Participation behaviour?? And one foot behind the goal line seems very odd. Reminds me of one our daughter’s (many) boyfriends during the late ‘eighties/early ‘nineties who always seemed keen to reassure me that he kept one foot on the ground (presumably when they were ‘relaxing’ on her bed).
Not allowed in her bedroom. I suspect she had a trannie (?) and kept the volume pretty high (nudge nudge) but I’ve blotted from my memory much of the (frightening) detail of those ‘happy’ days.
Those five subs are going to come in useful considering the amount of yellow cards that will be issued! I daresay even if we are the least penalised team in the season it will be because we are experts and the refs are too incompetent to see it.
I think you should write your memoirs @micra although I'm sure it would be a fairly weighty tome. Highlights like the tin bath incident might make it a best seller.
Whenever we find out a bit more about @micra's past, I keep wanting it all to be written down and read out by @micra in the style of "24 yrs at the Tap End" (for those of you that listened to Radio 1 & Scott Mills).
When the article says there will be a higher threshold for fouls that means there will be fewer fouls, right? The ref will be ignoring any incidents that would have met the 'old' threshold but fail to reach the new, higher threshold.
Appears to be designed to stop the breathing on a forward fall over like a sack of spuds nonsense. Also seeking to reduce the wrestling at corners and free kicks. If they can pull those off, it would be real progress I think.
Noticeable that neither seem so prevalent in the womens games nor at lower non league level. Games far more enjoyable to watch as a result.
The wrestling in the box I find really difficult to understand how it got so bad and how the refs police it...I've often held my head thinking that's got to be a pen and things are just waved away. Watching the old games on those replay shows there did not seem to be any of that
It was cracked down on c. five years ago? I remember PL refs dishing out penalties all the time.
The last two years have been so bad. For example, The Vokes header at home to Sunderland last season. There must be at least three fouls going on there as a minimum…
Actually they may be by being able to spring forwards. If there was no advantage to doing it (if only on an individual case by case basis) then goal keeping coaches would train GKs not to do it.
Here’s an idea to annoy the traditionalists. Why not allow temporary substitutions for injured players, such substitution not to count as one of the permitted number of substitutes if the original player returns to the pitch within a set period of time?
I can see two advantages:
fewer long delays while a player receives treatment. They can be treated off the pitch (obviously only if safe to move them)
fewer long term injuries as a result of players trying to “run off” a knock
Disadvantage is the time taken to get a player off and a sub on, and then the same time for a return to play. Stoppage time, if 30 sec allowed for each change, could be huge.
what if the temp sub gets sent off? Does it mean the original player not allowed to return? What about a yellow who does it apply to - just the temp sub or the original player?
in my view better for refs to have a minimum treatment time once player has left the pitch. If a player knows he/she will not be waved back on after a few seconds but will have to wait two minutes then pretend injuries will not happen. Maybe not apply the two minute period where the foul that caused the injury was penalised with a card as that is probably not a pretend injury.
Surely there is also a chance the temporary sub gets injured as he tries to get into the game...and what happens if he is playing better than the player you had to take off was.
Last few minutes of a game, defending a 1 goal lead and under the cosh. Striker goes down "injured" to be temporarily replaced by an additional defender.
I really don't like the concept. It is going much more towards rugby where you bring on your 'finishers' or American Football and their special teams. The idea of being able to replace half your outfield players just seems wrong and will change, I believe, the game for the worse.
For example, in 10 years times everyone could be playing the high press game and the attributes that require will be more valued than skill and players, like for example Nick Freeman (who I don't believe is that well suited to the high pressing game - but I may be wrong), will be lost.
Also, who would decide how serious the injury in for the player to be taken off and a sub to be brought on? You could end up with the blood capsule situation that happened in Rugby or the situation with Chelsea and their Physio.
At the end of the day, the health, safety and wellbeing of the players is the most important. When you open this window of having temp subs (which they correctly do for head assessments) then it opens the door for under-handed tactics to creep into the game which then spoils the integrity of those around the game.
Sorry, you are right @micra. Clubs are allowed to use 2 concussion subs which aren't reversible so the teams might be able to make 7 subs. (5 x normal, 2 x concussion related subs)
Comments
Participation behaviour?? And one foot behind the goal line seems very odd. Reminds me of one our daughter’s (many) boyfriends during the late ‘eighties/early ‘nineties who always seemed keen to reassure me that he kept one foot on the ground (presumably when they were ‘relaxing’ on her bed).
'listening to records' by any chance, @micra?
Not allowed in her bedroom. I suspect she had a trannie (?) and kept the volume pretty high (nudge nudge) but I’ve blotted from my memory much of the (frightening) detail of those ‘happy’ days.
Those five subs are going to come in useful considering the amount of yellow cards that will be issued! I daresay even if we are the least penalised team in the season it will be because we are experts and the refs are too incompetent to see it.
I do enjoy the insight we get into @micra's private life on here
Too much information?!
Not that anything will ever top tin bath-gate
Oh god. I remember that. Beginning to wish I hadn’t.
I think you should write your memoirs @micra although I'm sure it would be a fairly weighty tome. Highlights like the tin bath incident might make it a best seller.
Whenever we find out a bit more about @micra's past, I keep wanting it all to be written down and read out by @micra in the style of "24 yrs at the Tap End" (for those of you that listened to Radio 1 & Scott Mills).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYx-VFmwHCE&list=PL37E612658C970F17
When the article says there will be a higher threshold for fouls that means there will be fewer fouls, right? The ref will be ignoring any incidents that would have met the 'old' threshold but fail to reach the new, higher threshold.
Yep
Appears to be designed to stop the breathing on a forward fall over like a sack of spuds nonsense. Also seeking to reduce the wrestling at corners and free kicks. If they can pull those off, it would be real progress I think.
Noticeable that neither seem so prevalent in the womens games nor at lower non league level. Games far more enjoyable to watch as a result.
The wrestling in the box I find really difficult to understand how it got so bad and how the refs police it...I've often held my head thinking that's got to be a pen and things are just waved away. Watching the old games on those replay shows there did not seem to be any of that
It was cracked down on c. five years ago? I remember PL refs dishing out penalties all the time.
The last two years have been so bad. For example, The Vokes header at home to Sunderland last season. There must be at least three fouls going on there as a minimum…
The foot behind the line thing makes total sense - GKs weren't gaining any advantage from it
Actually they may be by being able to spring forwards. If there was no advantage to doing it (if only on an individual case by case basis) then goal keeping coaches would train GKs not to do it.
Here’s an idea to annoy the traditionalists. Why not allow temporary substitutions for injured players, such substitution not to count as one of the permitted number of substitutes if the original player returns to the pitch within a set period of time?
I can see two advantages:
Disadvantage is the time taken to get a player off and a sub on, and then the same time for a return to play. Stoppage time, if 30 sec allowed for each change, could be huge.
what if the temp sub gets sent off? Does it mean the original player not allowed to return? What about a yellow who does it apply to - just the temp sub or the original player?
in my view better for refs to have a minimum treatment time once player has left the pitch. If a player knows he/she will not be waved back on after a few seconds but will have to wait two minutes then pretend injuries will not happen. Maybe not apply the two minute period where the foul that caused the injury was penalised with a card as that is probably not a pretend injury.
Surely there is also a chance the temporary sub gets injured as he tries to get into the game...and what happens if he is playing better than the player you had to take off was.
Open to massive abuse too.
Last few minutes of a game, defending a 1 goal lead and under the cosh. Striker goes down "injured" to be temporarily replaced by an additional defender.
Non-starter, I think.
Five subs is a shame, tired legs are what makes the second half of the second half the best bit of the game.
But it could be a major advantage for teams like Wycombe who employ a high energy pressing game.
I really don't like the concept. It is going much more towards rugby where you bring on your 'finishers' or American Football and their special teams. The idea of being able to replace half your outfield players just seems wrong and will change, I believe, the game for the worse.
For example, in 10 years times everyone could be playing the high press game and the attributes that require will be more valued than skill and players, like for example Nick Freeman (who I don't believe is that well suited to the high pressing game - but I may be wrong), will be lost.
Comparisons with American Football and Rugby strike terror into my soul.
Please, someone quickly come up with some encouraging counter-arguments.
More opportunities to waste time as well.
Our first 17:30 finish edges ever nearer
So referees are told to stop time wasting while teams are given a new excuse to waste some extra time? I love football.
Also, who would decide how serious the injury in for the player to be taken off and a sub to be brought on? You could end up with the blood capsule situation that happened in Rugby or the situation with Chelsea and their Physio.
At the end of the day, the health, safety and wellbeing of the players is the most important. When you open this window of having temp subs (which they correctly do for head assessments) then it opens the door for under-handed tactics to creep into the game which then spoils the integrity of those around the game.
Temporary subs for concussion assessments are confined to rugby, I think. Your comment put a doubt in my mind @Otter87 .
Sorry, you are right @micra. Clubs are allowed to use 2 concussion subs which aren't reversible so the teams might be able to make 7 subs. (5 x normal, 2 x concussion related subs)