Premier League Discussion Thread Season 2014-15

[weasel]

Ps, another thins I think Football could learn from hockey, swearing is a yellow card straight off, ditto contesting the refs decision. Swear AT the ref and it's a red.
Bring that into the PL and suddenly the swearing at the ref and contesting every decision stops. Especially when Wazza and JT pick up two red cards in their first two games of the season.

We used to have this in my saturday league. You could get away with a little swearing if not aggressive but if you swore at the ref you'd be very lucky not to be sent off. I'm amazed that players are allowed to talk to the lines-man and referee in a way that would get you fired from a job, expelled from school or punched in the face in the pub. It really makes no sense to allow it.

Yeah, you can swear on a hockey pitch. FFS I wouldn't last ten minutes if you couldn't, but you have to be careful what word you use and how you swear. If it's at yourself after you make a mistake 9 times out of 10 the umpire will say nothing. If it's at the other team and done aggressively, you'll get a yellow. If it's at the umpire in any way, most will red card you straight off. TBH I understand why they do it. Who gives up a Sat afternoon to take dogs abuse from random strangers. As you said, you wouldn't do it in work or on the street so why should football refs take it?

You can also question decisions as long as it's a basic " what was that for?" Asked in a genuinely confused/enquiring way. If you do it with any hint of aggression or in the wrong tone you're off. Also, it depends on the umpire and the general feel of the game. But it's easier to have the blanket bans there and allow a little common sense or leeway to be used, rather than the other way around.

 

[PGowdy]

Ps, another thins I think Football could learn from hockey, swearing is a yellow card straight off, ditto contesting the refs decision. Swear AT the ref and it's a red.
Bring that into the PL and suddenly the swearing at the ref and contesting every decision stops. Especially when Wazza and JT pick up two red cards in their first two games of the season.

We used to have this in my saturday league. You could get away with a little swearing if not aggressive but if you swore at the ref you'd be very lucky not to be sent off. I'm amazed that players are allowed to talk to the lines-man and referee in a way that would get you fired from a job, expelled from school or punched in the face in the pub. It really makes no sense to allow it.

Yeah, you can swear on a hockey pitch. FFS I wouldn't last ten minutes if you couldn't, but you have to be careful what word you use and how you swear. If it's at yourself after you make a mistake 9 times out of 10 the umpire will say nothing. If it's at the other team and done aggressively, you'll get a yellow. If it's at the umpire in any way, most will red card you straight off. TBH I understand why they do it. Who gives up a Sat afternoon to take dogs abuse from random strangers. As you said, you wouldn't do it in work or on the street so why should football refs take it?

You can also question decisions as long as it's a basic " what was that for?" Asked in a genuinely confused/enquiring way. If you do it with any hint of aggression or in the wrong tone you're off. Also, it depends on the umpire and the general feel of the game. But it's easier to have the blanket bans there and allow a little common sense or leeway to be used, rather than the other way around.

Yep, exactly the same in the football league i played for. We had one particularly fussy ref once who booked 7 of us. :lol: All for misdemeanours. Mine was for saying "you're having a laugh, ref!" :lol: Imagine that!?! :shock:

 

[theforceuk]

Watch the six nations this weekend you will see the game get stopped for certain decisions for longer than it would have been without video replay, which is fine as they come to the correct decision 9 times out of 10. In Football deciding whether it was a penalty or not I presume you would need video replays, in which case the game would some times get stopped as they might have to replay it several times like they do in the studio and then you still sometimes get pundits who can't agree after seeing it ten times. So you would still get people saying it wasn't a pen and others saying it was. You know don't get me wrong I'm all for it, but it would stop the game for longer and the right decision still woulden't always be made, just a lot less often.

 

[weasel]

Like you, i despise rugby. Except with a lot more passion.

It's a game played by over testosteroned, sexually repressd men, who think if they act all macho and tough, no one will notice the fact they spend 80 mins running after each other, grabbing hold of each other and rolling about the ground having a wee cuddle.
That's before we get to the scrums. "Right, you guys stick your hands between his legs, grab on tight now, and push.......hard."

