The Football Thread - Season 2012/2013

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've heard rumours about Huntelaar coming our way in Jan, need someone with a well connected source to confirm though...
 
We could use a finisher of his class. Decent on the air and ground.
 
Mbuti said:
We had one of those and let him go out on loan!
Click to expand...

Not even close.

"Not having that at all. He [Coloccini] didn't touch him and to say there was intent is laughable. Let me tell you, he kicks a moving ball a thousand times a day and doesn't miss it once. If he wanted to connect with a standing leg then he wouldn't have missed. He pulls out at the last minute and doesn't touch him. Not having that's a red at all. Anyway, decent game. Liverpool the better team but don't seem to have enough players on the pitch that can score goals." Michael Owen on Twitter. Cock!
 
The23rdman said:
Not even close.

"Not having that at all. He [Coloccini] didn't touch him and to say there was intent is laughable. Let me tell you, he kicks a moving ball a thousand times a day and doesn't miss it once. If he wanted to connect with a standing leg then he wouldn't have missed. He pulls out at the last minute and doesn't touch him. Not having that's a red at all. Anyway, decent game. Liverpool the better team but don't seem to have enough players on the pitch that can score goals." Michael Owen on Twitter. Cock!
Click to expand...

sounds like fergie has rubbed off on him during his time at old trafford
 
Well this season's not panning out the way I hoped....:gag:

Still I remain positive. We have better quality players now than we have had for many years - I've seen us be relegated twice and we had no quality in those teams, it's different now. Now we are simply tactically inept, unbelievably so, but there is underlying quality in the team. It's frustrating to say the least :bonk:.
 
joescrivens said:
I never get this whole advantage thing where the ref gives the advantage but then if it ends up in nothing they bring it back for the free kick, surely it should be one or the other. Either give the advantage or give the free kick, but not both?
Click to expand...

It's like Rugby, but not for as long. I like the rule actually, especially if it was used more. Foul committed, wait to see if anything develops, if not bring it back. Should only be a few seconds max though.
 
akr said:
Well this season's not panning out the way I hoped....:gag:

Still I remain positive. We have better quality players now than we have had for many years - I've seen us be relegated twice and we had no quality in those teams, it's different now. Now we are simply tactically inept, unbelievably so, but there is underlying quality in the team. It's frustrating to say the least :bonk:.
Click to expand...

Was so frustrating today why do we always catch opposition keepers on their good days! :bang:

akr said:
It's like Rugby, but not for as long. I like the rule actually, especially if it was used more. Foul committed, wait to see if anything develops, if not bring it back. Should only be a few seconds max though.
Click to expand...

Being a Rugby League fan, I like the rule. It can be so hard at times to determine in a split second if there's an advantage to be had by playing on. Literally 2 or 3 seconds is enough and I'm all for any rule that cuts down the potential for errors.
 
fabs said:
Was so frustrating today why do we always catch opposition keepers on their good days! :bang:
Click to expand...

True he made some good saves however our defence was shocking at times.

The Swansea and West Ham games this season are two of the most frustrating games I've seen in my life. Formation and tactics so wrong, they were on of the few times you could watch the match and pin 100% of the defeat on the manager (though I will admit we may not have lost the Hammers match had Diakite not been sent off). The first half of the West Ham match was incredible no changes were made by 20 minutes let alone into the second half - I'm still fuming about that one - can you tell? :bat:

Hughes risks becoming to me what Wenger is to Cambsno! I'm not a fan currently!
 
akr said:
True he made some good saves however our defence was shocking at times.

The Swansea and West Ham games this season are two of the most frustrating games I've seen in my life. Formation and tactics so wrong, they were on of the few times you could watch the match and pin 100% of the defeat on the manager (though I will admit we may not have lost the Hammers match had Diakite not been sent off). The first half of the West Ham match was incredible no changes were made by 20 minutes let alone into the second half - I'm still fuming about that one - can you tell? :bat:

Hughes risks becoming to me what Wenger is to Cambsno! I'm not a fan currently!
Click to expand...

Wouldn't disagree with any of that tbh. I've been firmly in the give Hughes a chance team but Im thinking of putting in for a transfer.
 
akr said:
It's like Rugby, but not for as long. I like the rule actually, especially if it was used more. Foul committed, wait to see if anything develops, if not bring it back. Should only be a few seconds max though.
Click to expand...

But in the instance I referred to cisse was given the advantage and did nothing with it, he crossed the ball into empty space, it's like you are given 2 chances, one to see if you can create something and then if not you get a free kick. I think if the ref plays advantage and the possession stays with that team then that should be that.
 
joescrivens said:
But in the instance I referred to cisse was given the advantage and did nothing with it, he crossed the ball into empty space, it's like you are given 2 chances, one to see if you can create something and then if not you get a free kick. I think if the ref plays advantage and the possession stays with that team then that should be that.
Click to expand...

It's a funny one and I don't think the term 'advantage' to signify what is essentially 'play on' helps.

It's basically a case of 'play to the whistle' which everybody should do and If the ref decides to temporarily deny the attacking team the benefit of the free kick because they may not need it then that's fine as we all like the game to flow.

I know what you mean about it being 'two chances' but it's not really. Advantage is about making sure that the one 'extra chance' that is owed to the attacking team (or more importantly the disadvantage against the offending team) gets delivered should the play on rule not deliver it.

Providing everybody plays to the whistle then I see no issue with it.
 
Last edited:
There is too much chat about lower end premier league teams in this thread....maybe we can have a Liverpool & QPR thread and leave the proper footie talk in this one.

This thread is becoming more like TalkSport in the way they go on how great Liverpool are and the Brendan Rodgers 'way' (the same 'way' that is not getting positive results?)
 
Tommy, you are just a silly little boy, aren't you?
 
tiler65 said:
This thread is becoming more like TalkSport in the way they go on how great Liverpool are and the Brendan Rodgers 'way' (the same 'way' that is not getting positive results?)
Click to expand...

point out all the posts talking about the "brenden rodgers way" in this thread.
 
tiler65 said:
I most certainly am not silly, I speak the truth.
Click to expand...

No, you speak opinion. I think I've made this point already...
 
tiler65 said:
I most certainly am not silly, I speak the truth.
Click to expand...

you speak about as much truth as your source did when he guaranteed agger was signing for man city today, or it is tomorrow, or yesterday, or next week?
 
tiler65 said:
There is too much chat about lower end premier league teams in this thread....maybe we can have a Liverpool & QPR thread and leave the proper footie talk in this one.

This thread is becoming more like TalkSport in the way they go on how great Liverpool are and the Brendan Rodgers 'way' (the same 'way' that is not getting positive results?)
Click to expand...

At least we don't have the bitter Stewart Robson on here bad mouthing Arsenal because he longed for a coaching but never got one.

I honestly don't know how anyone can listen to TalkSport!
 
joescrivens said:
But in the instance I referred to cisse was given the advantage and did nothing with it, he crossed the ball into empty space, it's like you are given 2 chances, one to see if you can create something and then if not you get a free kick. I think if the ref plays advantage and the possession stays with that team then that should be that.
Click to expand...

I did get this explained to me by a ref once, but the guy no longer works with us so I may not be explaining it fully.

If a player (team A) has been fouled by an opposing player (team B) then the ref can use discretion to 'play advantage' however if no advantage as been achieved then the ref can call back play and award a foul.

The problem comes from how we divine 'advantage'. Unlike Rugby where advantage can easily be described by getting over the scrimmage line (most of the time it's about a 5/10 yard gain before waving away advantage) Football can not be divined buy the same method. So they tend to look at whether the foul has had an affect on the attacking team. The ref has to use his own judgement on whether or not the foul has affected the resulting passage of play i.e. has players from his team stopped going, has the foul resulted in the defending team getting back quicker, has it affected the runner etc. If the ref feels that there has been no gain by the attacking team for whatever reason, then it can be viewed that the defending team gained from fouling their opposition. If that is the view of the ref then he/she can pull it back for a foul. Obviously if he felt that advantage has been gained then these 2 factors cancel each other out.

Is it perfect? No, but then there is no easy way to deal with this.

Case in point earlier this season in the Toon v Everton game after the goal that wasn't, Newcastle broke forward on the counter and Ben Afra was fouled but had remained on his feet and was about to go through when the ref blew for the foul. Now the ref was correct in that there was a foul and it did look at the moment of the foul that Ben Afra was going to go down, however if he had waited a few moments later, Newcastle would have been through on goal as he had managed to stumble forward and had a good chance to score.

It's never straight forward and what one ref considers to be an advantage may not be the same view of another ref. Tough positions for the refs.
 
I understand all of that but in the instance I was referring to he played advantage for a foul on demba ba who had knocked the ball foward and cisse got on the end of it, he then dribbled it to the bottom left corner and put in a poor cross to which nobody got on the end of it.

The ref then called the foul back.

Now, I don't think this should have happened. Cisse was in a good position to put in a decent cross - however he didn't. But the fact he put in a bad cross was down to him, not the run of the play, if he had put in a better cross then newcastle might have scored from it, so it was like the team had a double chance to score.

If cisse had dribbled down to that corner and put in a cross and nobody was there to recieve it then I can understand the ref bringing it back as perhaps the player fouled (ba) might have been able to get in the box to get on the end of it. But that wasn't the case, cisse screwed up his cross. That should be the end of the advantage surely because he was given the chance to actually put a cross in.

In comparison in your example it would have been like ben arfa being allowed the advantage but skying the ball over the cross bar - he shouldn't then be given a second chance with a free kick after toepunting the ball surely?
 
I replied about this last night.

I know what you mean about it being 'two chances' but it's not really. Advantage is about making sure that the one 'extra chance' that is owed to the attacking team (or more importantly the disadvantage against the offending team) gets delivered should the refs decision to 'play on' not deliver it.
 
joescrivens said:
I understand all of that but in the instance I was referring to he played advantage for a foul on demba ba who had knocked the ball foward and cisse got on the end of it, he then dribbled it to the bottom left corner and put in a poor cross to which nobody got on the end of it.

The ref then called the foul back.

Now, I don't think this should have happened. Cisse was in a good position to put in a decent cross - however he didn't. But the fact he put in a bad cross was down to him, not the run of the play, if he had put in a better cross then newcastle might have scored from it, so it was like the team had a double chance to score.

If cisse had dribbled down to that corner and put in a cross and nobody was there to recieve it then I can understand the ref bringing it back as perhaps the player fouled (ba) might have been able to get in the box to get on the end of it. But that wasn't the case, cisse screwed up his cross. That should be the end of the advantage surely because he was given the chance to actually put a cross in.

In comparison in your example it would have been like ben arfa being allowed the advantage but skying the ball over the cross bar - he shouldn't then be given a second chance with a free kick after toepunting the ball surely?
Click to expand...


Never saw the game so it's hard to say, but it could be one where the ref got it wrong, also it could be that Ba would be the one in the middle but was not there due to the previous foul.

With regards to the Ben Afra...depends when he hit it, did he attempt to lob Howard after the stumble or did he drive on towards the goal and miss from 4 yards out. One will get pulled back the other will be waved on.

Unfortunately it's a lot of 'whataboutry' when it comes to the advantage rule and that's where the trouble lies.
 
tiler65 said:
This thread is becoming more like TalkSport in the way they go on how great Liverpool are and the Brendan Rodgers 'way' (the same 'way' that is not getting positive results?)
Click to expand...
I always thought Talk sport was the official Chelsea station
 
dinners said:
I replied about this last night.

I know what you mean about it being 'two chances' but it's not really. Advantage is about making sure that the one 'extra chance' that is owed to the attacking team (or more importantly the disadvantage against the offending team) gets delivered should the refs decision to 'play on' not deliver it.
Click to expand...

but read the scenario I described. It totally was 2 chances. cisse had an oportunity to deliver a good cross but delivered a bad cross. Then newcastle had a free kick.

How is that not 2 chances?
 
Jjm said:
I always thought Talk sport was the official Chelsea station
Click to expand...

It is when Jason Cundy is on although he's not quite in Micky Quinn's league - he's not so much biassed but completely deluded.
 
dinners said:
It is when Jason Cundy is on although he's not quite in Micky Quinn's league - he's not so much biassed but completely deluded.
Click to expand...

but still not to the realms that Terry Christian used to go to. As knowledgable as he was and as much a United fan as i am... he was permanantly wearing United tinted spectacles.

I love talksport though... it's all about debate and listening to deluded opinions... beats the dross on the music stations hands down.
 
joescrivens said:
but read the scenario I described. It totally was 2 chances. cisse had an oportunity to deliver a good cross but delivered a bad cross. Then newcastle had a free kick.

How is that not 2 chances?
Click to expand...

I understand what you mean but they're not being 'given' two chances.

The original chance is created through open play by the attacking team themselves. They've not been given that chance by the ref, they've created it and the ref has done nothing but let the game flow. Up to that point they've been given nothing.

It's always going to be a fluffy area when you apply it to specific examples but players just have to play to the whistle.

Whilst it can be frustrating to see play waved on and then (once wasted) free kicks awarded - I certainly woudln't want play to stop and a free kick be awarded for every little niggle. I'm all for any rule that keeps the game flowing and also gets players up off the grass.

Speaking of which - I would love to see treatment on the pitch during play with the ref able to stop play for particular injuries. That would create some fun.
 
leftcurl said:
but still not to the realms that Terry Christian used to go to.
Click to expand...

He was unashamedly biassed though not to mention a wind up merchant.

I think Quinny actually believes some of the stuff he says. Who knows - he may become the modern Mike Summerbee.
 
dinners said:
I certainly woudln't want play to stop and a free kick be awarded for every little niggle. I'm all for any rule that keeps the game flowing and also gets players up off the grass.
Click to expand...

i wouldn't either but I think once the ref has signalled play on, that should be it. I don't have an issue with the play on rule, I think it's a good rule, it keeps the game flowing. It's the bringing it back if that play on is wasted by the team who were given it that I don't understand.
 
leftcurl said:
but still not to the realms that Terry Christian used to go to. As knowledgable as he was and as much a United fan as i am... he was permanantly wearing United tinted spectacles.

I love talksport though... it's all about debate and listening to deluded opinions... beats the dross on the music stations hands down.
Click to expand...

That's the problem with TalkSport, everyone has a huge bias one way or another. They'll either love a team or loathe a team and spout a lot of rubbish about them either way. It's not an informative discussion at all.

I'm not much of a radio man at all anyway, I just resort to it when there's an Arsenal game on and it's the only option for me.
 
joescrivens said:
It's the bringing it back if that play on is wasted by the team who were given it that I don't understand.
Click to expand...

I think that's the key thing though - "the team who were given it"

The attacking team are not actually being given anything at that stage nor are the defending team having anything awarded against them and that's why I think the term 'advantage' is a bit misleading. What actually happens is 'nothing' which is equal for both teams.

So if nothing happens - when should the attacking team pick up their 'reward' or 'benefit' from the foul that the ref hasn't awarded.
 
dinners said:
So if nothing happens - when should the attacking team pick up their 'reward' or 'benefit' from the foul that the ref hasn't awarded.
Click to expand...

if you are looking at it that way then the ref should never allow the game to play on.

I look at it this way: has the foul actually prevented the attacking team from doing what they needed to do - if no i.e. they can potentially continue to advance up the pitch or create a goal scoring opportunity then the foul has done them no diservice so game goes on - this is where the ref allows play to continue (rightly so)

but if in doing so -the attacking team screw up then leave it be. The foul didn't put them at a detriment in the first place so they don't need any 'benefit'. if on the other hand the fould robbed them of a chance then award the free kick.
 
joescrivens said:
if you are looking at it that way then the ref should never allow the game to play on.
Click to expand...

Exactly and some refs do this however it can be really annoying. We want the game to flow and the rule is there to allow the ref to put the free kick 'on hold'. What he doesn't have at the time of waving play on is any way of knowing whether the subsequent passage of play will develop into what he considers a fair alternative to the free kick.


joescrivens said:
I look at it this way: has the foul actually prevented the attacking team from doing what they needed to do - if no i.e. they can potentially continue to advance up the pitch or create a goal scoring opportunity then the foul has done them no diservice so game goes on - this is where the ref allows play to continue (rightly so)

but if in doing so -the attacking team screw up then leave it be. The foul didn't put them at a detriment in the first place so they don't need any 'benefit'. if on the other hand the fould robbed them of a chance then award the free kick.
Click to expand...

What you've said is right. The ref will wave play on because he thinks at that moment in time the attacking team have a good chance (equal or better to the free kick) to create something however when nothing comes of it - this is where it's very subjective. Sometimes refs seem to pull back the play because they consider the outcome of playing on to have been of no benefit yet other times they don't pull the play back because they consider the chance to have gone. I guess it's one of those where it's hard to draw an exact line despite there being some obvious ones.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top