Bugbears

Football fans who try equate history as meaning trophies. This country has plenty of clubs with long and storied histories who have won little to nothing in that time. It doesn't take away from their story or the importance of their club. And, if anything, it shows much greater dedication from their fans.
 
beds cherry said:
Two different things. I'm only asking for shielding to be deemed 'unfair'. It's not even penalised.

Not contesting the Sako incident wasn't a foul. But it's nowhere near a red, but the sin-bin would work well for it - 'orange card'.
Click to expand...

Yes very different things (in my mind), nowhere near each other on the scale of fairness.

The Saka incident is a bit more than a foul. In no way is football involved, you're just taking a player out of the game. Anyone can grab another player by the scruff of the neck or bundle them over. It's what we used to to in school for the lols. I don't think a sin bin is enough of an disincentive, it's just the same as now 'taking one for the team'. Even in rugby grabbing the collar from behind is deemed a high tackle.

Shielding the ball requires skill, strength, awareness and balance. How often have we seen skilful players steal the ball or win a corner from someone shielding? Or goals scored down the other end when teams try and run down the clock in this way? At the very least it's a contest. I agree to an extent when the ball is nowhere near the player and they use their bodyweight to push the other player away from the ball. They don't give bookings for that but they should do.
 
I think there's a difference if the shielding player could play the ball because it's very near his feet, and when that player cannot reach the ball because he is only keeping the opponent from getting near enough to play it. It seems as though in the past, the latter was considered obstruction.
 
Missed this thread. Some crackers on here, I’m very much with Stan on the corner taking and beds Cherry on the obstruction, whatever happened to indirect free kicks. A couple of others that I find bemusing are the kick off being played directly backwards, how has that improved the game? Don’t get me started on he’s a 6 but can play as an 8, just fook off back to your low blocks and not interfering with play
 
Kicks_On_66 said:
I think there's a difference if the shielding player could play the ball because it's very near his feet, and when that player cannot reach the ball because he is only keeping the opponent from getting near enough to play it. It seems as though in the past, the latter was considered obstruction.
Click to expand...

Yeah it's a bit of a gray area but basically the defender is deemed to be in possession even though they haven't touched the ball.

Obstruction in the literal definition of the rule happens all the time especially during set pieces. It's one of those rules like the goal keeper holding on to the ball too long that exists as a tool to be used when people take the piss.
 
Perhaps players should only be allowed to shield the ball if they have already played it. That would stop the ridiculous spectical of a ball moving at 0.1 mph and a defender struggling not to touch the ball before it dribbles out of play.

Stealing yards at a throw in is a good one. Never understand why refs dont stamp it out.
 
Kudos said:
Yeah it's a bit of a gray area but basically the defender is deemed to be in possession even though they haven't touched the ball.

Obstruction in the literal definition of the rule happens all the time especially during set pieces. It's one of those rules like the goal keeper holding on to the ball too long that exists as a tool to be used when people take the pis
Click to expand...

The pass back to goalie was outlawed to increase game time - but if you watch those matches from the 70's etc they just get straight up after free kicks etc..

So all that extra time is now being wasted by all the histrionics..
 
OLDSKOOL said:
“ Them “ instead of “ those “ or “ these “


“ Them games “ Them players “ etc

Grrrr.
Click to expand...
In a similar vein, when ex pro footballers and managers in particular say:

“When you’ve got your Kane’s, your Vardy’s, your Izak’s…” as if there’s several versions of each player. Why can’t they just singularise them :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;