Nope, nohing gay in that at all. Perfectly hetro. :roll:

I just don't see where there is ANY skill involved in rugby. Ok, kicking, both for position/touch and the guys who take the penalties, yeah that needs a bit of skill. But ehhh footballers do that, whilst on the run, aiming at a target that is probably also running, and with the other team trying to tackle them. Not stood 20 yards away pretending to be interested in charging it down.
Other than that, if you're 6 foot 4, possess basic coordination, and like touching men, you'll be a good rugby player.
It boils down to, "see that guy with the ball? You grab him and hold on tight. Pull him down to the ground, pat his ass for a while. The rest of us will come and join in. Then after a few mins it's someone else's turn."
There really is no more to it than that.

 

[PGowdy]

Watch the six nations this weekend you will see the game get stopped for certain decisions for longer than it would have been without video replay, which is fine as they come to the correct decision 9 times out of 10. In Football deciding whether it was a penalty or not I presume you would need video replays, in which case the game would some times get stopped as they might have to replay it several times like they do in the studio and then you still sometimes get pundits who can't agree after seeing it ten times. So you would still get people saying it wasn't a pen and others saying it was. You know don't get me wrong I'm all for it, but it would stop the game for longer and the right decision still woulden't always be made, just a lot less often.

Much much mud much loess often. Almost always. And the stoppages would almost always take next to no time at all.
There are incidents now where a penalty decision takes ages so it's really no different. Just much much better.

 

[theforceuk]

I think that's the problem a ref decides whether it's a pen within 5 seconds never seen a ref take longer than 20 seconds at most after consulting the linesman, perhaps 30 seconds at a stretch, the refs will get scared of getting it wrong and go to the video replay more often than not and it will change the game for the better no doubt.

 

[Dark Sith Lord]

Pete will be glad to know that Spurs are going out of the Europa League! :wink:

 

[edd_jedi]

I'd love to claim Arsenal have the worst defence in North London, but sadly Tottenham are in a different league. As the commentator just said, "another defensive nightmare for Tottenham!"

Seriously Pochettino what are you playing at? Us arm chair supporters can see you need to sack the lot of them, grow some balls and do it. Signing a dud striker is annoying, having six dud defenders is unforgivable.

 

[PGowdy]

I'd love to claim Arsenal have the worst defence in North London, but sadly Tottenham are in a different league. As the commentator just said, "another defensive nightmare for Tottenham!"

Seriously Pochettino what are you playing at? Us arm chair supporters can see you need to sack the lot of them, grow some balls and do it. Signing a dud striker is annoying, having six dud defenders is unforgivable.

I think it terms of defence we are bottom 3. We don't just let opponents score. We actually give them the goals. :roll:

 

[weasel]

Some fantastic penalties there, until Lovern sums his season up and sends his into orbit.

Brendan got his tactics horribly wrong there. Went back to the tried and failed shape he used in early season and hey presto, back to the toothless Liverpool.

Still, only the Europa League.

 

[theforceuk]

Bad week for Man Utd all our top four rivals going out of Europe, albeit apart from Arsenal not quit out. :?

 

[PGowdy]

I think that's the problem a ref decides whether it's a pen within 5 seconds never seen a ref take longer than 20 seconds at most after consulting the linesman, perhaps 30 seconds at a stretch, the refs will get scared of getting it wrong and go to the video replay more often than not and it will change the game for the better no doubt.

Case and point: Penalty today at Old Trafford. Apparently it took the ref about 3 minutes. He then sent off Wes Brown tho it was John O'Shae who was supposed to be sent off.
Had the 4th official been able to help it would have taken 3 seconds to say "It was O'Shae not Brown. Do NOT send off Wes Brown you div"
Took the ref ages to sort this one out and he still got it dreadfully and embarrassingly wrong.

 

[edd_jedi]

Yeah unbelievable that in the 21st century a referee can send off the wrong player or issue 3 yellow cards to one! Sorry but the rules need to change, this 'ref knows best' mentality is embarrassing.

Some interesting results today though!

 

[weasel]

Sky boys reckon o'shea was stood telling him "it was me, send me off" and he ignored him.

Still, easy mistake to make seeing as how they both look so similar! :roll:

 

[PGowdy]

Sky boys reckon o'shea was stood telling him "it was me, send me off" and he ignored him.

