Snide/Unsportsman Conduct in our game

[Swello]

34 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

Because if it wasn't there then a goalkeeper could legitimately hold on to the ball for the entirety of the half if his side were 1-0 up. The law is purely there as a deterrent against timewasting, if you made it 15 seconds then keepers would hold on to the ball even longer.

This requirement for everything to be interpreted so literally is exactly what led us down the horrible path to VAR.

There are genuinely people at games that count the seconds down as if that was the point of the law. Still, keeps them away from shouting "foul throw" every five seconds.

FWIW, along with the passback rule, the 6 second thing cleared up the worst thing about football when I started going - the team with a 1 goal lead passing the ball about at the back, back to the keeper who picked it up and held on to it for ages, rolled it back out, rinse and repeat. I felt like I spent most of the late 80's watching Hearts do this.

[Empty It]

51 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

A guy I worked with played Junior and claimed to have taken a pin on with him to stab people jostling at corners.

Less subtly, he threw a bin at spectators.

Can imagine he'd have been no stranger to a sore face then.

[madball]

Defending players hovering over the ball to stop a quick free kick, attacking team lose all impetus. Surely FIFA can introduce something similar to rugby's 10m retreat rule otherwise the free kick moves forward 10m?

As an alternative to moving the free kick, how about increasing the wall distance by 5m in the case of time wasting. Would create havoc in the box as the wall would play attackers onside

[Kapowzer]

Are changes made to refereeing instructions by the SFA allowed domestically or does it have to go to UEFA for approval.

I suppose the EPL changed the rules to allow more robust tackling this season, that’s what Souness found him in a shitstorm over.

The only reason it may be an issue is our referees working in Europe have to remember not to apply their local rules. Why I wondered about UEFA/FIFA. It was one of the arguments about VAR introduction that Scottish refs would be frozen out of Euro competition because of it.

Totally up for that 5 yard thing. Never thought of moving the wall for not retreating or unsportsmanlike conduct. Attacking team gets choice, 5 yard advance or wall 15 yards, would make interesting. Elsewhere on the pitch, shithousery immediate 10 yard move.

Maybe a wee bit closer to having the beautiful game living up to Shankly’s words.

[AJF]

1 hour ago, craigkillie said:

Because if it wasn't there then a goalkeeper could legitimately hold on to the ball for the entirety of the half if his side were 1-0 up. The law is purely there as a deterrent against timewasting, if you made it 15 seconds then keepers would hold on to the ball even longer.

This requirement for everything to be interpreted so literally is exactly what led us down the horrible path to VAR.

I think the point being made, and one which I agree with, is that referees NEVER enforce it. Not sometimes, or occasionally, or rarely. Never in all my days going to football matches have I seen a keeper penalised for it. So there is very little deterrent and you often see timewasting keepers take approx 30 seconds to release the ball by the time they collect the ball, fall over to the ground, wait until the teams clear the box, bounce it a couple of times and then release.

I don't think there should be a strict timer introduced but I do feel it should be clamped down on in the odd instance so there is more of a deterrent.

[craigkillie]

My feeling is that it seems like a lot longer than it actually is. I doubt there are many if any cases in world football of it taking 30 seconds to release the ball.

[BFTD]

15 minutes ago, AJF said:

I think the point being made, and one which I agree with, is that referees NEVER enforce it. Not sometimes, or occasionally, or rarely. Never in all my days going to football matches have I seen a keeper penalised for it. So there is very little deterrent and you often see timewasting keepers take approx 30 seconds to release the ball by the time they collect the ball, fall over to the ground, wait until the teams clear the box, bounce it a couple of times and then release.

I don't think there should be a strict timer introduced but I do feel it should be clamped down on in the odd instance so there is more of a deterrent.

I'm sure I remember a brief period in the Nineties where it was enforced. Referees were flashing the odd yellow card and giving indirect free-kicks when keepers held the ball for too long, and commentators started a bit of, "has that been six seconds?" when the keeper was taking his time.

Maybe when the rule was first introduced? Was it at the same time as the back-pass rule came in? That was a fun time.

[AJF]

3 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

My feeling is that it seems like a lot longer than it actually is. I doubt there are many if any cases in world football of it taking 30 seconds to release the ball.

Even if that was the case, I think the point remains though that it is never enforced. There is no deterrent and keepers often take far longer than 6 seconds, even if you don't believe it's as high as 30.

[ropy]

1 hour ago, AJF said:

I think the point being made, and one which I agree with, is that referees NEVER enforce it. Not sometimes, or occasionally, or rarely. Never in all my days going to football matches have I seen a keeper penalised for it. So there is very little deterrent and you often see timewasting keepers take approx 30 seconds to release the ball by the time they collect the ball, fall over to the ground, wait until the teams clear the box, bounce it a couple of times and then release.

I don't think there should be a strict timer introduced but I do feel it should be clamped down on in the odd instance so there is more of a deterrent.

https://amp.sportsmole.co.uk/football/dundee-united/result/result-dundee-united-scrape-last-gasp-draw-against-motherwell_428027.html
 

December 2020.

Referee Bobby Madden penalised Motherwell goalkeeper Trevor Carson for holding onto the ball for too long but nothing came from the indirect free-kick

Edited October 6, 2022 by ropy

[coprolite]

[DA Baracus]

A Leeds player got a second yellow at the weekend for stopping a free kick. Daft but amusing.

Also there was a Wolves player (at least I think it was Wolves) who chucked the ball forward when awarded a free kick (just before he was about to take it), but was caught by the ref and told to take it from the correct position.

[invergowrie arab]

Most football fans I see policing this think counting up to 6 at second intervals = 6 seconds 

[Coventry Saint]

6 hours ago, Alert Mongoose said:

I've just been asked if I'm okay in the morning teams meeting. Must have been outwardly triggered rather than just seething on in the inside.

He's just had an eight game ban for slagging Porteous. I think they must have taken that elbow into account.

[Alert Mongoose]

8 minutes ago, Coventry Saint said:

He's just had an eight game ban for slagging Porteous. I think they must have taken that elbow into account.

Nowhere near long enough.

[House Bartender]

14 hours ago, Kapowzer said:

With Hart on the ground with a "concussion", if KVV slotted the ball that dropped to him into the goal it's a given the ref would have been surrounded and baracked, McGregor being the most vocal to cancel the goal, how outrageous of the referee to not give a "head injury" due consideration, etc. Bigger issue here is any referees watching that back know he's a fly b*****d going forward and maybe affect their decision making what should rightly be an immediate cessation of play. The fact that Hart faces no retrospective action and he avoided any criticism on Sportscene is a whole other issue.

Head knocks are beginning to be treated seriously across sports. So, as in Hart's case if the player doesn't manage to get up quickly, the Ref should be required to have the player removed from play for the rest of the match and then subjected to a full medical review before being allowed to play in future matches. A sub would naturally be permitted. This would have the benefits of (a) protecting players health in genuine incidents and (b) bu88ering up the team strategy for the Manager in cases of fraud.

Any player unable to get up within 30 seconds must go off for a full medical assessment. Again this is for the benefit of genuine cases and to avoid long breaks in play. And reduce the amount of time wasting by prima donnas.

 

[Hoose Rice]

7 hours ago, Empty It said:

Nobody mentioned Porteous, it's almost as if you know he's a cheat so any mention of cheating the hibees dive in with two feet to defend Porteous even when he's nothing to do with the post.

I wasn't joking or anything m9. 

[invergowrie arab]

37 minutes ago, House Bartender said:

Head knocks are beginning to be treated seriously across sports. So, as in Hart's case if the player doesn't manage to get up quickly, the Ref should be required to have the player removed from play for the rest of the match and then subjected to a full medical review before being allowed to play in future matches. A sub would naturally be permitted. This would have the benefits of (a) protecting players health in genuine incidents and (b) bu88ering up the team strategy for the Manager in cases of fraud.

Any player unable to get up within 30 seconds must go off for a full medical assessment. Again this is for the benefit of genuine cases and to avoid long breaks in play. And reduce the amount of time wasting by prima donnas.

 

Or incentivise people with head injuries to get up and play on 

[BFTD]

3 hours ago, DA Baracus said:

Also there was a Wolves player (at least I think it was Wolves) who chucked the ball forward when awarded a free kick (just before he was about to take it), but was caught by the ref and told to take it from the correct position.

You actually see that a fair bit TBF. Same with players trying to take throw-ins ten yards away from where it went out; sometimes they get away with it, but quite often they're told to GTF.

Refs must get sick of this petty bollocks, surely. When they're retiring, they must be tempted to throw cards about like it's Christmas and they've got a massive extended family.

[Cptn Hooch]

If the ball is heading towards the goal and a player handles it to prevent a goal, the goal should be awarded IMO. 
There should be no penalty as that gives the offending player's team the chance to prevent a goal that they don't deserve to be able to prevent.

This, I agree with. Happened to Livi at the weekend and we missed the penalty. Technically the offender got away with it in Suarez case and the Livi game. In rugby you get a penalty try when an offence prevents a try.

[Aim Here]

7 hours ago, Richey Edwards said:

If the ball is heading towards the goal and a player handles it to prevent a goal, the goal should be awarded IMO. 

There should be no penalty as that gives the offending player's team the chance to prevent a goal that they don't deserve to be able to prevent.

The principle is reasonable, but the issue is that you have a referee awarding actual goals to one or other team when the ball didn't go past the net. That's opening a whole world of people arguing over narrow judgement calls and accusing referees of bias and all the rest of that nonsense. There's always going to be some situation where half the spectators think it's a clear goal, half the spectators think it's not, and the referee is going to get the blame no matter what he does.

Awarding actual goals based on referee discretion is going to be a huge kettle of worms. It's far safer to go the red card + free kick/penalty route. The referee should be blowing the whistle based on what actually happened, not what he thinks was going to happen in the future. If a referee fucks up, at least you can point to the video footage afterwards and make some sort of claim based on evidence; not the case when the hypothetical goal didn't ever happen.

Edited October 6, 2022 by Aim Here