2011/2012 Season Thread

[Hugh_Jazz]

Furthermore, how can the SFA ban a player for 2 games for an offence that can only merit a yellow card if spotted by the ref during play??!

That's right isn't it? Or does anyone know an example where a player was given a straight red for diving?

In summation, the SFA don't have a fucking clue what they're doing. As usual.

[Guest Gladstone]

I wasn't really saying that it should be linked to outcome of the match - just that Aluko's and Pawlett's were very similar circumstances. I think most Dons fans thought Aluko's ban was merited because he's a cheating little hun cunt etc., which then figures that Pawlett taking a dive in the box and winning a penalty should be treated the same.

As for banning a player for 2 matches for a yellow card offence - I can really see the point of that. If you're going down the route of looking at video replays after the match, there is absolutely no deterrent to trying to win a penalty by throwing yourself down in the box if the only consequence will be either a yellow card if the ref pulls you up on it or a retrospective yellow card if pulled up on a video replay. Perhaps it's not the 2 match ban that's the problem but the fact that it's just a yellow card offence that's the problem. Straight red cards should perhaps be the punishment, I don't know.

As for diving all over the pitch, I agree - but, I think I'm right in saying that the review panel will only look at the incident if there's a complaint lodged. The reason they'll have looked at the Aluko and Pawlett incidents will be because the opposition club will have complained about it. Not sure if any club would run to the SFA because a defender or keeper went down easily under a challenge.

[Hugh_Jazz]

I think your second paragraph is a massive contradiction. If it's only a yellow card offence, then you've got to punish it as such. You can't make some red cards a 1 match ban, but then have an automatic 2 game ban for a yellow. That's just nonsense. As the rules stand, I'd be happy with Pawlett getting a retrospective booking, but anything else is just fucking stupid until they increase the severity of punishment that the ref can dish out for diving.

Also, I don't think banning folk makes the slightest difference in terms of deterring future offenders. I still see players throwing themselves at the opposition with their studs up.....the fact that this is a certain ban hasn't reduced the frequency of red cards from what I can tell. If a player can earn his team 3 points by conning the ref, I think both the player and his manager would take the ban on the chin. Only way to handle it is via real-time decision making via video replay.

[Woodsinho]

It's a yellow card offence if the ref spots it at the time on the pitch because the player hasn't managed to gain an advantage for his team by diving. If the free kick/penalty is given then a greater punishment doesn't seem unfair to me because the player has gained an unfair advantage for his team. Whether or not a goal comes from the free kick/penalty is irrelevant.

[FOX]

Or we could just get those sixth official folk to stare relentlessly at the penalty box.

[Guest Gladstone]

Yeah - what Woods said.

The debate on whether or not video should be taken into consideration was had at the time of the Aluko ban. I can't remember if it was you who was making the case for it to be used (I don't think it was)?

But, you could use one of your arguments above for a reason not to use it. You say that this retrospective punishment shouldn't be used for diving for penalties if it isn't used for diving all over the pitch. So, do you use that argument for using video replays during the match as well? I.e. every single dive is scrutinised at the time it happens and yellow cards dished out for defenders going down with no contact when they're shielding the ball etc? If so, that is when the use of video replays will ruin football.

I'm all for video review panels hammering people retrospectively, but it should be more than 2 matches. If you're trying to stamp out things like diving, spitting, violent conduct, studs up lunges, any other offence you want to stamp out, then review matches afterwards and hit guilty players with 10 match bans. That will make them really think about doing it again.

I think goal-line technology is the only technology that should be used during matches. Reviewing refereeing decisions on penalty calls seems to be a sensible one as well, but then there are tackles wrongly ruled fair / as fouls all the time that could be argued to change the swing of play etc. that people would start calling to be looked at as well as penalty decisions, and then what about last ditch tackles, or rash challenges the ref thinks might be a red card or offside calls - the list goes on. I reckon, stop it at goal-line technology or, to be honest, I wouldn't even even use that. I quite like the human error part of refereeing. Reviewing it afterwards is fine. You can't retrospectively give goals to teams, which would be my only argument for using goal-line technology. But it was pretty funny when Lampard's goal wasn't counted at the world cup.

[Spoonie]

That

As if this is going to eradicate the problem. Aberdeen, rightly or wrongly, got the pen and got the 3 points. It does Pat Fenlon no good that Pawlett is in the dock for diving.

If they can retrospectively ban a diver, they can also refer it to a video referee during the game, make sure the pen never happens and then book the player for cheating. Best of all worlds.

Get on it Fifa.

That's basically what I said the last time we had this discussion a week or so back and I'm the bringer of the gospel, which means you're right.

[Soda Jerk]

FIFA should take some of the responsibility, but it's a little sad all the blame is pinned on them by supporters. Players should stop being horrid diving cunts as well. They should bare most of the brunt of this. FIFA should come down hard too. Ban him for 10 games. Blatter should be allowed to shag his missus too. If he doesn't have a missus, then his mum.

[delboy]

I don't think encouraging Blatter is the way forward, surely time the ageing Swiss git retired!

[Captain America]

40k fine and EIGHT game ban for that cunt Suarez. Justice.

[The Milner]

no doubt liverpool will appeal and it will get reduced, but still justice!

in regards to pawlett, if they can prove he def cheated, which im still unsure of, then i think he should be banned, that pen changed that game completely, its pointless debating that we could have won anyway, the fact is we won because of that pen and if he cheated to win it then he should be banned. for once i agree with the route the SPL are going, but its a dangerous path they have taken.

[delboy]

blackburn two down at half time, P45 for Steve Kean if it stays that way!

[Murrr]

40k fine and EIGHT game ban for that cunt Suarez. Justice.

Love that punishment. Get the little twat learned. I don't think there's a bigger wanker in the Premier League.

[Captain America]

Love that punishment. Get the little twat learned. I don't think there's a bigger wanker in the Premier League.

I don't even think they will reduce it for once. He got 7 games for biting and with the whole Blatter racism thing just now I think they will want it to be made an example (which is good!).

Doesn't effect for 2 weeks though I think as that's how long Liverplol get to appeal. Hopefully Liverpool stink it up when he's out because I don't see how they can replace him as he's been there best player by a country mile.

EDIT: Forgot about Jordan Henderson. They'll be fine...

[Murrr]

For a team that claims to be ambitious they certainly have a very uninspiring squad. How many of those players would you have in a title-winning XI? Suarez, Lucas, Reina... ummmm... Enrique's good, Agger at a push?

Downing is average, Henderson is average, Johnson is a defensive liability, Skrtel is far from perfect, Carragher is an absolute carthorse/donkey/wanker, Adam has his strengths but is a deeply flawed player. Carroll, LOL. They sold their best midfielder (Meireles) in the summer and have spunked wads of money on mediocre players. Dalglish is a moany-faced shite which makes him surprisingly detestable, and then there was that stuff with Ian Ayre and TV money a few months ago.

Deeply unlike-able club. Fuck Liverpool.

[Soda Jerk]

MINT!

[Captain America]

Someone is argueing with me on facebook that it's ok to use racial slurs if both players are insulting each other anyway (like Suarez and Evra admitted to) to try and put them off their game anyway so "where's the harm".

What the actual fuck is wrong with people. He then compared being called a "Negro" to being called an "English cunt". I tried to explain that being called English doesn't carry the same weight as being called an abusive term against your race. It was pointless.

[Shaki]

Someone is argueing with me on facebook that it's ok to use racial slurs if both players are insulting each other anyway (like Suarez and Evra admitted to) to try and put them off their game anyway so "where's the harm".

What the actual fuck is wrong with people. He then compared being called a "Negro" to being called an "English cunt". I tried to explain that being called English doesn't carry the same weight as being called an abusive term against your race. It was pointless.

It might offend the person on the receiving end just as much or even more. You can't dictate what people should find offensive.

[Guest Gladstone]

in regards to pawlett, if they can prove he def cheated, which im still unsure of,

You see - this is another argument against using video replays during a match because it isn't always clear cut - even with hindsight and days or weeks to view different camera angles, some people will still say that a certain player just tripped, or he was tripped, where others will view it as a dive because sometimes it can be pretty dubious. I personally think that Aluko and Pawlett both took massive dives in the box. Pawlett's was slightly more convincing than Aluko's but still a blatant dive. Even with Aluko's though, some were claiming that there was slight contact which might have made him lose his balance. I think that's total horseshit though.

[Paranoid Android]

But the point is the decision is to be made by the officials and they could be better informed by watching a replay. Folk arguing about it down the pub for the next week is irrelevant.

[Guest Gladstone]

But the point is the decision is to be made by the officials and they could be better informed by watching a replay. Folk arguing about it down the pub for the next week is irrelevant.

It's not really irrelevant though is it? People will still piss and moan about decisions even if made with the help of a video replay at the time or made in hindsight by the review panel after the game and managers will still moan and potentially complain / appeal because their interpretation of the video footage could be different. I think it would increase the pressure on the officials to get things absolutely 100% correct with every single decision they make because everything will be under closer scrutiny than ever before.

It's a fucking hard job being a referee, but at least they can have the benefit of saying it was human error at the time. But, what are they supposed to do if faced with a video replay that is inconclusive as to whether the slight contact made in the box was enough to send a striker down or if it was actually a dive? Sometimes I watch replays of incidents and think from one angle it was a definite dive, then a different angle it looks like it was definitely a foul but another angle you just can't tell. All of that shit would have to be done within probably about 30 seconds to keep a game flowing and, what, does he blow his whistle because there may have been a foul or may have been a dive in the box? What if they then can't tell what it was or they decipher that it was actually just a tangle of legs, or the striker stumbled and lost his balance or it was a fair challenge? The game will have been disrupted and the following outcome (which could have been a goal, or a corner, or a counter-attack) is lost because there would have to be a bounce ball re-start.

I just don't think it fits football. Let the game flow, let referees and their assistants make the calls at the time, and the review panel can look at any dubious incidents at a later date and rescind incorrect red cards or yellow cards, or dish out bans for anything that was missed. Such as a dive that results in a penalty or getting a player sent off, or off the ball incidents or over the ball tackes missed by the ref etc.

Goal-line technology would probably benefit the game because the technology would be available to show that the whole ball crossed the line without question. The 4th official (or whoever) can have access to a screen that shows it, and the referee doesn't have to stop the game until he gets the word in his earpiece from the 4th offical. What happens following the goal doesn't happen because the game would have been restarted from the centre anyway. If he hasn't stopped the game when the ball may have crossed the line, but the 4th official confirms it didn't cross the line, then just keep playing. And just to make sure it doesn't start a riot - beam the video evidence on the big screen during the match showing the ball crossed / didn't cross the line.

[Chris]

I kind of agre. I know football fans hate hearing it, but the system that rugby uses seems to work well enough. If they go to TV replay for a try and it's inconclusive then they just call no try. You can't get rid of human error and you'll always have people debating decisions but video evidence should cut down on mistakes and help eradicate diving. I'm not convinced about having it used for fouls and penalty decisions, the onus should still be on the referee to make that decision. I think reviewing evidence after the game as they've been doing is far enough to go for that. As in rugby with payers being cited after the game for eye gouging, spear tackles and hair pulling recently.

But for goals where there might be disputes where it crossed the line or someone used a hand then there's no reason at all that reviewing the decision on video can't be done.

[Lemonade]

Surely Steve Kean is gonna be given his marching orders this week. Rock bottom?

[Eupraxia]

Surely Steve Kean is gonna be given his marching orders this week. Rock bottom?

According to radio reports, Kean has been quoted as saying he'd "be massively surprised if I was sacked as Blackburn Rovers manager."

I wouldn't be.

Blackburn Rovers are fucked. The guy comes across as completely out of his depth and uncomfortable as a Premier League football manager. Every interview he gives, he appears to have an ostensible nervousness about him, and a severe lack of sincere confidence in himself. He'll tell us all day that he's confident in his own ability and that of his players, but I really don't think he believes himself. He always appears to have a dose of the nervous shakes in every interview. Really bad sign.

I also think he's intellectually challenged and relies heavily on cliches. In my opinion, he's just not a good football manager, especially at the level he's at.

[Guest Gladstone]

Maybe he should just get them relegated and he'll be an okay Championship level manager. Problem solved and nobody has to lose their job. It's Christmas for fuck's sake.