Clyde vs Cove

[CM.]

4 hours ago, Rector said:

 I'd change the law and give an automatic penalty *instead* of the card, even if it's outside the box. 
 

 

[BullyWeeStonehouse]

9 hours ago, Rector said:

 

- Red card was a pet bugbear of mine.  Those sort of fouls are just as much cheating as diving, yet are considered 'good' play.  Plus a red card is the wrong punishment.  I'd change the law and give an automatic penalty *instead* of the card, even if it's outside the box.  That way, you are replacing the denial of a goalscoring opportunity with another goalscoring opportunity, but the balance and flow of the game aren't disrupted by the red;

An absolutely ridiculous suggestion. 
Aye, it’s frustrating as f*ck when you’re on the wrong end of it but it’s part of the game and Eldson has taken his punishment for it. Sometimes it works out for you - like it did for us yesterday— and on other occasions it comes back to bite you on the arse.

[David W]

 

Cove Rangers highlights aren't the best quality but it does look like McAllister was onside at the red card.

[Rector]

2 hours ago, BullyWeeStonehouse said:

An absolutely ridiculous suggestion. 
Aye, it’s frustrating as f*ck when you’re on the wrong end of it but it’s part of the game and Eldson has taken his punishment for it. Sometimes it works out for you - like it did for us yesterday— and on other occasions it comes back to bite you on the arse.

Why is it a ridiculous suggestion?

'Professional' fouls are cheating - first and foremost - exactly like diving.  Both are using unfair means to gain an advantage. You can use the same argument - sometimes it works out for you, sometimes it doesn't.

By awarding a red card, the entire dynamic of the game changes, most often to the detriment of the spectators, and invariably to the detriment of the team with the numerical advantage.  This is especially true when the red happens earlier in the game - all of a sudden a game where both sides are going for it becomes 'attack v defence'.  So many games have been ruined by this.

Secondly, the 'punishment' fits the 'crime' much more accurately.  A goalscoring opportunity is denied by unfair play.  It is punished with another goalscoring opportunity.  The chance to score is not lost and cheating play has been nullified - and crucially the only balance that is at risk in the game is the score, rather than the personnel on the pitch.  Football is *always* better when it is 11 v 11.  The decision for the referee is the same - is it a clear goalscoring opportunity, with all the controversy and argument that that entails.  The difference is the penalty for the offence.  

You appear to be objecting solely because, on this occasion, it would likely have cost Clyde the win.  But if the rule had been in play yesterday, it's much more likely that Elsdon would not have made the foul and donkey McAllister would have been flagged offside. So I say again, what is ridiculous about it?  Shibboleths in the rules are long since gone - here's a change that would make a real, positive difference.

[Rector]

3 hours ago, BullyWeeStonehouse said:

An absolutely ridiculous suggestion. 
Aye, it’s frustrating as f*ck when you’re on the wrong end of it but it’s part of the game and Eldson has taken his punishment for it. Sometimes it works out for you - like it did for us yesterday— and on other occasions it comes back to bite you on the arse.

Oh, and if you'd read my previous post you'd have seen I was there as a neutral (sat among the home support as it happens).  So I wasn't 'frustrated' because it happened to 'us'.

[David W]

Slightly different I know, but I'm all for showing straight red cards when players chop someone down with no intention of getting near the ball, to "take one for the team". It's a bit weird that stuff like that is just accepted to be normal.

I'm not sure I feel entirely the same about shirt pulls in that situation, unless it is a situation like Saturday.

I'm definitely not in favour of awarding penalty kicks for offences that are outside the box.

[BullyWeeStonehouse]

9 hours ago, Rector said:

Why is it a ridiculous suggestion?

'Professional' fouls are cheating - first and foremost - exactly like diving.  Both are using unfair means to gain an advantage. You can use the same argument - sometimes it works out for you, sometimes it doesn't.

By awarding a red card, the entire dynamic of the game changes, most often to the detriment of the spectators, and invariably to the detriment of the team with the numerical advantage.  This is especially true when the red happens earlier in the game - all of a sudden a game where both sides are going for it becomes 'attack v defence'.  So many games have been ruined by this.

Secondly, the 'punishment' fits the 'crime' much more accurately.  A goalscoring opportunity is denied by unfair play.  It is punished with another goalscoring opportunity.  The chance to score is not lost and cheating play has been nullified - and crucially the only balance that is at risk in the game is the score, rather than the personnel on the pitch.  Football is *always* better when it is 11 v 11.  The decision for the referee is the same - is it a clear goalscoring opportunity, with all the controversy and argument that that entails.  The difference is the penalty for the offence.  

You appear to be objecting solely because, on this occasion, it would likely have cost Clyde the win.  But if the rule had been in play yesterday, it's much more likely that Elsdon would not have made the foul and donkey McAllister would have been flagged offside. So I say again, what is ridiculous about it?  Shibboleths in the rules are long since gone - here's a change that would make a real, positive difference.

It’s ridiculous that you want a penalty given for a foul outside the box. It’s part of the game and the player receives his punishment in the form of a red card and then a suspension for the next match.
 

If the roles were reveresed, aye I’d be pissed off about it, but the Cove player would’ve been sent off and we’d have the numerical advantage, albeit only for a few minutes on this occasion.

Edited August 30, 2021 by BullyWeeStonehouse

[Jaggy Snake]

9 hours ago, Rector said:

Why is it a ridiculous suggestion?

'Professional' fouls are cheating - first and foremost - exactly like diving.  Both are using unfair means to gain an advantage. You can use the same argument - sometimes it works out for you, sometimes it doesn't.

By awarding a red card, the entire dynamic of the game changes, most often to the detriment of the spectators, and invariably to the detriment of the team with the numerical advantage.  This is especially true when the red happens earlier in the game - all of a sudden a game where both sides are going for it becomes 'attack v defence'.  So many games have been ruined by this.

Secondly, the 'punishment' fits the 'crime' much more accurately.  A goalscoring opportunity is denied by unfair play.  It is punished with another goalscoring opportunity.  The chance to score is not lost and cheating play has been nullified - and crucially the only balance that is at risk in the game is the score, rather than the personnel on the pitch.  Football is *always* better when it is 11 v 11.  The decision for the referee is the same - is it a clear goalscoring opportunity, with all the controversy and argument that that entails.  The difference is the penalty for the offence.  

You appear to be objecting solely because, on this occasion, it would likely have cost Clyde the win.  But if the rule had been in play yesterday, it's much more likely that Elsdon would not have made the foul and donkey McAllister would have been flagged offside. So I say again, what is ridiculous about it?  Shibboleths in the rules are long since gone - here's a change that would make a real, positive difference.

I can understand your thinking but in this situation the Cove striker didn't even have possession of the ball, let alone control, when he was fouled so awarding a penalty for it would be a bit of a jump.

The red card has to be given in goalscoring situations as a disincentive to the defending team against fouling. What if a keeper was away from his goal for whatever reason, a striker is about to roll the ball into an empty net, is fouled and awarded a penalty but the defender isn't sent off. That penalty is now a much worse goalscoring opportunity as he has a keeper to beat, and the defending team hasn't been punished at all. If you say that situation would be a red card,  but some others aren't, you're then asking referees to make very fine judgements on how good a goalscoring opportunity is.

The current rules here aren't perfect but there's no real need for them to be changed either.

Edited August 30, 2021 by Jaggy Snake

[Rector]

1 hour ago, BullyWeeStonehouse said:

It’s ridiculous that you want a penalty given for a foul outside the box. It’s part of the game and the player receives his punishment in the form of a red card and then a suspension for the next match.
 

If the roles were reveresed, aye I’d be pissed off about it, but the Cove player would’ve been sent off and we’d have the numerical advantage, albeit only for a few minutes on this occasion.

Again, *why* is it ridiculous? Simply stating that it is, as you've now done twice, doesn't move the argument forward.  The red card for denial of a goal scoring opportunity is a very recent innovation - it's not 'part and parcel of the game'.  So why is that innovation a better solution to the problem of cheating? It makes the game worse. It doesn't recompense the attacking side appropriately. So *why* is it a ridiculous suggestion to say that, for a foul outside box that is the denial of a clear goalscoring opportunity, a penalty is a better sanction than an automatic red?

 

[Rector]

36 minutes ago, Jaggy Snake said:

I can understand your thinking but in this situation the Cove striker didn't even have possession of the ball, let alone control, when he was fouled so awarding a penalty for it would be a bit of a jump.

The red card has to be given in goalscoring situations as a disincentive to the defending team against fouling. What if a keeper was away from his goal for whatever reason, a striker is about to roll the ball into an empty net, is fouled and awarded a penalty but the defender isn't sent off. That penalty is now a much worse goalscoring opportunity as he has a keeper to beat, and the defending team hasn't been punished at all. If you say that situation would be a red card,  but some others aren't, you're then asking referees to make very fine judgements on how good a goalscoring opportunity is.

The current rules here aren't perfect but there's no real need for them to be changed either.

That's an interesting (but I suspect rare) scenario.  And of course, the rule could be simply that a denial of a goalscoring opportunity *outside* the box is a pen, a foul (or hb) in the box is a pen, and a foul that denies a gs opportunity in the box is a pen *and* a red card.  SO the judgement the ref is called upon to make is the same.