Still, easy mistake to make seeing as how they both look so similar! :roll:

Yes, he was. Altho he'd have been wise to keep his mouth shut as what will happen now is Brown's red will be fully reminded and O'Shea will not be able to be retrospectively banned. So it was the best outcome for Sunderland.

 

[theforceuk]

I think that's the problem a ref decides whether it's a pen within 5 seconds never seen a ref take longer than 20 seconds at most after consulting the linesman, perhaps 30 seconds at a stretch, the refs will get scared of getting it wrong and go to the video replay more often than not and it will change the game for the better no doubt.

Case and point: Penalty today at Old Trafford. Apparently it took the ref about 3 minutes. He then sent off Wes Brown tho it was John O'Shae who was supposed to be sent off.
Had the 4th official been able to help it would have taken 3 seconds to say "It was O'Shae not Brown. Do NOT send off Wes Brown you div"
Took the ref ages to sort this one out and he still got it dreadfully and embarrassingly wrong.

Just to say it took the ref about 3 minutes to decide who to send off, he gave
the pen instantly. If a ref needs a video replay to know who to send off then I think he's in the wrong job which he clearly is, or the fourth official's help for that.

 

[PGowdy]

I think that's the problem a ref decides whether it's a pen within 5 seconds never seen a ref take longer than 20 seconds at most after consulting the linesman, perhaps 30 seconds at a stretch, the refs will get scared of getting it wrong and go to the video replay more often than not and it will change the game for the better no doubt.

Case and point: Penalty today at Old Trafford. Apparently it took the ref about 3 minutes. He then sent off Wes Brown tho it was John O'Shae who was supposed to be sent off.
Had the 4th official been able to help it would have taken 3 seconds to say "It was O'Shae not Brown. Do NOT send off Wes Brown you div"
Took the ref ages to sort this one out and he still got it dreadfully and embarrassingly wrong.

Just to say it took the ref about 3 minutes to decide who to send off, he gave
the pen instantly. If a ref needs a video replay to know who to send off then I think he's in the wrong job which he clearly is, or the fourth official's help for that.

What took 3 minutes is not relevant. As i said, it's a case and point. It was an incident. And it took sages to sort out where as if technology or the assistance of the 4th official could be sued it would have taken much less time. This goes someway to disprove the "it'll slow the game down" argument.

 

[theforceuk]

What took 3 minutes is not relevant. As i said, it's a case and point. It was an incident. And it took sages to sort out where as if technology or the assistance of the 4th official could be sued it would have taken much less time. This goes someway to disprove the "it'll slow the game down" argument.[/quote]

It wouldn't be relevant if you diden't take my original quote to prove the point, but as I used a penalty as the example of how video replay's might slow the process up, then I'm sorry but it is relevant. All I can take from your point is that the ref should have asked someone who was further away from the incident than he was who to send off. He could have asked someone in the third tear of the North Stand and they would have given him the right answer, just like the other 75,000 people in the stadium.

Just seen it and he did use his mike and still got it wrong, I hope who ever told him didn't have a TV.

 

[PGowdy]

What took 3 minutes is not relevant. As i said, it's a case and point. It was an incident. And it took sages to sort out where as if technology or the assistance of the 4th official could be sued it would have taken much less time. This goes someway to disprove the "it'll slow the game down" argument.

It wouldn't be relevant if you diden't take my original quote to prove the point, but as I used a penalty as the example of how video replay's might slow the process up, then I'm sorry but it is relevant. All I can take from your point is that the ref should have asked someone who was further away from the incident than he was who to send off. He could have asked someone in the third tear of the North Stand and they would have given him the right answer, just like the other 75,000 people in the stadium.

Just seen it and he did use his mike and still got it wrong, I hope who ever told him didn't have a TV.[/quote]

Fair point. It was the sending off that took 3 minutes, on this occasion. But my point is, as i said, that we were discussing whether a technology can be used and actually save time rather than slow the game down. I was using this incident as a case and point relevant to that discussion. I couldn't quote the last 3 pages so just carried on from the last comment on the subject.

 

[theforceuk]

The worrying thing about this is the refs response, this is a clear incident where video replay would have been useful. But why he needed it should be the first question. :roll: