I would rather see him sent off and a pk than a penalty goal given, and I stand by that in the 90th minute.
Rule doesn't become ineffective, you would just have one less player for less time. They broke the rule in late in the game but it's the same story.

No it's not the same story. The rule becomes less effective late on in the game and benefits the transgressor. You said so yourself, here:

Ush1 wrote: »

Let's be honest, it's only an issue because Suarez done it in the last minute of extra time and it was genius.

And here:

Ush1 wrote: »

Suaraz made the right call.

Uruguay clearly benefited from breaking the rule at that stage in the game. Even though they were caught and punished they still benefited (they benefited before the penalty was even taken). If you benefit from breaking the rule at that time, even when you're caught, then that rule is obviously flawed for that situation.

Ush1 wrote: »

What would we start doing, give penalty goals when it's late enough in the game that an extra man and penalty kick might not make a difference?

No that would be too arbitrary a decision to make, that's why I proposed giving penalty goals whenever this happens, not just late in the game. This would still achieve the aim of de-incentivising handling the ball to prevent a goal. I already explained my reasoning on this for you earlier:

... more over, the rule change I suggest would be to give a penalty goal at any time in the game that someone prevents a certain goal with a hand ball. That would prevent the problem of having to decide whether or not the rule breaker was set to benefit. I think the red card should be dropped to yellow so as to not harshly punish possible accidental hand balls.

......

Ush1 wrote: »

I'm not going to even approach the issue of television reffing as it's totally seperate.

Cool, me neither. I'm happy to leave it that the proposed rule change would require the presence of a tmo.

Ush1

Of course then you would have to open it up more than just a certain goal for hand ball. Hacking a player down when he was about to side foot it into an empty net etc...

But yeah, completely pointless since video reffing would open up a plethora of different issues anyway that may or may not require rule changes.

Pro. F

Ush1 wrote: »

Of course then you would have to open it up more than just a certain goal for hand ball. Hacking a player down when he was about to side foot it into an empty net etc...

I was discussing that earlier in here with Armanijeans I think it was. I've given a suggestion on that issue, you can always add your tupence worth if ya want.

It would have to be decided how exactly the rule is going to be designed. I'm sure that something better than the current rule is possible.

Ush1 wrote: »

But yeah, completely pointless since video reffing would open up a plethora of different issues anyway that may or may not require rule changes.

It's not completely pointless tbh. It's still worth discussing whether the current rule is fair or not and whether a new rule could be better. If nobody ever looks at the ''plethora of different issues'' then we'll never have progress.

Iang87

personally i cant see the issue here. The man committed a blatant foul the ref acted accordingly with the red card and the penalty and gyan bottled it whats the problem?

Reyes did something similar against united in a cup final years ago, Ronaldo i think heading straight through on goal and reyes hacked him down in the 120 minute, Arsenal won on penalties.

As for this extra game ban they're speaking about i hope they do the same to a goalkeeper who takes a player down about to sidefoot into an open goal cos in my opinion thats the very same crime.

Anyone questioning as to why suarez didn't header it clear, in my opinion suarez in the split second decided its better to punch it clear as the chances of it going in from the handball were much slimmer than the chance of ****ing up a header. Either way well done Uruguay and i hope FIFA dont act like fifa and go changing rules

Ush1

Pro. F wrote: »

I was discussing that earlier in here with Armanijeans I think it was. I've given a suggestion on that issue, you can always add your tupence worth if ya want.

It would have to be decided how exactly the rule is going to be designed. I'm sure that something better than the current rule is possible.



It's not completely pointless tbh. It's still worth discussing whether the current rule is fair or not and whether a new rule could be better. If nobody ever looks at the ''plethora of different issues'' then we'll never have progress.

I mean it's completely pointless discussing rules that should be brought in after video reffing implmentation which hasn't been refined or implemented in itself.

Pro. F

Iang87 wrote: »

personally i cant see the issue here. The man committed a blatant foul the ref acted accordingly with the red card and the penalty and gyan bottled it whats the problem?

Read the thread and you might find out.

Ush1 wrote: »

I mean it's completely pointless discussing rules that should be brought in after video reffing implmentation which hasn't been refined or implemented in itself.

That's just a cop-out tbh. I've said how I think the rule is unfair and how I think it needs to be changed and what that change would require. You've tried to defend the rule as it currently works. There's no reason why we have to wait for video reffing to come in before we discuss, in theory, whether this particular rule could be improved or not.

Do you, or do you not, think that the proposals that I made would work? If not, can you explain why?

Ush1

Pro. F wrote: »

Read the thread and you might find out.



That's just a cop-out tbh. I've said how I think the rule is unfair and how I think it needs to be changed and what that change would require. You've tried to defend the rule as it currently works. There's no reason why we have to wait for video reffing to come in before we discuss, in theory, whether this particular rule could be improved or not.

Do you, or do you not, think that the proposals that I made would work? If not, can you explain why?

No I don't think based on the proposals you made it would work. I'd be fundamentally against any sort of penalty goal. Suarez made the right call and you want to make a precedent based on that and it raises lots of other issues. As I've said, what is a certain goal? In fact, you're setting a precedent to any sort of professional or cynical fouling.

In this instance, it worked for the transgressor, as it does in many other instances for "good fouling" which is obviously more than handballs off the line.

What you're saying isn't fleshed out enough at all as an alternative to the current rules tbh. You're saying IF video reffing is brought in, this is how it should be done.

There is no cop out.

lordgoat

Pro. F wrote: »

Read the thread and you might find out.

I've read the whole thread and disagree with pretty much all proposals on the Suarez issue. In my opinion he get punished and the rules are fine the way they are. No changes needed. There are far more important issues that need looking at before we tackle officials actually getting the calls correct.

Iang87

lordgoat wrote: »

I've read the whole thread and disagree with pretty much all proposals on the Suarez issue. In my opinion he get punished and the rules are fine the way they are. No changes needed. There are far more important issues that need looking at before we tackle officials actually getting the calls correct.

yep the nail has firmly been hit on the head

Pro. F

Ush1 wrote: »

No I don't think based on the proposals you made it would work. I'd be fundamentally against any sort of penalty goal. Suarez made the right call and you want to make a precedent based on that and it raises lots of other issues. As I've said, what is a certain goal? In fact, you're setting a precedent to any sort of professional or cynical fouling.

In this instance, it worked for the transgressor, as it does in many other instances for "good fouling" which is obviously more than handballs off the line.

What you're saying isn't fleshed out enough at all as an alternative to the current rules tbh. You're saying IF video reffing is brought in, this is how it should be done.

I know that you are fundamentally against any sort of penalty goal but that, of itself, isn't a logical justification of your argument.

With regards to the ''what is a certain goal'' question, I've told you already that I answered that question earlier in the thread - go read what I've said about it and get back to me on what I've said if you can find fault with it. I'm not going to repeat myself again now for your benefit just because you're too lazy to follow the discussion properly.

With regards to the situations of ''good fouling'' as you call it:
If there is a situation where you can break the rules, be caught and punished, yet still come away having gained a clear advantage then the rules do not work properly in that situation. There may indeed be other situations where this happens, although I suspect very few are as clear cut as this. Either way that doesn't mean we shouldn't try and improve the rules where it's possible.

If what I'm saying is not fleshed out enough then then go ahead and point out the areas where the proposal is lacking. I think that type of back and forth discussion is the best way of finding how best to fix the problems with the laws of the game.

lordgoat wrote: »

I've read the whole thread and disagree with pretty much all proposals on the Suarez issue. In my opinion he get punished and the rules are fine the way they are. No changes needed.

I think you're wrong and I think your argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Here's some important questions:
Did Uruguay gain an advantage from breaking the rules in this instance? (That question applies to before the penalty kick was taken)
Was the punishment sufficient to deter people from breaking that rule in that situation?

lordgoat wrote: »

There are far more important issues that need looking at before we tackle officials actually getting the calls correct.

I agree that there are probably more important issues than this one that also need fixing. But it doesn't then follow that this issue can't be discussed now. What harm?

Greyfox

Pro. F wrote: »

Do you, or do you not, think that the proposals that I made would work? If not, can you explain why?

"A goal is scored when the ball crosses the line" this fundemental fact is at the heart and sole of football and changing this would go against the most important fact of the game, theirfor it's utterly riddiculous. Giving a goal when a goal is not scored just makes absolutely so sense whatsoever. If a player handles the ball on the goal line that's part of the game, a player sacrificing his own involvement in a game in the hope of getting an advantage is part of the game and always has been. Now if a player gets away with handleing the ball that's a different topic completely. I would of done the exact same thing if I was in Suarezs position and I expect every other player would of done the same too.

In any case without technology I think it would be stupid rule as their will be times when it's not clear wheter or not the ball was going to cross the line and hacking an opposing player when he just has an open goal in front of him would have to be included in your rule as well

In future you could be saying did you see Man Uniteds second goal last night, but it would feel completely wrong and silly to be calling it a goal when everyone in the world including the referee knows the ball did not actually go into the goal

Pro. F

Greyfox wrote: »

"A goal is scored when the ball crosses the line" this fundemental fact is at the heart and sole of football and changing this would go against the most important fact of the game, theirfor it's utterly riddiculous. Giving a goal when a goal is not scored just makes absolutely so sense whatsoever.

The ball having to cross the line is nowhere near ''the most important fact of the game''. It doesn't set football apart from other sports, which it would do if it was. If the ball crossing the line for a goal to be scored is so fundamental to the sport then give us a justification of why it's so important. You should be able to do that if it's as fundamental as you claim.

Giving a penalty goal can work. It works in Rugby, why can't it work in football?

Greyfox wrote: »

If a player handles the ball on the goal line that's part of the game, a player sacrificing his own involvement in a game in the hope of getting an advantage is part of the game and always has been.

Just because something has always been part of the game up to this point doesn't work as a justification for it's continued inclusion. By your justification you would have been against all previous rule changes up to this point. Were you against the back pass law? The professional foul law? The law that stopped goalies handling the ball anywhere on the pitch? The law change that stopped rugby style tackles at the throw in?

Greyfox wrote: »

Now if a player gets away with handleing the ball that's a different topic completely. I would of done the exact same thing if I was in Suarezs position and I expect every other player would of done the same too.

So would I. I have said repeatedly in this discussion that I think Suarez was justified, but you appear to have not paid much attention to what I've posted.

Greyfox wrote: »

In any case without technology I think it would be stupid rule as their will be times when it's not clear wheter or not the ball was going to cross the line and hacking an opposing player when he just has an open goal in front of him would have to be included in your rule as well

Oh jesus I didn't think of that - my proposal would need technology to work!! How could I not have thought of that?! ...oh no, wait a minute...

Greyfox wrote: »

In future you could be saying did you see Man Uniteds second goal last night, but it would feel completely wrong and silly to be calling it a goal when everyone in the world including the referee knows the ball did not actually go into the goal

You'd get used to penalty goals soon enough. Just like everybody did in rugby.

You seem like somebody who doesn't explore the idea of rule changes often, so it is going to be hard for you to imagine how the rules can be altered without some disastrous consequence. But rule changes, when done properly, do work.

SlickRic

what an epic end to the game.

suarez was right to do what he did, the rules are fine IMO. yes it was slightly slimy, but he took the hit for his team. no difference between it and a professional foul really.

if Gyan had had the balls he should've had, and scored, nobody would be worrying about any rule changes.

i don't sympathise with any footballer who can't hit the target from 12 yards; pressure or not.

a penalty goal, IMO, while it might be workable-ish, has the potential for too many grey areas, and for the amount of times it happens, it's not worth making the rule.