Re Saturday, Elsdon wouldn't have made the foul and McAllister would have been flagged offside, of course.

[David W]

26 minutes ago, Rector said:

That's an interesting (but I suspect rare) scenario.  And of course, the rule could be simply that a denial of a goalscoring opportunity *outside* the box is a pen, a foul (or hb) in the box is a pen, and a foul that denies a gs opportunity in the box is a pen *and* a red card.  SO the judgement the ref is called upon to make is the same.

Re Saturday, Elsdon wouldn't have made the foul and McAllister would have been flagged offside, of course.

He wasn't offside.

[BullyWeeStonehouse]

40 minutes ago, Rector said:

Again, *why* is it ridiculous? Simply stating that it is, as you've now done twice, doesn't move the argument forward.  The red card for denial of a goal scoring opportunity is a very recent innovation - it's not 'part and parcel of the game'.  So why is that innovation a better solution to the problem of cheating? It makes the game worse. It doesn't recompense the attacking side appropriately. So *why* is it a ridiculous suggestion to say that, for a foul outside box that is the denial of a clear goalscoring opportunity, a penalty is a better sanction than an automatic red?

 

I didn’t say receiving a red and suspension was “part and parcel of the game”. I said that professional fouls like Eldsons on Saturday are.

It’s ridiculous because a foul like that could be committed 35 yards from goal and you’re wanting a penalty given for it. FIFA have brought in the double jeopardy rule re penalties and players only receiving a yellow for a foul they’d probably receive a red for outside the box, but you’re suggesting they do something completely different here and send players off for fouls outside the box and give penalties for fouls that could’ve happened 20 or 30 off yards from goal. That’s why it’s ridiculous.

What if it’s one on one with striker and defender at the halfway line on the break from the oppositions corner and all other players are yards behind in or around the box. And if the striker gets past the defender he’s going to be one on one with the keeper pretty quickly - a good goal scoring opportunity. However the defender either chops him or pulls him down a couple of yards into his own half. How is it reasonable for a penalty then to be given in those circumstances?!

For me, the rules are fine. The player receives a red and a suspension and the other team have the numerical advantage. Sometimes it happens in the 10th minute, sometimes in the 90th. Great when it goes for you, frustrating as hell when it goes against but after you’ve calmed down you’re thinking you’d expect one of your own players to do the exact same thing.

[The Moonster]

1 hour ago, Rector said:

Again, *why* is it ridiculous? Simply stating that it is, as you've now done twice, doesn't move the argument forward.  The red card for denial of a goal scoring opportunity is a very recent innovation - it's not 'part and parcel of the game'.  So why is that innovation a better solution to the problem of cheating? It makes the game worse. It doesn't recompense the attacking side appropriately. So *why* is it a ridiculous suggestion to say that, for a foul outside box that is the denial of a clear goalscoring opportunity, a penalty is a better sanction than an automatic red?

 

Lets get rid of red cards altogether, they make the game worse. 

[haufdaft]

Secondly, the 'punishment' fits the 'crime' much more accurately.  A goalscoring opportunity is denied by unfair play.  It is punished with another goalscoring opportunity.  

First of all I'd like to say that your suggestion is not one I'd agree with. A red card is fair. I do wish we would stop messing with the rules of the game.

If you do want the punishment to fit the "crime" then surely an unopposed run from the centre spot, man for man with the goalie, would fit more "accurately". In the manner of the good Ol' North American Soccer League shootout.

Although, on second thoughts, I had my dinner on and it would have been cold by the time MacAllister ran from the centre spot to the penalty area.

Just send the player off and keep my dinner warm.

[CM.]

Penalty for a foul outside the box   Can't get over that comment at all.

Edited August 30, 2021 by C. Muir

[Jack Burton]

That's an interesting (but I suspect rare) scenario.  And of course, the rule could be simply that a denial of a goalscoring opportunity *outside* the box is a pen, a foul (or hb) in the box is a pen, and a foul that denies a gs opportunity in the box is a pen *and* a red card.  SO the judgement the ref is called upon to make is the same.

Re Saturday, Elsdon wouldn't have made the foul and McAllister would have been flagged offside, of course.

There would be far too many grey areas for penalties to start to be given for a foul which could be 30 or 40 yards away from goal.

It is hard enough for refs to make a judgement call for penalties inside the box never mind starting to award them for fouls outside the box. The penalty Cove got on Saturday was soft and there was a further 3 or 4 penalty calls waved away one for Clyde and the rest for Cove.

Deliberate fouls, diving, time wasting etc are all just part of the game. Sometimes it works in your favour and sometimes it doesn't.