The SNH Football thread

[scspkr99]

And that is the most embarrassing thing about it. I'd be so fucking embarrassed to be seen doing that in front of millions of people around the world.

You probably wouldn't. If you would you probably wouldn't do it.

I'd rather it didn't happen I'd rather football operated within the rules of the game but if he's not getting a decision when he's elbowed and ran into then I can understand why he'll try and buy one.

[garethom]

And that is the most embarrassing thing about it. I'd be so fucking embarrassed to be seen doing that in front of millions of people around the world.

You probably wouldn't. If you would you probably wouldn't do it.

Well, yeah, that's the whole point of the fucking statement.

I'd rather it didn't happen I'd rather football operated within the rules of the game but if he's not getting a decision when he's elbowed and ran into then I can understand why he'll try and buy one.

Shit, overused excuse that only applies about 1 in every 20 dives.

[scspkr99]

There's two nailed on penalties that he's not got in the last two games. That's more than the dives he's committed which seem to be the focus of discussion.

If you don't think it's relevant sound.

[scspkr99]

and that's ignoring that he got stamped on yesterday

[garethom]

Basically, all I'm saying is, two wrongs don't make a right. It makes the game worse.

The issue is the standard of refereeing is fucking shocking, and people trying to deceive referees left, right and centre isn't going to help the situation. In this case, Suarez and co's constant diving is always going to make me think twice as a referee. Yes they're probably targeted more than other players because they're more talented, but they also dive a lot, so I'd defo think twice before awarding a foul.

[scspkr99]

Basically, all I'm saying is, two wrongs don't make a right. It makes the game worse.

The issue is the standard of refereeing is fucking shocking, and people trying to deceive referees left, right and centre isn't going to help the situation. In this case, Suarez and co's constant diving is always going to make me think twice as a referee. Yes they're probably targeted more than other players because they're more talented, but they also dive a lot, so I'd defo think twice before awarding a foul.

I kind of agree but where I disagree is that Suarez is doing it all the time. He isn't, when he does and gets caught he should be punished but the ref even bottles that. Like I'd much rather it didn't happen but I understand that if the defender never loses the game is weighted in their benefit. Should RvP be embarrassed for elbowing that lad there should Huth be embarrassed about stamping on Suarez?

We need to find a way of using technology consistently and then insisting on a level of behaviour that will be punished if not met.

[magma]

Sportsmanship seems a forgotten word in this...

Sportsmanship is largely about being able to take bad decisions and bouts of bad luck on the chin, but not lowering yourself to cheating/tantrums in order to get round it. We're discussing people who get paid obscene amounts of money to play the game they love and that people will idolise them for playing... the least we should expect is that they conduct themselves in a manner that the people who pay their wages (the fans) approve of. Racist? Find a new job. Serial-Diver? Find a new job. Consistently show no respect for referees? Find a new job. There's no need to constantly allow already-spoilt players to feel like they deserve to be allowed to be even more spoilt... it only perpetuates the discipline problems that the game's suffered from for decades.

As garethom points out... the spectre of diving has a knock-on effect to the refereeing - if Refs feel that they can't trust players in the penalty area, they'll look at every incident with suspicious eyes... genuine shouts will get denied. But in reality, nobody's entitled to a decision going their way no matter how genuine the shout... we all understand the limitations of humans, we all have to deal with them... but over time, everything evens out... everyone's on the "lucky" side of a bad decision half the time.

[scspkr99]

Sportsmanship seems a forgotten word in this...

Sportsmanship is largely about being able to take bad decisions and bouts of bad luck on the chin, but not lowering yourself to cheating/tantrums in order to get round it. We're discussing people who get paid obscene amounts of money to play the game they love and that people will idolise them for playing... the least we should expect is that they conduct themselves in a manner that the people who pay their wages (the fans) approve of. Racist? Find a new job. Serial-Diver? Find a new job. Consistently show no respect for referees? Find a new job. There's no need to constantly allow already-spoilt players to feel like they deserve to be allowed to be even more spoilt... it only perpetuates the discipline problems that the game's suffered from for decades.

As garethom points out... the spectre of diving has a knock-on effect to the refereeing - if Refs feel that they can't trust players in the penalty area, they'll look at every incident with suspicious eyes... genuine shouts will get denied. But in reality, nobody's entitled to a decision going their way no matter how genuine the shout... we all understand the limitations of humans, we all have to deal with them... but over time, everything evens out... everyone's on the "lucky" side of a bad decision half the time.

Wait a minute isn't this a little contradictory. We are asking the diver to get a new job but not the guy who put his studs in his chest or the player who puts his elbow in someones head. Do we really want to talk about entitlement in respect of football. Referee's are paid well why shouldn't players be protected from assault and more importantly why should they not be entitled to be protected from assault. Should you be protected from assault at your job.

Once we decide that players are entitled to a decision that protects them from assault then the rest is kinda bollocks.

[herbs]

People complaining about not getting penalty decisions and therefore need to dive is ridiculous. If you stamp out simulation (by lenghty bans via post game analysis - not ideal, but the best option) then in a matter of months the problem will amost completely have been eradicated.

The fact is, at the moment, if a player dives the worst that's going to happen to him is he's possibly goign to get booked (although, unlikely). The best that's goign to happen is his team get a penalty and a goal. It's a virtual no lose situation, and the FA need to change that.

Problem is, abroad the views on simulation is completely different (as I understand it). Whilst I'd rather English teams (and the National Team) had honesty as their centre principle, the fact is, when you go into non-FA competitions, you're giving yourself a disadvantage.

That, I think, is the main reason why nothing has been done - as yet.

[magma]

Wait a minute isn't this a little contradictory. We are asking the diver to get a new job but not the guy who put his studs in his chest or the player who puts his elbow in someones head. Do we really want to talk about entitlement in respect of football. Referee's are paid well why shouldn't players be protected from assault and more importantly why should they not be entitled to be protected from assault. Should you be protected from assault at your job.

Once we decide that players are entitled to a decision that protects them from assault then the rest is kinda bollocks.

Protection from assault is how "fouling" works, that's sort of built into the game. But I don't think anyone's naive enough to think you could become a professional team-sports player and not get the odd knock.. it's very much a danger of the occupation, just as RSI and bad backs are a danger of my occupation... I'm not about to sue my manager for making me sit in a chair all day and use a mouse; a striker can't really throw his toys out of his pram because someone mistimed a tackle... people aren't robots, mistakes will be made. Injury is a part of all professional sports-people's lives.

If genuine injury is intended from a tackle there's a review process that can hand out fines and bans... there's a lot of preparation for dealing with bad tackling. Bad tackles can be accidents though... diving is never accidental.

So no, the existence of fouling doesn't give anyone the right to dive... two wrongs don't make a right... in fact, two wrongs lead to a situation where referees don't trust what they see with their eyes making decisions a little bit random at best.

[LA_Boxers]

Gibbs out of the England squad. Bertrand in.

[scspkr99]

No referees make decisions that they think make their life easier.

Is Cabaye entitled to not get elbowed in the head? Is Cleverly not entitled to not be stamped on? Players are entitled to a level of protection and there's no reason to be elbowed off the ball. It's liek cheating has taken on a position worse than assault which you can justify in terms of playing philosophy but is pretty rubbish really. There's a solution it involves technology but wereas other sports are utilising it football chooses not to despite their being more money involved than in almost every other sport.

His dive was pretty shit but it's incongruous to have the game weighted so heavily in the defenders favour. If a player never went down without being fouled then the defender wins every single time, given refs make as many mistakes as they do it's no wonder that players will try and earn an advantage. I don't like it but I understand it. We need an opportunity to review these decisions in game.

No one was talking about the lack of a penalty against Utd despite Gary Neville accepting it should have been given, the one against Norwich is even more obvious and isn't given. It's easy to not give them in Suarez's favour despite this being the first time he's been as shit at diving as this.

[Forum]

Gibbs out of the England squad. Bertrand in.

Shame, would have been a good game to give him a run out

[magma]

If a player never went down without being fouled then the defender wins every single time

That makes no sense. Players can be felled in the box perfectly legally... it's only if they're fouled that a penalty should be called. If the defender times his tackle right, he wins; if he doesn't, he loses. The doubt that exists in referee's minds due to constant diving is what accounts for most of the gap between the good and bad decisions... the more diving we get, the less reliable refereeing decisions will be. Divers certainly can't complain about bad refereeing... it's absolutely a case of you reap what you sow.

The whole point of watching sport is to watch a fair contest... without that, it's completely futile. You can sit and justify cheating all you like, it doesn't stop it being cheating. Cheaters should be laughing stocks... the guys who weren't man enough to be in a fair contest... the guys who were so immature they couldn't handle it when something didn't go their way like a toddler crying when he's told he can't have a lolly.

[scspkr99]

I'm not justifying cheating I'm asking for technology to improve decision making.

A foul is cheating really? What about claiming a throw in when you know you touched the ball last? What about Maradonna's handball? Henry's? Are youi deciding what cheating is acceptable and what isn't?

It does make sense I'm not talking about the going down when there's a legitimate tackle, what I'm saying is if the attacker never tries to win a penalty then it's all in the defenders favour and we need technology to address that.

Like you seemed to not think players are "entitled" to good decisions then ignored whether Cleverly, Cabaye or indeed Suarez are entitled to not be assaulted. Like that's cheating as well right?

[magma]

I'm not justifying cheating I'm asking for technology to improve decision making.

A foul is cheating really? What about claiming a throw in when you know you touched the ball last? What about Maradonna's handball? Henry's? Are youi deciding what cheating is acceptable and what isn't?

It does make sense I'm not talking about the going down when there's a legitimate tackle, what I'm saying is if the attacker never tries to win a penalty then it's all in the defenders favour and we need technology to address that.

Like you seemed to not think players are "entitled" to good decisions then ignored whether Cleverly, Cabaye or indeed Suarez are entitled to not be assaulted. Like that's cheating as well right?

All of the things you mentioned are cheating... depending on the severity (throw in's less severe... a free kick, perhaps; deliberately handling for a goal perhaps a red card). I agree there should be video evidence and there is.... it's used for post-game reviews all the time - incorrect red cards are rescinded, bans for missed fouls are dished out... what more do you want? The game to be stopped dead for 5 minutes every time someone hits the deck? Absolute perfection in an endeavour that involves 50-odd humans working at the speed of a Premiership encounter? Sorry, but...

How is attackers not cheating an "advantage" for the defender? Nobody should expect cheating! Tackles can and will be mistimed, but nobody has ever dived accidentally. Exactly how low are your standards?!

[scspkr99]

It doesn't have to be 5 minutes. It isn't in other sports and the majority of the time there's a natural break when the ball is cleared out. Like the review system is really working when Suarez doesn't get reprimanded for cheating, like it's obviously shit right?

and if you cared to pay attention you'd have noticed I've not said it's right I merely stated I understand it. If a player that isn't fouled never claims a foul the defender never gets a bad one against him but gets ones that should be given not. It's an advantage right?

[Forum]

They need to get rid of the ridiculous law that if an offical sees an incident and takes no action then in cannot be reviewed afterwards

[magma]

They need to get rid of the ridiculous law that if an offical sees an incident and takes no action then in cannot be reviewed afterwards

Definitely agree with that... silly rule.

[magma]

It doesn't have to be 5 minutes. It isn't in other sports and the majority of the time there's a natural break when the ball is cleared out. Like the review system is really working when Suarez doesn't get reprimanded for cheating, like it's obviously shit right?

It works most of the time. Some cases are pretty difficult.

I'm not sure there is always a natural break... what do you do after the review once the ball's gone out and it turns out a foul's been missed? Go back to where the foul was committed? What if 5 minutes of play have passed since then? It's quite often that someone will be denied a penalty and then the opposition will break and have a chance on goal... do you disallow the goal and award a penalty? Do you want to deal with the riot afterwards?

People are imperfect. If you're going to live any sort of happy existence (not just as a football fan), you're going to have to get comfortable with that.

Edit: I would say I support in-game reviews for goals. That's an event big enough to warrant breaking up the flow of the game. Missed/badly called fouls should be reviewed after the game using video evidence like they are now... and, as southstar says, it shouldn't matter whether the referee took action or not.