Why is it the way it is?

tolosenc

I'm sure there are all sorts of questions people have as to why things are done the way they are on a football field, apart from non-use of technology!

I'll get the ball rolling:

For example, after Gallas' contoversial goal back in November, there was a point when all celebrating French players were either in their own half, or outside the demarcation lines(no-one offisde). Other than a lack of quick-wittedness, why didn't the Irish players very quickly restart the game and go 11-on-4(with no French player being allowed to re-enter the field of play until the ref says so) for the equaliser? Unsporting, maybe, but given the context... Similarly when Gilardino scored in Croker...

bonerm

Law 8 of the game states "all players must be in their own half of the field of play"

TangyZizzle

Why is it when Iniesta goes down in a heap with minimal contact he is applauded rewarded and revered the world over, but when I do it my friends kick me and tell me to get the fúck up?

curry-muff

Why is it toast always lands butter side down

~Rebel~

bonerm wrote: »

Law 8 of the game states "all players must be in their own half of the field of play"

Plenty of players here outside the lines and not on the field of play, not ready etc;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7bmBluAp7Q

Admittedly tough to see what happens here, was the goal ruled out or something? Though even then, the game would still have restarted with loads of players outside the lines...interesting (class clip anyway!)

tolosenc

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Plenty of players here outside the lines and not on the field of play, not ready etc;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7bmBluAp7Q

Admittedly tough to see what happens here, was the goal ruled out or something? Though even then, the game would still have restarted with loads of players outside the lines...interesting (class clip anyway!)

From my basic Italian, the ref ruled out the goal and allowed the team to play on.

Regards Law 8: what would be the difference between that and a couple of injured players and all subs used? Are they required to hobble back on at every restart?

ArmaniJeanss

tolosenc wrote: »

For example, after Gallas' contoversial goal back in November, there was a point when all celebrating French players were either in their own half, or outside the demarcation lines(no-one offisde). Other than a lack of quick-wittedness, why didn't the Irish players very quickly restart the game and go 11-on-4(with no French player being allowed to re-enter the field of play until the ref says so) for the equaliser? Unsporting, maybe, but given the context... Similarly when Gilardino scored in Croker...

There must be a minumum 7 players on both sides present for the game to proceed at any point.

Even if, in your example, there were the requisite 7 French players on the pitch then Irelands 11 would still not have done what you suggest.
There seems to be an unwritten rule to allow the scoringn team a 'normal' celebration of their goal.
I think football would be a poorer sport if this unwritten rule wasn't there, if after you scored a goal your first thought had to be getting in position to prevent those sly opposition fckers catching you by surprise. Scoring is rare (is there any sport where an actual score is rarer) and deserves to be allowed some celebration time.

pickarooney

Why do players take off their shirts after scoring a goal? It's possibly the stupidest thing a player can do given that it's an automatic yellow.

TangyZizzle

Heat of the moment type thing.

3hn2givr7mx1sc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6V0XsAK3YUM

Pro. F

curry-muff wrote: »

Why is it toast always lands butter side down

That's such a pre-internet thing to not know the answer to ...I'm embarrassed for you

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A1004725

Degag

pickarooney wrote: »

Why do players take off their shirts after scoring a goal? It's possibly the stupidest thing a player can do given that it's an automatic yellow.

In retaliation to possibly the stupidist rule in any sport.

Although i admit it is pretty stupid to do.

pickarooney

Degag wrote: »

In retaliation to possibly the stupidist rule in any sport.

Although i admit it is pretty stupid to do.

Chicken and egg - the rule exists because they do it.

TangyZizzle wrote:

Heat of the moment type thing.

Hardly, particularly not when there's some totally awesome message underneath.

Mitch Connor

pickarooney wrote: »

Why do players take off their shirts after scoring a goal? It's possibly the stupidest thing a player can do given that it's an automatic yellow.

why is it a yellow though?

I don't get it.

They get a card if they do it in the game but practically every player takes their top off after a game and it is NEVER EVER a problem. It makes no sense at all. If the FA had a good reason for it, they would be fining players who remove their top after the final whistle while still on the pitch - we have seen players booked/red carded/fined/suspended for actions after the final whistle so why is this rule completely ignored?

I will say I think it is a stupid rule regardless and playes should not be booked unless they are removing their top to reveal an offensive slogan or similar.

pickarooney

Mitch Connor wrote: »

why is it a yellow though?

I don't get it.

It's classed, along with extravagant celebrations, under unsporting behaviour. I don't really see what's so unsporting about it myself but it's probably intended as a cut-off point between acceptable, handshake-style celebrations and over-the-top conga-lines and winding up the opposition. (I think the way having a go at opposition supporters is treated like genocide by the FA, the media and the fans themselves is a joke too, FWIW).

There are a lot of arbitrary rules in football - the execution of free throws, six-second goalkeeper rule etc. which players do abide by because they know it's a punishable offence, however benign the action.

massdebater

Mitch Connor wrote: »

why is it a yellow though?

I don't get it.

They get a card if they do it in the game but practically every player takes their top off after a game and it is NEVER EVER a problem. It makes no sense at all. If the FA had a good reason for it, they would be fining players who remove their top after the final whistle while still on the pitch - we have seen players booked/red carded/fined/suspended for actions after the final whistle so why is this rule completely ignored?

I will say I think it is a stupid rule regardless and playes should not be booked unless they are removing their top to reveal an offensive slogan or similar.

I heard that the yellow card thing was brought in because shirt sponsors were complaining that players were taking off their shirts after scoring and so not displaying the sponsor's logo any more. Makes sense I suppose seeing as celebrations are often shown loads of time and so sponsors would seet this as a prime time for their logo to be blazed across the tv. Its all about the money these days I guess

keane2097

pickarooney wrote: »

I think the way having a go at opposition supporters is treated like genocide by the FA, the media and the fans themselves is a joke too, FWIW.

Couldn't agree more with this.

Vast swathes of racist bigots can make monkey noises at a black player for 90 minutes and be welcomed back to the ground the following week, if the player fist-pumps in their direction after scoring a goal he's treated like a criminal.

TangyZizzle

I remember hearing that taking off your shirt is a bookable offence because in some countries, Im assuming Middle Eastern ones, its offensive to show skin from the knee up/elbow up and everything in between. Although, the point that most players remove their jerseys after full time is one that I hadnt realised.

Reganio 2

I think it all stems from Forlan, I remember he scored against someone and it took him about 8 mins to put his jersey back on, think the ref had to send him off the pitch to put it back on and everything.

parker kent

TangyZizzle wrote: »

I remember hearing that taking off your shirt is a bookable offence because in some countries, Im assuming Middle Eastern ones, its offensive to show skin from the knee up/elbow up and everything in between. Although, the point that most players remove their jerseys after full time is one that I hadnt realised.

+1 I heard this explantion as well when the rule came in.

keane2097

parker kent wrote: »

+1 I heard this explantion as well when the rule came in.

Funny how they didn't ban gambling sites from being shirt sponsers then...

pickarooney

keane2097 wrote: »

Funny how they didn't ban gambling sites from being shirt sponsers then...

And beer companies.

TangyZizzle

pickarooney wrote: »

And beer companies.

Hasn't there been matches where Liverpool played in Jerseys without Carlsberg or any sponsor across the chest?
Something like when Ferrari used to be sponsored by Marlboro but removed the logos depending on what country the Grand Prix was being held in and the laws of the country regarding advertisement of tobacco products.

Ush1

There's lots of countries where certain sponsors on shirts are illegal. In France, certain online casinos and gaming sites are prohibited such as BetClic.

TangyZizzle

Why is embracing a member of the crowd, as a goal celebration (or at any time I suppose) a bookable offense?

pickarooney

Ush1 wrote: »

There's lots of countries where certain sponsors on shirts are illegal. In France, certain online casinos and gaming sites are prohibited such as BetClic.

They've just changed that law actually. There have been literally* a billion ads for them since the world cup started (and they sponsor OM from next season). It's still forbidden to advertise booze or fags on telly though, so it might well be that Liverpool had to change sponsor when playing in France. But they obviously don't have to do that when their matches played in England are transmitted in France, so why would Middle Eastern laws have any influence on whether a Premiership player is allowed remove his shirt?

*not literally

TangyZizzle

pickarooney wrote: »

why would Middle Eastern laws have any influence on whether a Premiership player is allowed remove his shirt?

Because the average middle eastern soccer fan is alot more likely to turn off his tv in protest of seeing a topless man, rather than turning it off in protest of seeing Carlsberg written on a jersey. Thats a guess.. but besides that, since when have FIFA justified any of their rules with a logical explanation

Pinturicchio

TangyZizzle wrote: »

Because the average middle eastern soccer fan is alot more likely to turn off his tv in protest of seeing a topless man, rather than turning it off in protest of seeing Carlsberg written on a jersey. Thats a guess.. but besides that, since when have FIFA justified any of their rules with a logical explanation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Football_Association_Board

IFAB make the rules, not FIFA.

Why did they introduce the rule of players having to leave the field even after very minor treatment it is a ridiculous rule imo.

pickarooney

I like it. It cuts down on time-wasting and lets the other players get on with the game.

keane2097

Tbh, the refs should either be given license to refuse a player treatment or else bring in some sort of rule where if a player is badly enough hurt to need treatment they have to stay off for ten minutes.

That would cut it right down.

pickarooney

keane2097 wrote: »

Tbh, the refs should either be given license to refuse a player treatment or else bring in some sort of rule where if a player is badly enough hurt to need treatment they have to stay off for ten minutes.

That would cut it right down.

Not a chance. Refs have enough pressure deciding if a player dived or handled a ball without having to make on-the-spot medical diagnoses! Can you imagine the carnage if a ref missed out on a non-obvious concussion?

keane2097

pickarooney wrote: »

Not a chance. Refs have enough pressure deciding if a player dived or handled a ball without having to make on-the-spot medical diagnoses! Can you imagine the carnage if a ref missed out on a non-obvious concussion?

Head injuries are inviolate obv.

The fact that players can be "treated" on the pitch for head injuries and allowed to play on as it stands is completely fcuking insane anyway.

pickarooney

pickarooney wrote: »

I like it. It cuts down on time-wasting and lets the other players get on with the game.

But players usually get treated on the field, then have to walk off and then back on. It doesn't really stop time wasting atall.

TangyZizzle

Play is resumed while theyre treated off the pitch, and theyre allowed come back on during a break of play, throws free kicks etc. Also a good referee will usually be seen pressuring the player and medics to move off the pitch as soon as possible, meaning that little if any time is actually wasted.. faaar less than the amount of time a player would take if they were to be treated on the field and they were milking it.

parker kent

keane2097 wrote: »

Funny how they didn't ban gambling sites from being shirt sponsers then...

Some countries have banned it as well as alcohol. Not saying I agreed with the shirt off rule, just saying that was what they gave as the reason at the time.

tommyhaas

massdebater wrote: »

I heard that the yellow card thing was brought in because shirt sponsors were complaining that players were taking off their shirts after scoring and so not displaying the sponsor's logo any more. Makes sense I suppose seeing as celebrations are often shown loads of time and so sponsors would seet this as a prime time for their logo to be blazed across the tv. Its all about the money these days I guess

Didnt 'Boro get Ravanelli to wear a teeshirt with the sponsers name underneath his jersey because of the way he used to pull the shirt over his head when he scored

keane2097 wrote: »

Funny how they didn't ban gambling sites from being shirt sponsers then...

Freddy Kanoute did, he refused to have the sponser on his Sevilla jersey, so they just gave him a shirt with no sponser on it

TangyZizzle wrote: »

Hasn't there been matches where Liverpool played in Jerseys without Carlsberg or any sponsor across the chest?
Something like when Ferrari used to be sponsored by Marlboro but removed the logos depending on what country the Grand Prix was being held in and the laws of the country regarding advertisement of tobacco products.

Didnt that fcuk up snooker a bit too? With cig' companies not being allowed advertise on the televised matches

TangyZizzle

TangyZizzle wrote: »

Play is resumed while theyre treated off the pitch, and theyre allowed come back on during a break of play, throws free kicks etc. Also a good referee will usually be seen pressuring the player and medics to move off the pitch as soon as possible, meaning that little if any time is actually wasted.. faaar less than the amount of time a player would take if they were to be treated on the field and they were milking it.

The situations I mean is when a player get a knock, gets up himself which often happens but as the medical team have arrived he cant just play on.

How often do you hear a commentator say "and he has to leave the field to come back on due to the ridiculous rule"

TangyZizzle

You dont, oddly enough. I dont think Iv ever seen the medics rush on of their own will. Theyre more often than not, signalled on by the player or the ref.

Pinturicchio

tommyhaas wrote: »

Freddy Kanoute did, he refused to have the sponser on his Sevilla jersey, so they just gave him a shirt with no sponser on it

He refused at first and used to put a piece of black tape over it but now he just wears the same jersey as everyone else.