Manchester United Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 11/12

Pro. F

I really really hope Fergie's absence isn't health related.

Jame Gumb

tupac_healy wrote: »

Paul Tergat wrote: »

General Q for ya. Do you think there has to be contact in the situation where a goalkeeper throws himself at your feet, missed the ball and you have to hurdle him?

Yes and I'll tell you why....

Lets say a defender comes in for the slide when your running towards him, you push the ball past him and hurdle the challenge, he does NOT connect, you are in on goal, no foul....

Would you want a free kick for that?


There simply HAS to be contact, going away from goal or not in my book

I think that it's not black and white...like many things it's grey.

If the player can hurdle the challenge and just carry on, well then there's clearly no foul. But if in the act of hurdling the challenge, the player loses his balance and can't carry on effectively, he's entitled to go down and get the free/peno in my view.

People often forget how little it takes to take you down when you're running at speed.

BTW the above isn't "head in the sand" stuff re diving...of course it goes on and of course it's wrong. But there are circumstances where going down is the professional thing to do.

tupac_healy

Paul Tergat wrote: »

Im not sure what you are getting at here? Do you mean that you would be disadvantaged by the ref calling a foul? If the above happens I would expect the ref to play an advantage like normal!

Yes that is exactly what I mean, why should it be any different for a keeper? If he goes at someones feet and does NOT catch them then he has done nothing wrong in my eyes, the laws of the game should apply to the keeper in the same instance I mentioned for a defender above....

In other words you can't penalise a keeper for doing the exact same thing as an outfield player does...


But, there is a fine line with going for the ball and going for the man, that is a different argument. I do agree that over the top/malicious intent tackles should be a straight red, contact or no contact

Paul Tergat

Blatter wrote: »

Or maybe the club just don't want him travelling too much? He's already after travelling a fair bit this Summer in fairness.

Possible but the 2 games he missed were in Europe with a decent amount of rest inbetween.

Lord TSC

He didn't miss the Barca game, did he?

MagicMarker

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

He didn't miss the Barca game, did he?

Forgot about that, didn't see it so I don't know. But if he did then that's 3 in a row...

Al Capwned

Eh lads......

This night week.
Match of the Day.

Paul Tergat

tupac_healy wrote: »

Yes that is exactly what I mean, why should it be any different for a keeper? If he goes at someones feet and does NOT catch them then he has done nothing wrong in my eyes, the laws of the game should apply to the keeper in the same instance I mentioned for a defender above....

In other words you can't penalise a keeper for doing the exact same thing as an outfield player does...


But, there is a fine line with going for the ball and going for the man, that is a different argument. I do agree that over the top/malicious intent tackles should be a straight red, contact or no contact

Its not different for a keeper. The advantage should be given to the attacker here. If a defender or keeper dives at his feet and a player needs to hurdle the challenge hes already been disadvantaged. The ref then looks at the situation and decides if eh should give a free kick or not if the player will be advantaged by being able to play on. The difference is with a keeper it will generally be a penalty or outside the box and usually a red card.

I think the keeper has done something wrong even with no contact. They cant just dive at the attackers feet, knowing that the attacker has to jump to avoid contact. Its almost like punishing a player for trying to hurdle the tackle (im not saying here this is what Rooney was going for it was just a thought brought up having seen the incident)

Jax Teller

He was at the Barca game the other night .

Red Crow

Pro. F wrote: »

I really really hope Fergie's absence isn't health related.

Link to a pic on the 3rd of August. He looks good there. I'd say he's getting a break or working on a transfer etc.

Glazers could be tempted to sell Old Trafford naming rights

Manchester United’s stock was greeted with a big shrug by Wall Street yesterday, ending its first trading session at $14, right where the IPO began. But the Glazer family, which still controls 98% of the soccer team’s voting shares, may have an ace up its sleeve: selling the name to its stadium to a sponsor.

While Manchester United has been adamant in the past that it would not sell out its heritage, there is little doubt that auctioning the advertising rights to Old Trafford would instantly give its profits and stock price a big boost. Conservative estimates by sports marketing experts place the value of a 20 year naming rights deal at $500 million, or $50 million a year, as the Red Devils are the most valuable brand in soccer, worth $269 million, in part due to their immense popularity in Asia and more than 300 million supporters worldwide. Last month the soccer team signed a record-breaking seven-year $559 million shirt sponsorship deal with Chevrolet, the auto brand made by General Motors.

44 images
Photos: The Forbes Fab 40: The World's Most Valuable Sports Brands
With few notable exceptions, like MLB’s New York Yankees and the NFL’s Dallas Cowboys, big U.S. sports teams have been selling naming rights for years. Last year New York’s Giants and Jets sold the rights to their stadium, which the two football teams share, to insurer MetLife for an average of $17 million annually over 25 years. The most lucrative rights deal thus far is the 30-year, $600 million Farmers Insurance Group has agreed to pay for the proposed football stadium in Los Angeles.

But English soccer teams have been reluctant to do so because of tradition and fear it could anger their supporters. That has begun to change in recent years. English soccer teams have more pressure to increase revenue than U.S. teams because they do not have salary caps and payroll taxes to help them control player costs. Also, the new fair play rules require teams to fund operations from cash flow to discourage debt.

Premier League rivals Arsenal inked a stadium deal with with Emirates airline that bean in 2006 worth 100 million pounds over 15 years and Manchester City sold their naming rights to Etihad Airways in 2011 for 400 million pounds over 10 years. Thursday Liverpool, another iconic English soccer team, which in the past had ruled out selling the naming rights to its stadium, said it would consider the idea of selling the rights to Anfield. Liverpool is owned by John Henry, who also owns baseball’s Boston Red Sox.

Selling the naming rights to Old Trafford would indeed make many Manchester United fans cringe. But it would make the team’s shareholders smile.

Link

Paul Tergat

Coletrickle88 wrote: »

He was at the Barca game the other night .

ahhh ****e i thought it was 2 games in a row then. not worried now

Giggsy11

Blatter wrote: »

Or maybe the club just don't want him travelling too much? He's already after travelling a fair bit this Summer in fairness.

I think Arsenal team is in Germany, Fergie was not with team. Join the dots and we have a new rumor

If Arsenal are not in Germany, even better rumors.

Paul Tergat

alproctor wrote: »

Eh lads......

This night week.
Match of the Day.

Hate having to wait til Monday though

RasTa

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

Giggsy11

Eli Manning wrote: »

Link to a pic on the 3rd of August. He looks good there. I'd say he's getting a break or working on a transfer etc.

Glazers could be tempted to sell Old Trafford naming rights

Link

Welcome to "Mister Potato" stadium sounds great, nickname Theater of potatoes starring Mike Phelan

Al Capwned

Paul Tergat wrote: »

Hate having to wait til Monday though

Yeah, but gonna take the sting out of that monday isnt it!!!!

Paul Tergat

alproctor wrote: »

Yeah, but gonna take the sting out of that monday isnt it!!!!

my last ever exam that day. I may be a wee bit drunk watching the match

MagicMarker

Giggsy11 wrote: »

I think Arsenal team is in Germany, Fergie was not with team. Join the dots and we have a new rumor

If Arsenal are not in Germany, even better rumors.

Blackburn were in Germany too............

Al Capwned

I'll have a few for you!
Group of local United lads round here planning making a night of it.

tupac_healy

Paul Tergat wrote: »

Its not different for a keeper. The advantage should be given to the attacker here. If a defender or keeper dives at his feet and a player needs to hurdle the challenge hes already been disadvantaged. The ref then looks at the situation and decides if eh should give a free kick or not if the player will be advantaged by being able to play on. The difference is with a keeper it will generally be a penalty or outside the box and usually a red card.

I think the keeper has done something wrong even with no contact. They cant just dive at the attackers feet, knowing that the attacker has to jump to avoid contact. Its almost like punishing a player for trying to hurdle the tackle (im not saying here this is what Rooney was going for it was just a thought brought up having seen the incident)

How is this different when a defender does it outside the box???? The defender KNOWS "that the attacker has to jump to avoid contact."

If there is no contact in either scenario then why should the keeper be punished? It has to be a level playing field or else keepers are at a disadvantage from the off.... (and no I'm not a keeper )

Pro. F

tupac_healy wrote: »

Yes that is exactly what I mean, why should it be any different for a keeper? If he goes at someones feet and does NOT catch them then he has done nothing wrong in my eyes, the laws of the game should apply to the keeper in the same instance I mentioned for a defender above....

In other words you can't penalise a keeper for doing the exact same thing as an outfield player does...


But, there is a fine line with going for the ball and going for the man, that is a different argument. I do agree that over the top/malicious intent tackles should be a straight red, contact or no contact

Contact isn't required for it to be a foul in the laws of the game.

Paul Tergat

tupac_healy wrote: »

How is this different when a defender does it outside the box???? The defender KNOWS "that the attacker has to jump to avoid contact."

If there is no contact in either scenario then why should the keeper be punished? It has to be a level playing field or else keepers are at a disadvantage from the off.... (and no I'm not a keeper )

Im saying its not just applicable to keepers. If a defender dives at the attackers feet it should also be a foul if the attacker has to hurdle the challenge to avoid contact.

Pro. F

tupac_healy wrote: »

How is this different when a defender does it outside the box???? The defender KNOWS "that the attacker has to jump to avoid contact."

If there is no contact in either scenario then why should the keeper be punished? It has to be a level playing field or else keepers are at a disadvantage from the off.... (and no I'm not a keeper )

But it is a foul if the defender dives in, misses the ball and the attack has to hurdle him and so is put at a disadvantage.

Paul Tergat

Pro. F wrote: »

But it is a foul if the defender dives in, misses the ball and the attack has to hurdle him and so is put at a disadvantage.

and also the ref should try play advantage in both situations where applicable!

DM_7

RE the GK 'Tackle' if he doesn't get the ball its a foul even if no contact is made with the player.

Its illegal to make a careless challenge (rule 12) so that type of challenge would be a foul under the rules even without contact.

The red card comes from another rule regarding as its denying a goalscoring opportunity.

If a sliding tackle is made out the field, the ball is not won and the opposition player hurdles it, the tackle is a still a foul (its careless as he didn't win the ball). The ref may allow play on if there is an advantage and he wouldn't book the player (advantage played or not) as careless tackles do not warrant further action.

If a tackle is reckless he will get a yellow or uses excessive force its a red (with or without contact). Again the intent is enough. Contact is not necessary (contact is not necessary in any tackle as its the nature of the tackle rather than what it achieves that warrants a foul, that is why we see tackles that win the ball still get punished).

tupac_healy

Paul Tergat wrote: »

Im saying its not just applicable to keepers. If a defender dives at the attackers feet it should also be a foul if the attacker has to hurdle the challenge to avoid contact.

Pro. F wrote: »

But it is a foul if the defender dives in, misses the ball and the attack has to hurdle him and so is put at a disadvantage.

Lads, I hate to say this but this is leading down the road of moving away from the slide tackle altogether....

Players/Keepers must be allowed challenge for the ball, its a contact sport after all. Cheating is all too common place these days, I firmly believe that if a player can avoid a challenge he should, not leave dangling legs there for minimal contact (or in worse cases NO CONTACT AT ALL) to gain an advantage....

Whilst I do think it is a risky challenge to make, hence being told stay on your feet from school-boy onwards, the element itself must NOT be removed from the game, else the game will be in far worse shape.

IvySlayer

Tomorrow our plate goes to Chelsea or City...C'mon Chelsea :pac:

LostBoy101

IvySlayer wrote: »

Tomorrow our plate goes to Chelsea or City...C'mon Chelsea :pac:

Yep, the perfect dinner plate.

adox

SSN reporting RVP leaving Germany to sign 3 year contract at Old Trafford.

Edit... Looks like a fake Twitter account.

Is a fake account. Apologies.

Professional Griefer

alproctor wrote: »

Eh lads......

This night week.
Match of the Day.

Blah. Rose of Tralee!

DM_7

tupac_healy wrote: »

Lads, I hate to say this but this is leading down the road of moving away from the slide tackle altogether....

Players/Keepers must be allowed challenge for the ball, its a contact sport after all. Cheating is all too common place these days, I firmly believe that if a player can avoid a challenge he should, not leave dangling legs there for minimal contact (or in worse cases NO CONTACT AT ALL) to gain an advantage....

Whilst I do think it is a risky challenge to make, hence being told stay on your feet from school-boy onwards, the element itself must NOT be removed from the game, else the game will be in far worse shape.

I agree with the bolded bit.

The rest ignores the actual rules of the game. Maybe look up rule 12. Slide tackles are dangerous and most of the time will be punished if you get the player as well.

Pro. F

tupac_healy wrote: »

Lads, I hate to say this but this is leading down the road of moving away from the slide tackle altogether....

Players/Keepers must be allowed challenge for the ball, its a contact sport after all. Cheating is all too common place these days, I firmly believe that if a player can avoid a challenge he should, not leave dangling legs there for minimal contact (or in worse cases NO CONTACT AT ALL) to gain an advantage....

Whilst I do think it is a risky challenge to make, hence being told stay on your feet from school-boy onwards, the element itself must NOT be removed from the game, else the game will be in far worse shape.

No it's not. The fact that intent is the important factor rather than outcome is a very standard part of the laws and doesn't punish sliding tackles more than any other type of physical interaction on the pitch.

Paul Tergat

tupac_healy wrote: »

Lads, I hate to say this but this is leading down the road of moving away from the slide tackle altogether....

Its not removing the slide tackle. Defenders just need to be accurate, contact or not. Thats all imo

tupac_healy wrote: »

Players/Keepers must be allowed challenge for the ball, its a contact sport after all. Cheating is all too common place these days, I firmly believe that if a player can avoid a challenge he should, not leave dangling legs there for minimal contact (or in worse cases NO CONTACT AT ALL) to gain an advantage....

They are free to challenge for the ball but I think they should be punished where they get it wrong. Part of getting it wrong is going in for the tackle, not making contact but causing the attacker to hurdle the tackle.

I do agree that a player should try to hurdle the tackle but should it be to their detriment if they cant stay on their feet (note here - not WONT stay on their feet). At pace if they need to deviate even slightly it throws their balance.

If you dont think contact is needed you are not really solving the problem of the dangling leg, you are just making players need to do it to 'make contact'

tupac_healy wrote: »

Whilst I do think it is a risky challenge to make, hence being told stay on your feet from school-boy onwards, the element itself must NOT be removed from the game, else the game will be in far worse shape.

Completely agree. I love a good slide tackle and its an art. However, there ought to be repurcussions if they dont win the ball, dont make contact but act in the detriment of the attacker imo

Paul Tergat

adox wrote: »

SSN reporting RVP leaving Germany to sign 3 year contract at Old Trafford.

Edit... Looks like a fake Twitter account.

Is a fake account. Apologies.

Damn you Adox!

tupac_healy

DM-ICE wrote: »

RE the GK 'Tackle' if he doesn't get the ball its a foul even if no contact is made with the player.

Its illegal to make a careless challenge (rule 12) so that type of challenge would be a foul under the rules even without contact.

The red card comes from another rule regarding as its denying a goalscoring opportunity.

If a sliding tackle is made out the field, the ball is not won and the opposition player hurdles it, the tackle is a still a foul (its careless as he didn't win the ball). The ref may allow play on if there is an advantage and he wouldn't book the player (advantage played or not) as careless tackles do not warrant further action.

If a tackle is reckless he will get a yellow or uses excessive force its a red (with or without contact). Again the intent is enough. Contact is not necessary (contact is not necessary in any tackle as its the nature of the tackle rather than what it achieves that warrants a foul, that is why we see tackles that win the ball still get punished).

Well if that is the acutal rule, then I concede. I will not agrue with the actual rules of the game as it would be completely pointless, however that is not to say that I agree with them. I accept them....

DM-ICE wrote: »

I agree with the bolded bit.

The rest ignores the actual rules of the game. Maybe look up rule 12. Slide tackles are dangerous and most of the time will be punished if you get the player as well.

As above on that point

Pro. F wrote: »

No it's not. The fact that intent is the important factor rather than outcome is a very standard part of the laws and doesn't punish sliding tackles more than any other type of physical interaction on the pitch.

In fairness, I did point out earlier that there is a difference between going for the ball and going for the man

Paul Tergat wrote: »

Its not removing the slide tackle. Defenders just need to be accurate, contact or not. Thats all imo


They are free to challenge for the ball but I think they should be punished where they get it wrong. Part of getting it wrong is going in for the tackle, not making contact but causing the attacker to hurdle the tackle.

I do agree that a player should try to hurdle the tackle but should it be to their detriment if they cant stay on their feet (note here - not WONT stay on their feet). At pace if they need to deviate even slightly it throws their balance.

If you dont think contact is needed you are not really solving the problem of the dangling leg, you are just making players need to do it to 'make contact'



Completely agree. I love a good slide tackle and its an art. However, there ought to be repurcussions if they dont win the ball, dont make contact but act in the detriment of the attacker imo

But my point regarding what is in bold is this, why the hell is a keeper sent off and a pen given if it was a genuine attempt for the ball? Its basically the exact same thing as a mis-timed (not malicious) tackle outside the box?

Its utter madness!! It's in the rules of the game so I accept defeat in this argument but it is madness!!!

adox

Paul Tergat wrote: »

Damn you Adox!

Sorry. Looked authentic at a glance but I should have looked in to it more before posting.

Professional Griefer

Future United legend broke another WR tonight.

Paul Tergat

tupac_healy wrote: »

But my point regarding what is in bold is this, why the hell is a keeper sent off and a pen given if it was a genuine attempt for the ball? Its basically the exact same thing as a mis-timed (not malicious) tackle outside the box?

Its utter madness!! It's in the rules of the game so I accept defeat in this argument but it is madness!!!

Its a pen cause he missed the ball, caused clear detriment to the attacker who has to jump over someone who dived at his feet. Its usually a red also as it usually prevents a clear goalscoring opportunity.

Its not the same as say a defender getting a slide tackle wrong on the half way line. For obvious reasons this is not a penalty and, as long as its not a completely reckless tackle doesnt warrant a red (as it also wont be preventing a goalscoring opportunity).

Jax Teller

Ix Deadmau5 wrote: »

Future United legend broke another WR tonight.

Jesus , there was another 3 guys on the team he didn't do all on his own .

Paul Tergat

adox wrote: »

Sorry. Looked authentic at a glance but I should have looked in to it more before posting.

Ah im only messing. Read the first line and was like :eek:

tupac_healy

Paul Tergat wrote: »

Its a pen cause he missed the ball, caused clear detriment to the attacker who has to jump over someone who dived at his feet. Its usually a red also as it usually prevents a clear goalscoring opportunity.

Its not the same as say a defender getting a slide tackle wrong on the half way line. For obvious reasons this is not a penalty and, as long as its not a completely reckless tackle doesnt warrant a red (as it also wont be preventing a goalscoring opportunity).

and the man......

I already conceded defeat on this one as its in the rule book!!!

Pro. F

tupac_healy wrote: »

In fairness, I did point out earlier that there is a difference between going for the ball and going for the man

Yes but going for the ball recklessly so that you end up getting or impeding the man with the ball is a foul too.

tupac_healy wrote: »

But my point regarding what is in bold is this, why the hell is a keeper sent off and a pen given if it was a genuine attempt for the ball? Its basically the exact same thing as a mis-timed (not malicious) tackle outside the box?

Its utter madness!! It's in the rules of the game so I accept defeat in this argument but it is madness!!!

I agree that it's harsh that keepers should be sent off when they give away a penalty in these situations.

It's a difficult area to legislate for because if the keepers weren't sent off then it would always be to their advantage to try and impede the attacker and trade good goal scoring opportunities for penalties. So it is harsh that they get sent off, but there doesn't seem to be any other way to do it.

Paul Tergat

tupac_healy wrote: »

and the man......

I already conceded defeat on this one as its in the rule book!!!

aye. i just think thats the way it should be. Its not a case of contact or dive, theres an inbetween i think

tupac_healy

Paul Tergat wrote: »

aye. i just think thats the way it should be. Its not a case of contact or dive, theres an inbetween i think

I don't really want to drag through this as it would be unfair and somewhat side tracking...

Let's look at it from a keepers point of view, would you be happy if you got sent off in an average sunday league game for going for the ball, your opponent dives over the top of you, you miss ball and man and your walking off the pitch???

I know its the rule, fair enough I won't argue the point any further, It just puts keepers (let's make no bones about this, you cannot have a game without keepers, they are THE most important players on the pitch) in a more dangerous position.

Al Capwned

tupac_healy wrote: »

I don't really want to drag through this as it would be unfair and somewhat side tracking...

Let's look at it from a keepers point of view, would you be happy if you got sent off in an average sunday league game for going for the ball, your opponent dives over the top of you, you miss ball and man and your walking off the pitch???

I know its the rule, fair enough I won't argue the point any further, It just puts keepers (let's make no bones about this, you cannot have a game without keepers, they are THE most important players on the pitch) in a more dangerous position.

I agree, the rules, or more importantly, the implementation of the rules, are fine the way they are.

This is a subject 'close to my heart' as I (still) play in goal for my local side, and there has to be a facility where a goalkeeper can make a genuine attempt to slide for a ball.

If, in this situation there is no contact between goalkeeper and attacker, I don't see how giving a foul, and issuing resultant red cards, would be anything but a detriment to the game.

Paul Tergat

tupac_healy wrote: »

I don't really want to drag through this as it would be unfair and somewhat side tracking...

Let's look at it from a keepers point of view, would you be happy if you got sent off in an average sunday league game for going for the ball, your opponent dives over the top of you, you miss ball and man and your walking off the pitch???

I know its the rule, fair enough I won't argue the point any further, It just puts keepers (let's make no bones about this, you cannot have a game without keepers, they are THE most important players on the pitch) in a more dangerous position.

I agree its tough on keepers but its a result of them generally being the last line of defence. They have to be extra careful as they will often be preventing goal scoring opportunities.

It does seem harsh but there has to be some punishment for a keeper going down and not getting the ball and therefore an attacker has to hurdle them. Its a consequence that keepers just have to face up to.

Giggsy11

That was very quick, just over an hour gone and we have the individual player highlights.

Paul Tergat

alproctor wrote: »

I agree, the rules, or more importantly, the implementation of the rules, are fine the way they are.

This is a subject 'close to my heart' as I (still) play in goal for my local side, and there has to be a facility where a goalkeeper can make a genuine attempt to slide for a ball.

If, in this situation there is no contact between goalkeeper and attacker, I don't see how giving a foul, and issuing resultant red cards, would be anything but a detriment to the game.

Fecking keepers :P

If he doesnt take ball or man but the attacker has to hurdle him and therefore loses his balance and falls do you think its a pen and red card (if in the box obviously)?

Im not saying ye lads are wrong by the way I just wanted to get peoples views on it

Al Capwned

Paul Tergat wrote: »

Fecking keepers :P

If he doesnt take ball or man but the attacker has to hurdle him and therefore loses his balance and falls do you think its a pen and red card (if in the box obviously)?

Im not saying ye lads are wrong by the way I just wanted to get peoples views on it

Ah sure we're all mad... :pac:

Difficult one, in fairness. I would argue that each case is different, but as a general rule, I would hope that the benefit of any doubt should be given to the goalkeeper, and if there is no contact, there should be no foul.

I can understand the argument that simply hurdling a sliding keeper can hinder an attacker and should perhaps be punished, but I believe that penalising a goalkeeper for genuine attempts to get to the ball while making no contact with an attacking player would cause chaos.

DM_7

alproctor wrote: »

I agree, the rules, or more importantly, the implementation of the rules, are fine the way they are.

This is a subject 'close to my heart' as I (still) play in goal for my local side, and there has to be a facility where a goalkeeper can make a genuine attempt to slide for a ball.

If, in this situation there is no contact between goalkeeper and attacker, I don't see how giving a foul, and issuing resultant red cards, would be anything but a detriment to the game.

There is a facility where keepers can go to ground for the ball. If they win the ball they get away with what would be deemed a careless or reckless tackle outside the box so keepers already have an advantage. All they need to do is get the ball.

If they don't, its a foul (EDIT: If they impede the player and don't get the ball that is)

Re the red card, Yes I do think its a tough rule but not unfair.