3 daft but genuine football questions
Discussion
1) Why is the clock not stopped when play is halted, like in rugby? Everyone knows exactly when the full time whistle is going to blow rather than football where often, how many minutes injury time appears to be guesswork.
2) Why when there is a free kick does the referee insist the kick is taken within inches of the offence, but with throw-ins players often walk yards up the line from where the ball went out. In rugby the linesman indicates and stands where the throw must be taken from.
3) When a defender shields the ball over the line, often for several yards without playing the ball, all the while blocking an attacker, why isn't this obstruction?
2) Why when there is a free kick does the referee insist the kick is taken within inches of the offence, but with throw-ins players often walk yards up the line from where the ball went out. In rugby the linesman indicates and stands where the throw must be taken from.
3) When a defender shields the ball over the line, often for several yards without playing the ball, all the while blocking an attacker, why isn't this obstruction?
lady topaz said:
1) Why is the clock not stopped when play is halted, like in rugby? Everyone knows exactly when the full time whistle is going to blow rather than football where often, how many minutes injury time appears to be guesswork.
2) Why when there is a free kick does the referee insist the kick is taken within inches of the offence, but with throw-ins players often walk yards up the line from where the ball went out. In rugby the linesman indicates and stands where the throw must be taken from.
3) When a defender shields the ball over the line, often for several yards without playing the ball, all the while blocking an attacker, why isn't this obstruction?
1) There are generally guidelines for how much injury time to choose. Certain lengths of time are added for subs, lengthy injuries etc. Stopping the clock is feasible, but would require a fairly big rule change.2) Why when there is a free kick does the referee insist the kick is taken within inches of the offence, but with throw-ins players often walk yards up the line from where the ball went out. In rugby the linesman indicates and stands where the throw must be taken from.
3) When a defender shields the ball over the line, often for several yards without playing the ball, all the while blocking an attacker, why isn't this obstruction?
2) You are supposed to take it from where it went out, it just isnt enforced as much.
3) You are allowed to obstruct a player as long as you are in control of (or within playing distance of) the ball.
lady topaz said:
1) Why is the clock not stopped when play is halted, like in rugby? Everyone knows exactly when the full time whistle is going to blow rather than football where often, how many minutes injury time appears to be guesswork.
2) Why when there is a free kick does the referee insist the kick is taken within inches of the offence, but with throw-ins players often walk yards up the line from where the ball went out. In rugby the linesman indicates and stands where the throw must be taken from.
3) When a defender shields the ball over the line, often for several yards without playing the ball, all the while blocking an attacker, why isn't this obstruction?
Not daft at all ....2) Why when there is a free kick does the referee insist the kick is taken within inches of the offence, but with throw-ins players often walk yards up the line from where the ball went out. In rugby the linesman indicates and stands where the throw must be taken from.
3) When a defender shields the ball over the line, often for several yards without playing the ball, all the while blocking an attacker, why isn't this obstruction?
1. Because Alex Ferguson runs the Premier League and if it's on a big clock on the stand there's no arguing with it - whereas he can moan at the ref about the lack of extra time played if Utd haven't scored in their usual 10 mins or so.
2. Because a punt into the opponents box could results in a goal whereas a throw from your own half doesn't generally lead to a goal in one or two touches. Bad though, they should enforce it more, but then commentators such as Alan Green would moan even more about ref being petty.
3. See previous answer - but I think it IS obstruction ... as you are not *playing* the ball ... just never gets give. Balls rolls out, goal kick etc - everyone gets on with it.
These are tremendous questions which bug the hell out of me too. The obstruction thing is a farce, that used to be an indirect free kick but the IFK seems to have vanished from the game. You know it should be brought back when you see the embarrassment of two England players standing next to the corner flag with the ball waiting for defenders to come and try to elbow them aside.
Not stopping the clock for substitutions etc is also a farce. You know this rule should be brought in when you see managers blatantly bringing on subs in the last two mins just because they know it will eat up time, not because the sub is expected to play any sort of part in the game. Also when you see the subbed player trying to set a new record for slow walking, clapping the crowd, high-fiving the sub, tying his bootlace etc
Some WC linesmen have been trying to stand in the way of throw-in encroachers I've noticed but they usually crumble in the face of an outraged encroacher trying to nick his 20 yards.
Not stopping the clock for substitutions etc is also a farce. You know this rule should be brought in when you see managers blatantly bringing on subs in the last two mins just because they know it will eat up time, not because the sub is expected to play any sort of part in the game. Also when you see the subbed player trying to set a new record for slow walking, clapping the crowd, high-fiving the sub, tying his bootlace etc
Some WC linesmen have been trying to stand in the way of throw-in encroachers I've noticed but they usually crumble in the face of an outraged encroacher trying to nick his 20 yards.
Edited by tonym911 on Thursday 24th June 15:15
Thanks guys.
I think this afternoons Italy game perfectly highlighted my time added on point. Slovaks dropping like pins plus substitutions. Even the commentators said they had no idea how much time would be added on. Originally 4 mins I think, but ended up nearer 6. So much easier to adopt the rugby method, then no arguement afterwards.
I would wager a lot of goals have been scored in unjustified added on time.
I think this afternoons Italy game perfectly highlighted my time added on point. Slovaks dropping like pins plus substitutions. Even the commentators said they had no idea how much time would be added on. Originally 4 mins I think, but ended up nearer 6. So much easier to adopt the rugby method, then no arguement afterwards.
I would wager a lot of goals have been scored in unjustified added on time.
FIFA (who control the rules of the game) are conscious of the fact that 99% of soccer games are played at amateur or school kid level. They try to create rules that are essentially workable at either a big televised international level or a game between two local schoolboy teams being played out on a piece of scrubland outside a favella in Brazil.
That is also the reason why they are reluctant to go in the direction of video refs and high tec' solutions to assisting the ref and the linesmen.
Keepiong the game the same for everybody whether it be Barcelona or The Albion pub side is important.
On the whole, I think this approach is the right one.
That is also the reason why they are reluctant to go in the direction of video refs and high tec' solutions to assisting the ref and the linesmen.
Keepiong the game the same for everybody whether it be Barcelona or The Albion pub side is important.
On the whole, I think this approach is the right one.
lady topaz said:
1) Why is the clock not stopped when play is halted, like in rugby? Everyone knows exactly when the full time whistle is going to blow rather than football where often, how many minutes injury time appears to be guesswork.
2) Why when there is a free kick does the referee insist the kick is taken within inches of the offence, but with throw-ins players often walk yards up the line from where the ball went out. In rugby the linesman indicates and stands where the throw must be taken from.
3) When a defender shields the ball over the line, often for several yards without playing the ball, all the while blocking an attacker, why isn't this obstruction?
1]As has already been said, it is a nice idea in some respects which doesn't quite match up with football and how it is played, or indeed how it is viewed by FIFA. Rugby lends itself rather better to independent timekeeping (and things such as video refs) due to the number of natural stoppages.2) Why when there is a free kick does the referee insist the kick is taken within inches of the offence, but with throw-ins players often walk yards up the line from where the ball went out. In rugby the linesman indicates and stands where the throw must be taken from.
3) When a defender shields the ball over the line, often for several yards without playing the ball, all the while blocking an attacker, why isn't this obstruction?
The other big problem with going down this road is that once you start, the path is to keep going further and further, stopping a game for every little break, bringing in video replays and so on. Given the amount of money involved, every little thing ends up being scrutinised to the nth degree during the game, refs become incapable of using judgement and the match becomes a bland 4hr eating/drinking pastime (like it's merkin namesake). Rugby League has used video refs for some time and IMHO it is on the verge of becoming an issue, with every try which isn't as clear as day becoming a several minute chin scratcher, usually for no apparent reason.
Finally, it would also lead to a serious disturbance of the space-time continuum in Stretford and as such, the world post 1992 would cease to exist.
2] You tend to find that refs/linos are more lenient when it's a throw in a team's own half, or there's other crap going on that they have to keep an eye on.
TBH, I think that the linos should get off their proverbial backsides and actually enforce this with more gusto, along with actually placing the ball in the correct place for a corner.
3]If the ball is within your sphere of control and/or you are heading in the same direction, there is absolutely no compulsion to get out of the way so that the oppo can get to the ball. You can choose where you want to head and it is their problem if they then try and run into/through you in an attempt to get the ball.
Thing is, football is fast becoming a non-contact sport and if they have a go at this, it will just be another nail in the coffin.
Eric Mc said:
FIFA (who control the rules of the game) are conscious of the fact that 99% of soccer games are played at amateur or school kid level. They try to create rules that are essentially workable at either a big televised international level or a game between two local schoolboy teams being played out on a piece of scrubland outside a favella in Brazil.
That is also the reason why they are reluctant to go in the direction of video refs and high tec' solutions to assisting the ref and the linesmen.
Keepiong the game the same for everybody whether it be Barcelona or The Albion pub side is important.
On the whole, I think this approach is the right one.
Do you know, I've been saying exactly the same for years, and no one listens. Why everyone insists the game would be somehow 'better' with television replays and goal line cameras just doesn't make any sense to me.That is also the reason why they are reluctant to go in the direction of video refs and high tec' solutions to assisting the ref and the linesmen.
Keepiong the game the same for everybody whether it be Barcelona or The Albion pub side is important.
On the whole, I think this approach is the right one.
As you say, you can organise a game down the recreation fields and it can be played with the exact same rules and regulations as the pinacle world cup final game in front of an audiance of 1 billion. Why change that simple fact with cameras etc?
Corsair7 said:
...Why change that simple fact with cameras etc?
Money.We no doubt all despise its control over our favourite sports, but it is now a fact of life sadly.
An awful lot rides on professional matches these days, and with the quantity of cash swilling around the professional game I see no reason why these measures cannot be put in place.
The rules don't have to change, so your grass roots guys can still play by the same rule book, it would simply be enforced in an appropriately cheaper manner - just using a ref instead of cameras/technology.
Idealistically this stuff wouldn't be needed. But there's so much inconsistency and, let's face it, cheating going on that something really needs to be done. IMO.
I'd start with any player adjudged to be play acting (by a professional panel after being caught on camera) should be banned from the rest of the tournament/xx matches. The amount of nancy boys writhing on the floor and deliberately looking at getting opposing players sent off unfairly has been staggering in this WC (the Kaka incident springs to mind).
Leave out the technology. There was a very good example of how even technology finds it difficult to ascertain exactly what happened. When that ball was cleared off the line by the Slovak defender it was not clear whether it had crossed the line or not, even when viewed from about six different camera angles.
Messing with the rules to pander to the money side of things is the road to ruin.
Football is not for the few thousand professionals who make a livbing from it around the world, it for the millions who play it for nothing.
Messing with the rules to pander to the money side of things is the road to ruin.
Football is not for the few thousand professionals who make a livbing from it around the world, it for the millions who play it for nothing.
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff