Quite possibly the worst rule ever

[madowl47]

And my minuses have gone down a little bit in the last 24 hours . Is that good. 
 

watch em go back up now. 

[Five Archers]

13 hours ago, TheOwlsofDodworth said:

 

It has to go backwards, otherwise you'd only be booting it to the other team. 

We did that all season

[madowl47]

I’ll leave it there.  While watching footie this weekend. Keep an eye out for short goal kicks. See how exciting it is

 

have a nice day. 

[punkskaphil]

55 minutes ago, torryowl said:

cant comment on the spurs goal as i havnt seen it but i did see the one west ham got scrubbed out against the blunts where again no one noticed that the player had controlled with his hand (accidently) but he wouldnt have scored the goal if he hadnt handled it .........defenders have penalties given against them for unintentional handball so only right that  attackers get punished as well .

You keep bringing up incidents where the handball has an affect on whether the goal is scored or not. That isn’t what the new rule is about. The new rule (or law, to be precise) rules out goals where the ‘handling’ has no effect on the passage of play. An accidental handball at the other end with the same lack of intent (or position of arm/hand, etc) would be not be penalised according to the laws of the game. You don’t seem to understand the difference: an attacking player must be penalised for something that a defending player wouldn’t be penalised for.

 

Hypothetical example: the goalkeeper is caught out of his area, goal is open, striker shoots powerfully into centre of empty goal. VAR looks at it and sees that as the ball headed towards the open goal it lightly brushed the upper arm of a teammate, barely flicking his arm hairs, but had no effect on the trajectory (and the teammate was in an onside position, for the sake of ruling that argument out too). Under the new law, the goal has to be disallowed.

 

This is why pretty much everybody - apart from you, of course - hates this controversial new law. It’s completely ridiculous.

 

 

[0wl18]

Imagine the biggest problem some people having with football, being that the ball no longer has to leave to 18 yard box from a goal kick  

[punkskaphil]

And an additional point: if an attacking player early in a passage of play handles the ball accidentally and ref sees it’s accidental and waves to play on, that team is now unable to score a goal until they either lose possession or there’s a dead ball. As long as they keep possession any goal that they eventually score has to be disallowed.

[Guest mrbluesky]

33 minutes ago, madowl47 said:

Bit better.  

 

how can they still do it if the rule is changed.  ? Eh?

 

Happy with a team passing short of it goes out of the area. But two players stood in the area keeper taps it to one of em passing it along the goal line is to me just not the way football should look. ..  Eh?
 

and I do blame the ££££ s introduced into the game for its demise 100%. Cap the salaries. ok
 

Players could choose where to play. 50 grand a week. Maybe 25 grand  Allow all clubs to compete.  If superstars don’t like such a paltry sum ... who are we to care. ?? Eh?
 

The bubble will burst.  ...  Hope it does. No

 

I’m just saying I believe this rule will be an advantage .. (and being fair has been mentioned)  to teams who can afford the best players and can pass out very comfortably from the back. I`ve given you evidence to the contrary

why make it easier for those teams ?? 
 

Rules worked perfectly well for years. What’s changed really ?? To this extent.Football 
 

I understand the post that some teams might waste time by not allowing it to roll out of the area.  But to be honest in over 50 years watching footie.  I have very rarely seen this or considered it a problem. ok
 

thanks for your reply by the way  ok

 

 

A lot worse 

 

You`ve gone a bit of a tangent here, without giving a detailed answer on the subject, I`ve given you evidence and you appear to have just waffled.

 

I can`t thank you for your reply, as it doesn`t make much sense   

[madowl47]

2 minutes ago, mrbluesky said:

A lot worse 

 

You`ve gone a bit of a tangent here, without giving a detailed answer on the subject, I`ve given you evidence and you appear to have just waffled.

 

I can`t thank you for your reply, as it doesn`t make much sense   

The detail is all there. 

 

no thanks required 

[the monk]

1 hour ago, madowl47 said:

Im not here to please you my chum. Or anyone else.  Many will agree. 
 

what’s a golf handicap got to do with it ... I’m interested ? 
 

A golf handicap is for amateur players. How does that relate to professional footballers ?  
 

im interested in your reply ?
 

and yes any rule change that allows better players an “advantage” should be looked at.  And this does. Play the game with rules already in place.  Look further back. At least one (ok 1) did agree with it. And how football seems to be helping managers like Pep play his brand of football.  He’s a genius ... but he’s killing the game most of us loved. And the powers that be are allowing it. 
 

Never thought I’d have an argument about taking a goal kick

Well he has now!!

[PortlandOwl]

More often than not, teams end up launching it because defenders/keepers end up ***** it all up. 

[Guest mrbluesky]

29 minutes ago, madowl47 said:

The detail is all there. 

 

no thanks required 

Invisible typing ink

 

No thanks given 

[torryowl]

55 minutes ago, punkskaphil said:

You keep bringing up incidents where the handball has an affect on whether the goal is scored or not. That isn’t what the new rule is about. The new rule (or law, to be precise) rules out goals where the ‘handling’ has no effect on the passage of play. An accidental handball at the other end with the same lack of intent (or position of arm/hand, etc) would be not be penalised according to the laws of the game. You don’t seem to understand the difference: an attacking player must be penalised for something that a defending player wouldn’t be penalised for.

 

Hypothetical example: the goalkeeper is caught out of his area, goal is open, striker shoots powerfully into centre of empty goal. VAR looks at it and sees that as the ball headed towards the open goal it lightly brushed the upper arm of a teammate, barely flicking his arm hairs, but had no effect on the trajectory (and the teammate was in an onside position, for the sake of ruling that argument out too). Under the new law, the goal has to be disallowed.

 

This is why pretty much everybody - apart from you, of course - hates this controversial new law. It’s completely ridiculous.

 

 

So it goes in off the teammates arm  who is credited with  the goal as he was the last one to touch it .. .  I may be out of sync with the modern game but I'd be a bit cheesed off if someone scored against us with his arm  .

[flo]

I don't mind that, it's like arguing about two people taking the centre which literally has no effect on the game. 

[Ian]

3 hours ago, madowl47 said:

And my minuses have gone down a little bit in the last 24 hours . Is that good. 
 

watch em go back up now. 

your minuses have gone down because people who are laughing at your stupidity are seen as a positive!

 

And all golfers have a handicap...including Woods, Rahm, Westwood etc

[swfc-dan]

There's nothing wrong with passing but do it in the opponents half. I also get sick of watching countless teams try and play like Barca from the goal kick and in often leads to costly errors during games- then the manager comes out and praises them despite the errors.

 

Sure do it if you have defenders who are good on the ball, but far too many teams are going down that route nowadays with defenders who are crap on the ball. It also lets teams get set easier if you are always playing possession football from the back. Look at Liverpool, they still are a great passing team but know when to attack at pace, through a long pass or not- not allowing teams to get back and put 2 banks of 4 in front of them. And it never results in hoofs up to a big man. I know Liverpool are on a different level to pretty much any team atm but it's about attacking quick and incisively, rather than having 2 banks of 4 sat in front of you and trying to pass through them all.

 

I agree the rule is silly but it doesn't mean teams have to do it if you don't have the players to do so. 

[madowl47]

48 minutes ago, Ian said:

your minuses have gone down because people who are laughing at your stupidity are seen as a positive!

 

And all golfers have a handicap...including Woods, Rahm, Westwood etc

oh dear. I’m distraught about that

 

not sure what the golf reference is about. ? 
 

It’s only a goal kick 

[punkskaphil]

2 hours ago, torryowl said:

So it goes in off the teammates arm  who is credited with  the goal as he was the last one to touch it .. .  I may be out of sync with the modern game but I'd be a bit cheesed off if someone scored against us with his arm  .

No, the teammate wouldn’t be credited with the goal as it was going in anyway and the teammate’s touch didn’t alter that. As happens with all deflected goals. The teammate isn’t “scoring with his arm” because it didn’t affect the original shot on goal, as I made very clear.
 

Goals with insignificant touches to attackers’ arms have been allowed, most likely, since football began, and without controversy. Until this season when the rule was changed.

 

You still don’t seem to understand this basic concept, so I would definitely agree that you are out of touch with the modern game. Or just out of touch with football in general, modern or otherwise.

[Hedwig]

I blame tika-taka football (or whatever it;s called) - my belief is that this is where this rule was born from..

The FA and other powers are trying to make the English game quicker, more fluent and more enjoyable by trying to re-create Spanish (Barcelona) & Brazilian ways of playing the game.

In most cases, slow, then high tempo phases of the game - possession based play..

This simply does not cater for most of the British teams as we are still "catching up" to that style of play..

 

Pep has brought it to Man City as the "go-to" coaching style he had at Barca & Bayern, where they had acomplished players, coached in that way from a ayoung age who can play that system..

 

Add John Stones (for example) into the mix and how many times have you seen him give the ball away in dangerous positions - he hasn't been coached into that way of playing..

SO, the better sides may have a better chance, but it is not 100% guaranteed that it will work.

 

English teams are now trying to adapt to this system but a lot of the central defenders have been coached through grassroots / academy for years completely differently and some will struggle.

Edited July 29, 2020 by Hedwig
typo

[pazowl55]

31 minutes ago, punkskaphil said:

No, the teammate wouldn’t be credited with the goal as it was going in anyway and the teammate’s touch didn’t alter that. As happens with all deflected goals. The teammate isn’t “scoring with his arm” because it didn’t affect the original shot on goal, as I made very clear.
 

Goals with insignificant touches to attackers’ arms have been allowed, most likely, since football began, and without controversy. Until this season when the rule was changed.

 

You still don’t seem to understand this basic concept, so I would definitely agree that you are out of touch with the modern game. Or just out of touch with football in general, modern or otherwise.

They have altered the rule again now I think. So it is only directly before the goal is scored. So if someone handballs it and then 5 passes are made before the goal. It will still count now.

[punkskaphil]

1 hour ago, pazowl55 said:

They have altered the rule again now I think. So it is only directly before the goal is scored. So if someone handballs it and then 5 passes are made before the goal. It will still count now.

Really? When did they change that? I thought FIFA said recently they wouldn’t be changing the law.

 

Edit: you’re right, I just checked it out. New change to the law.

Edited July 29, 2020 by punkskaphil