Improvements to the game

Quazzie

Helix wrote: »

a player should be banned for as long as the player he injured is out for, if dangerous play is deemed to be intentional

Hypothetical situation but imagine Drogba broke Kuzchaks leg and he faced the situation of being out as long as Kuzchak was, whats to stop United coming close to the end of the season adding a month or so onto his injury to keep Drogba out thus increasing their chances of winning the league.

flahavaj

Helix wrote: »

then we'll add in the caveat that its the length of the injury or a time decided on by an independent panel if the length of the injury is not sufficient

I agree with the principle - ie punishment should fir crime etc, but it could be very hard to enforce - you'd often get lads coming back suddenly from injury like Rooney last year, leaving banned players suddenly free to play!

Helix

Quazzie wrote: »

Hypothetical situation but imagine Drogba broke Kuzchaks leg and he faced the situation of being out as long as Kuzchak was, whats to stop United coming close to the end of the season adding a month or so onto his injury to keep Drogba out thus increasing their chances of winning the league.

itd have to be verified by a doctor from the given football association, and anyone found trying to pull the wool over their eyes would be hit with a points deduction

Quazzie

baz2009 wrote: »

Not allowing video technology.

Video technology is not an open and shut case. There is a downside to allowing such technology.

Helix

flahavaj wrote: »

I agree with the principle - ie punishment should fir crime etc, but it could be very hard to enforce - you'd often get lads coming back suddenly from injury like Rooney last year, leaving banned players suddenly free to play!

i think the caveat covers it though, if the player gets back early its decided by a panel how long the ban is

of course that wouldnt be necessary if there were proper punishments. this "well its 3 games and the ref didnt see the full extent of it, so we cant change it" stuff is rubbish. give him his 3 games for what the ref saw, then give him 10 from the blatantly obvious video evidence

UnitedIrishman

adamski8 wrote: »

that has nothing to do with the game as far as im concerned?
what do you want changed there? chastity belts?!

I didn't say that. I'm talking about these young footballers having little or no education or street-wise. They exist inside a bubble and everything is catered for by their agent because that's how they've been brought up.

Perhaps not part of the game, but the players are and the example they set is.

3hn2givr7mx1sc

Quazzie wrote: »

Video technology is not an open and shut case. There is a downside to allowing such technology.

But he won't even entertain the idea of it, he's ignorant.

Quazzie

baz2009 wrote: »

But he won't even entertain the idea of it, he's ignorant.

I'm sure he has considered it, maybe not in public but I don't think he'd get away without considering it. The fact they are trying new things in European competitions this year proves that they see a need for change and are making steps to rectify this.

gustavo

baz2009 wrote: »

Not allowing video technology.

So that's just like everyone else before him?

Zebra3

UnitedIrishman wrote: »

Any chance of staying on topic?

You posted bullsh!t. I challenged it.

Well on topic Mr Mod. :rolleyes:

pickarooney

Small, fixed squad size (25 pros max). If you run out of players through injuries or suspension you call up youth players.

Restriction on the number of players you can bring in per year.

For every player you bring into the 25-man squad you must sell or release one.

Mitch Connor

Quazzie wrote: »

The reason that the 5 refs in a game set up is preferrable over most technology is that the 5 ref set-up can be used all the way down to Sunday league level whereas video technology can't. The idea is to have a system set up that can cover all games not just the games in the top leagues.

but this isn't the case.

Leagues all around the world struggle to get one ref for the game, never mind two assistants, finding another two will be even more difficult.

In theory it can be implemented, but in practice, getting 5 officials for evey game in the sundays leagues up to pro football is nigh on impossible imo.

Technology would be a better solution at the top level and so what if it cant be implemented at every other level. Utilize it where it can be utilized. In tennis, for example, they don't have hawk-eye on every court at Wimbledon, never mind not having it for every tournement in every club around the world. In Rugby they don't have TMO's for every game either - just the big ones and where it can be implemented.

Quazzie

Mitch Connor wrote: »

but this isn't the case.

Leagues all around the world struggle to get one ref for the game, never mind two assistants, finding another two will be even more difficult.

In theory it can be implemented, but in practice, getting 5 officials for evey game in the sundays leagues up to pro football is nigh on impossible imo.

Technology would be a better solution at the top level and so what if it cant be implemented at every other level. Utilize it where it can be utilized. In tennis, for example, they don't have hawk-eye on every court at Wimbledon, never mind not having it for every tournement in every club around the world. In Rugby they don't have TMO's for every game either - just the big ones and where it can be implemented.

That just opens the debate up to how far down do you go with the technology. The Championship? Just the EPL? Maybe only the top 4 teams? After that sure why bother with the rest? I seriously doubt that Airtricity league games would be covered by such technology.

I've played in Sunday league level games where we've had linesmen. I happen to know for a fact that a lot of leagues arrange linesmen for all cup finals no matter how low down the league. Having a soccer version of Hawkeye just to suit the top teams and then tell the others to do without and rely on older technology isn't fair, and isn't fairness the whole objective of this?

The objective should be and thankfully it appears to be that they want methods that will affect the problem for everyone, not just the elite few.

pickarooney

It's never been fair; it's just that when a billion people see an obvious mistake the pressure to prevent such mistakes is heightened. Nobody (relatively speaking) cares if a good goal is disallowed in a Sunday league game.

Quazzie

pickarooney wrote: »

It's never been fair; it's just that when a billion people see an obvious mistake the pressure to prevent such mistakes is heightened. Nobody (relatively speaking) cares if a good goal is disallowed in a Sunday league game.

Well how many leagues and what leagues should be covered? Who gets to decide that? I'm sure the fans of Accrington Stanley feel they deserve the same chance as Chelsea in terms of refereeing decisions.

Mitch Connor

Quazzie wrote: »

That just opens the debate up to how far down do you go with the technology. The Championship? Just the EPL? Maybe only the top 4 teams? After that sure why bother with the rest? I seriously doubt that Airtricity league games would be covered by such technology.

As long as TMO is consistent within a competition structure I don't see what the problem is.

All PL sides should be able to have it, so make it a ruling that they have to (plenty of other rules govern the standards of the stadiums).

In the CL it should be a requirement for every match from the group stage onwards. All are covered very well by TV stations so it should be easy to set that up. Same possibly for the Europa League, though not so sure.

If a league can't sustain the investment required, then fine, don't have it in that league (so no one side has an advantage of its use) but I really don't see why it should be considered that the top levels of the game should not benifit from the technology and money available.

Quazzie

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I really don't see why it should be considered that the top levels of the game should not benifit from the technology and money available.

The question isn't really why shouldn't the top sides have it, instead its more a question of why should only the top sides have it, without investigating fully the benefits of all other methods that can benefit the game as a whole.

Mitch Connor

Quazzie wrote: »

The question isn't really why shouldn't the top sides have it, instead its more a question of why should only the top sides have it, without investigating fully the benefits of all other methods that can benefit the game as a whole.

'Only' the top sides should have it cause only the top sides (and top leagues) can afford it - as I say, as long as the use is consistent across a competition I don't see why it should be seen as a problem.

I also think it should be used as an aid to the ref for decisions they have made (ie. was a penalty the correct call, did it cross the line) and should not stop the play itself, but that is breaking down the issue further than it needs to be. I think tech should be implemented where viable and used responsibly.

pavb2

Regarding costs and lower leagues not being able to afford the technology maybe you don't have to go all the way down the route of Hawkeye type systems.

There were experiments carried out with sensors in the ball, a cheaper solution which could also be explored

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-501897/The-hi-tech-football-tells-referees-crossed-line.html

Quazzie

Personally I always thought that this was the answer regarding goal line technology. A system like that could be retrospectivle fitted to all goal posts if combined with solar strips to recharge the sensors. It could be used in almost every league for an initial outlay that the local FA could subsidise in lower leagues.

I'm not against technology in soccer, I just want technology that can be applied to all.

newballsplease

Not so much an improvement to the Game itself but, Booking a player for over celebrating is ridiculous. see the guy who scored the 1st against Utd for Scunthorpe last night was booked for celebrating with the crowd. Stupid rule.

sneakyST

I don't know why people insist on getting annoyed about not having goal line technology when there isn't a simple and reliable system that would not require a change to the laws of the game. There is none, and when there is, FIFA will bring it in.
All this nonsense about FIFA etc. being against it, if there were against it they wouldn't even bother testing it.:rolleyes:

UnitedIrishman

Zebra3 wrote: »

You posted bullsh!t. I challenged it.

Well on topic Mr Mod. :rolleyes:

Mr Mod eh? :rolleyes: I'm flattered. I would prefer if this didn't turn into the twatfest you're attempting to turn it into. You can head over to the United thread or RedCafe if you want to argue the odds on the Rio case.

yahoo_moe

Helix wrote: »

a player should be banned for as long as the player he injured is out for, if dangerous play is deemed to be intentional

I'm surprised nobody's disagreed with this yet. I think it's really flawed logic.

The same tackle, i.e. the same offence, can have a few different outcomes - e.g. a tackle could break a leg or the player could avoid it or the player could turn a bad tackle into a broken leg while trying to get out of the way. And other variations besides. Some players' bones would break easier than others'.

Under your system, the same offence gets different punishments which is no way to run a system of justice. Plus you can't prove intent so "deemed to be intentional" is a bit wooly for me.

By all means increase the ban lengths for reckless tackles but it shouldn't be related to how long an injured player is out for.

Liam O

yahoo_moe wrote: »

I'm surprised nobody's disagreed with this yet. I think it's really flawed logic.

The same tackle, i.e. the same offence, can have a few different outcomes - e.g. a tackle could break a leg or the player could avoid it or the player could turn a bad tackle into a broken leg while trying to get out of the way. And other variations besides. Some players' bones would break easier than others'.

Under your system, the same offence gets different punishments which is no way to run a system of justice. Plus you can't prove intent so "deemed to be intentional" is a bit wooly for me.

By all means increase the ban lengths for reckless tackles but it shouldn't be related to how long an injured player is out for.

yeah I mean when Shawcross injured Ramsey he went hard into a 50-50 challenge and Ramsey outskilled him, yet there were some sections calling for him to be banned. The same tackle is made about 100 times every weekend and Ramsey got unlucky. I'm sure this is one of the incidents that has brought calls for this rule to come into place so what do you do in this situation?

yahoo_moe

I think retrospective punishments for diving is one everyone agrees with. And whatever about goal-line technology, I think this should start at the top leagues and work down from there.

They did this a couple of weeks ago in Australia (link) - be interesting to see how long it keeps up for and what effect it has.

yahoo_moe

Liam O wrote: »

yeah I mean when Shawcross injured Ramsey he went hard into a 50-50 challenge and Ramsey outskilled him, yet there were some sections calling for him to be banned. The same tackle is made about 100 times every weekend and Ramsey got unlucky. I'm sure this is one of the incidents that has brought calls for this rule to come into place so what do you do in this situation?

Obviously ban Shawcross for life.

Did I mention I'm an Arsenal fan?

cooker3

When a player rolls more than 2 times after a tackle never let the physio on and continue play immediately.

IvySlayer

Stop booking people for taking their shirt off when they score.

Het-Field

Remove all subjectivity around the Hand Ball.

In Hockey, if the ball touches a players foot it is a foul regardless of the circumstances. The same logic should apply in football. If the ball touches a players hand/arm below the elbow, it should be an automatic free kick or penalty. I would even suggest that this should extend to players who use their hands to shield their faces from the ball.

CiaranC

Het-Field wrote: »

Remove all subjectivity around the Hand Ball.

In Hockey, if the ball touches a players foot it is a foul regardless of the circumstances. The same logic should apply in football. If the ball touches a players hand/arm below the elbow, it should be an automatic free kick or penalty. I would even suggest that this should extend to players who use their hands to shield their faces from the ball.

What a stupid idea. Players would smash the ball at opposition arms to win penalties. In fact the whole sport would become trying to kick the ball at other peoples arms.

This should be renamed the stupid ideas thread

Leiva

CiaranC wrote: »

This should be renamed the stupid ideas thread

:rolleyes:

CiaranC

P.S. Platini is the most positive force at the top of the game in ages

Zebra3

UnitedIrishman wrote: »

I would prefer if this didn't turn into the twatfest you're attempting to turn it into.

You did that yourself in the first post.

UnitedIrishman wrote: »

You can head over to the United thread or RedCafe if you want to argue the odds on the Rio case.

Thanks, but I have a life.

Btw, the good thing that would come about as a result of technology coming in to the game, is that 90% of pundits would be left with nothing to say.

Het-Field

CiaranC wrote: »

What a stupid idea. Players would smash the ball at opposition arms to win penalties. In fact the whole sport would become trying to kick the ball at other peoples arms.

This should be renamed the stupid ideas thread

Upon what do you base that ?

I would wager absolutely NOTHING. Given the present lack of clarity surrounding the handball in football, and the virtual discretion of the referee, players should be attempting to hit each other on the arm with a ball on the off chance that they may get a penalty.

As somebody who has played hockey for a number of years, I have yet to be trained in the art of attempting to accurately hit the ball off an opponants foot to garner a short corner or a free. In fact, I have many friends who have played hockey all the way up International Level who would also testify that they have NEVER spent a portion of a training session learning how to gain frees by hitting opponants on the foot. The same would apply in association football. There are far more useful things that one can learn at training, which will pay far more dividends then hopeful attempts at hitting an opposing player's hand with the ball.

Players still enjoy the thrill of attempting to play good football, and by scoring goals, by whatever means possible. I can guarantee that in a pressure situation the player is far more likely to take a "pot luck" strike on goal then an attempt to hit his opponants arm with the ball.

orourkeda

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

Ban the loaning of players under the age of 23.

After match video review panel for bad tackles with banning rights.

Video technology.

Why? Surely the whole idea of loaning young players is for them to gain some level of first team experience.

It has the added benefit of clubs (especially lower league clubs) offsetting the restrictions placed on them by the transfer window.

orourkeda

CiaranC wrote: »

What a stupid idea. Players would smash the ball at opposition arms to win penalties. In fact the whole sport would become trying to kick the ball at other peoples arms.

This should be renamed the stupid ideas thread

Its called football for a reason

CiaranC

orourkeda wrote: »

Its called football for a reason

The idea of making accidental handball punishable by a free kick or penalty is absurd. Do we make two accidental handballs punishable by a red card too?

The entire rules of association football are built around INTENT. Ive never seen such a collection of clueless people posting on one topic on the internet.

Het-Field

CiaranC wrote: »

The idea of making accidental handball punishable by a free kick or penalty is absurd. Do we make two accidental handballs punishable by a red card too?

The entire rules of association football are built around INTENT. Ive never seen such a collection of clueless people posting on one topic on the internet.

Is the offside rule based on intent ? Regardless of the intention of the infringing player, the flag will be raised. Thus, your statement about what the entire rules of football are based around is fundamentally wrong. My suggestion simply attempts to address the severe lack of clarity which exists in regards to the handball rule.

You have created a rather large strawman when bringing the issue of red cards into the equation. Quite frankly, it is spurious nonsense. Red cards are only given for handball when a clear goalscoring opportunity has been denied by a player using his hands to prevent the goal. It is quite obvious that rule would remain in force.

For the sake of your "argument", I would also remind you that intentional handballs (outside and inside the box) are usually punished with a yellow card. If the handball was to become actionable per se I would suggest that the referee simply give the free kick/penalty, but not proceed with any further sanction. Thus, you can penalise intent to a greater extent, and ensure that those who dont intend the handball dont suffer a double sanction. This would be proportionate to the number of fouls committed by the guilty player i.e. Handball + Intent = Card & Concession of Dead Ball Scenario v Handball with no intent = Concession of Dead Ball Scenario

3hn2givr7mx1sc

baz2009 wrote: »

Getting Platini to fúck off would be a start.

I wanna retract this statement as I meant Blatter, not Platini.:o

ilovelamp2000

I'm a fan of a number of sports, and despite football being the most popular sport in the world it could learn a hell of a lot from a number of other sports.

Clearly people's suggestions for improvements are based on whatever they see the problem as, for me I see the following as the main problems:

1. Player greed, which means as soon as they hear of interest from another club they agitate for a move until they get it.

2. Given the strong correlation between the size of a teams wage bill and its league position, success is dependent on available money rather than any particular skill on behalf of the management.

3. Poor refereeing.

Solution .... well it's not easy. I'm a huge fan of MLB and the way the game is set up and run. It's on another level as far as I'm concerned, it's quite a complicated system which wouldn't be easily replicated in football but some aspects could well be borrowed. The 25 man squad idea is straight from MLB. A few others:

Other things that could be implemented ... well the waiver system is excellent. I'm oversimplifying it but in baseball teams can make a change to their 25 man squad throughout the year, if they want to remove someone from the 25 man squad though that player must be offered to all the other clubs (for nothing other than picking up his contract) before he can be dropped to their minor league system. The team with the worst record has first choice on him, the team with the best record being the last in line. It's a brilliant way of ensuring that teams can't stock up and essentially waste talent that is good enough to play at the top level. I'm sure something similar could be worked out on a country by country basis, but on pan European level it would get very messy. It's certainly worth exploring.

Player contracts - I would make it so that once a player has agreed to a contract he can't renegotiate that contract until it's in its final year. If he gets a move during the course of a contract the new team simply takes over whatever is remaining on his contract in years and money, rather than negotiating a new deal. I think you'd see less of the likes of the Milner to City moves if this was in place.

Also youth players - there should be a system in place whereby a club can keep a youth player for the first 3/4 years after he has broken into the team. They are under team control for those first few years of their career. Salary is the big issue here though, so you'd need the salary arbitration system as well to ensure that the players aren't completely screwed over.


UEFA's financial guidelines are a good start to leveling the financial playing field.

With regard to refereeing a few things strike me as being a problem, offside is a mess, penalty decisions are often wrong, whether the ball has crossed the line is the other issue at times. Given the technology available it's inexcusable to continue to ignore it. This notion that the referee's decision is sacred regardless of how wrong it might be is stupid. How to implement it is difficult though, similar to rugby where they have a TV ref, a football referee should be able to call on somebody - if he feels the need to - to check the footage on potential penalty decisions and goalline situations. I also like the NFL's system whereby the coach can challenge a certain number of decisions in a game and have them checked, but that might be a bit much for football.

Offside decisions, well I'd like to see how a few games would go without the offside rule. It would probably result in some player inevitably just goal hanging, but if it forced defenders to mark them there is potential for there to be a lot more room for the skillful players to play in, and that can only be a good thing. I'm not sure if I like it but to see it on a trial basis would be interesting.

yahoo_moe

orourkeda wrote: »

Why? Surely the whole idea of loaning young players is for them to gain some level of first team experience.

Read the whole thread - he explained his reasons.

Het-Field wrote: »

My suggestion simply attempts to address the severe lack of clarity which exists in regards to the handball rule.

I'll be honest - I thought you were taking the piss up until you defended the idea. The 'punish them for protecting the face' thing was what really convinced me you were joking. Anyway, I think punishing unintentional handball would be ludicrous.

Het-Field

yahoo_moe wrote: »

Read the whole thread - he explained his reasons.

I'll be honest - I thought you were taking the piss up until you defended the idea. The 'punish them for protecting the face' thing was what really convinced me you were joking. Anyway, I think punishing unintentional handball would be ludicrous.

The reason I mentioned the ball-in-face business was due to my belief that it would be used as a stick to beat my suggestion with. Its a rare occurrence in any game. However, I have seen penalties given for such actions, including Macedonia's second penalty in 1997 when Terry Phelan used his hands to protect himself. I understand that players should be entitled to protect themselves, and it is usually a reflex action on the part of the player. However, in hockey it would be insufficient excuse for the use of one's foot, if I used my foot to prevent the ball from gaining further trajectory before hitting my knee. It is about certainty, and it ensures that people cannot hide behind unclear rules to justify illegal actions in games of football.

The rule in hockey as to the use of one's foot is unambiguious. No player complains about it, and not player complains about the lack of subjectivity which it breeds. On the other hand, I believe the rule in football allows for the referee to "cop out" of crunch decisions, which may not be lined with unmitigated clarity. It also allows for players to use their hands in a manner which is clearly illegal, but may allow for an amnesty in their favour. It would ensure that players are more conscious as to where they place their hands. It would also ensure that fair play prevails in that the ball can only be played with the foot, chest, knee, leg, head, and face.

I would also like to know why you feel it would be "ludicrous" for the powers that be to take such a step ? You call it ludicrous, yet you dont justify why it would be ludicrous.

orourkeda

CiaranC wrote: »

The idea of making accidental handball punishable by a free kick or penalty is absurd. Do we make two accidental handballs punishable by a red card too?

The entire rules of association football are built around INTENT. Ive never seen such a collection of clueless people posting on one topic on the internet.

The reasons for any perceived inconsistency is that these rules are open to interpretation.

CiaranC

Het-Field wrote: »

I would also like to know why you feel it would be "ludicrous" for the powers that be to take such a step ? You call it ludicrous, yet you dont justify why it would be ludicrous.

Have you ever actually played football? Are you basing this nonsense on the percieved 'injustice' of Thierry Henrys handball vs Ireland? Im still not sure you are not taking the piss.

baz wrote:

I wanna retract this statement as I meant Blatter, not Platini.

Didnt stop 7 people thanking your post

kakee

There are a few changes I would like to see made to improve the game.

1. Make it 4 points for a win in league games. This would encourage teams to attack more in games especially when a team is playing away.

2. Change the Champions league back to a knockout involving only the teams who have won their respective leagues in Europe. The teams that lose their first round game go into a Europa League format competition.

3. Scrap the stupid rule of a yellow card for over celebrating a goal or a player taking his shirt off. If a player removes his shirt and has any type of message written on it then give him a retrospective booking if necessary.

4. The most important change would be regarding players diving. This really needs to be addressed and could be done by two ways. Either a straight red for diving or by having a panel review the incident after the game and then issuing sanctions. It may take a while to clean up but it will work.

5. Proffesional players should as employees of a football club be encouraged to spend some time each day coaching kids. What better way to promote soccer or to get involved than by having your heros coachng you or visiting your school.

6. Present day players should be asked about the laws and rules of the modern game and what changes they would like to see made.

adox

One change I'd like to see is automatic yellow cards for dissent. I'm sick of seeing players scowling in the ref or lines mans face when they don't agree with a decision. The difference between soccer and rugby in this regard is astonishing.


Also I saw a video of a trial FIFA did in some minor league regarding free kicks and walls. Now I'm not taking the piss and I'll dig it up later when I'm not on a handheld device, but basically the ref had a small can of spray paint on his waist and when there was a free kick and a wall, he paced the 10 yards and sprayed a line in the grass. The wall had to stay behind the line or the player/s would be booked. The paint was water based and disappeared after a couple of minutes. I know it sounds ridiculous but it seemed to speed things up.

Het-Field

CiaranC wrote: »

Have you ever actually played football? Are you basing this nonsense on the percieved 'injustice' of Thierry Henrys handball vs Ireland? Im still not sure you are not taking the piss.


Didnt stop 7 people thanking your post

Nothing to do with Henry at all. Do you ever post without making baseless assumptions. Im over that. It was a deliberate handball which was not spotted by the referee. Even if the powers that be were to change the rules in line with what I have suggested, Henry's misdemenour would not have been penalised as the referee failed to spot the infringement at all. Refereeing mistakes will always play a role in football, and as fans we are just going to have to accept it.

Words like "ludicrous" and "taking the piss" have been tossed around by people like you, yet you have not suggested why it is ludicrous based on any emperical evidence. You have simply made bald statements as to the suggestions purported idiocracy. Could you please tell me why such a suggestion couldnt work ? A similar standard to the one I have suggested applies in Hockey, and it works just fine.

yahoo_moe

Het-Field wrote: »

The reason I mentioned the ball-in-face business was due to my belief that it would be used as a stick to beat my suggestion with.

Rightly so I think (I'm assuming you're serious at this point). There's not a massive advantage - it's not like it prevents a goal if the ball's going to hit you in the face anyway.

I would also like to know why you feel it would be "ludicrous" for the powers that be to take such a step ? You call it ludicrous, yet you dont justify why it would be ludicrous.

Because you're punishing something unintentional. It's a rule against 'deliberate handball' but you want that to change. And as has been said, in some situations (not all) it could encourage 'drawing the foul' by playing ball to hand (or face, if you have your way fully).

If you want to eliminate the grey areas, then possibly a rule that would make handball a foul if the hand moves to the ball would work. I just can't agree with punishing players who haven't moved their hands, or who have only moved their hands to protect their face (as I said, the ball is going to hit their face anyway).

yahoo_moe

Het-Field wrote: »

Words like "ludicrous" and "taking the piss" have been tossed around by people like you, yet you have not suggested why it is ludicrous based on any emperical evidence.

Just to be clear, you haven't given any empirical evidence either.

It's still your opinion, even if you are comparing it with a rule from another sport.