Can you imagine a goal being scored from a corner awarded for this infringement - only for replays to show it was 7 seconds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Paget Flashman
Printable View
Can you imagine a goal being scored from a corner awarded for this infringement - only for replays to show it was 7 seconds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Paget Flashman
Totally agree with all of this part. There are the obvious ones like player pretending not to notice he's being subbed, going to the furthest part of the field and slowly trudging off or all the little knocks that players get in the last 10 minutes defending a lead, but a lot of what is perceived as time wasting is just the home crowd getting more and more annoyed at losing late in a game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trigger
Unfortunately the stopped clock is too radical and in the opposite direction to the way the game is going with every game having to fit into a televised slot for megabucks, but it would instantly solve the problem and result in a far more entertaining product in my opinion.
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUETIT
Of course, how many goes does the taker want?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rontomuk
'Oh dear, the keeper's saved your shot. Don't worry, have another go from half the distance while he's still lying on the ground.' Ludicrous.
I've brought this up before on here and pointed out it was already the rule in hockey. I hope Collina is ready for the counterargument that I came up against from a couple of the board's heavyweights. I quickly realised I was out of my depth.
https://www.ccmb.co.uk/showthread.ph...=1#post4751754
Exactly, all of this 8s just an admission of defeat that the previous attempt to do something about time wasting by goalkeepers has failed and there’s no one to blame for that but the authorities who now want to try again - I’d also point out that I’ve heard it said that such and such a team is at their most dangerous when defending a corner. I think that’s a bit far fetched, but it is true to say that it is considered to be an opportunity for a counter attack.Quote:
Originally Posted by LA Bluebird
I hadn't spotted the penalty suggestion before and my first instinct was that it could be a good idea. I then thought that there aren't many occasions where penalty rebounds are scored. I'll also raise you the final moments of the Watford - Leicester playoff semi. Such excitement would never happen. Didn't something like that happen in a League 1 championship decider on the last day of the season? Us at Hull?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loramski
I agree with you Eric, I don't see why play shouldn't continue if a penalty is saved and the ball doesn't go out for a corner - the ball ius still in play, so why shouldn't someone on the attacking side have the opportunity to follow up a saved shot and try to score like they would in "normal" play? The current law saying the penalty taker cannot score from a rebound off the post if the goalkeeper did not get a touch on it is consistent with the one that prevents a person taking a free kick or corner to themselves, so should be kept as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric the Half a Bee
Penalty shoot outs are different. The regular game has finished and so it's not a question of playing on after shot has been saved. I remember thinking at the time shoot outs came in that it's inconsistent to allow the penalty taker to score after his effort has been saved in regular play, but not in a shoot out and there's still an argument to be had as to whether you should play on after a spot kick has been saved in a shoot out. However, I now think that it raises too many questions such as how long do you play on for and can other players get involved, so I'd say it's best to leave things as they are when it comes to shoot outs.
Good post. I still think it's daft but I get what you and TOBW are saying. Bluebirdman had a good idea in the thread I linked to, that play should continue but the taker shouldn't be allowed to play the rebound, whether it comes off the post or the keeper. As he's basically six yards offside when he takes it then that seems right, the keeper and defenders would have a fairer chance to capitalise on the save then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric the Half a Bee
Not that I'm bothered when it goes for us, by the way, as it did for Turnbull against Blackburn earlier in the season. Me and my (hockey playing) sons were out of our seats celebrating and going 'good rule that' to each other. Shameless.
Any visiting team whose fans sing “Football in a Library” or “Is there a Fire Drill” should immediately concede an indirect free kick. It’s neither funny or original.
I don’t think the pelanty taker can put a rebound off the post in the net. A dead ball can’t be played by the same player after it’s taken. In the ‘pelanty put in off the post’ situation it may be that a goal kick is given.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loramski
I counted the Burnley keeper once taking 16s between taking the ball and kicking it out last night. he ended up being booked shortly after. Bring it on.
So then if the law that is already on the books wasn't called in that scenario - and I agree, it was an absurd example, felt even longer than that to me - by a referee who was punishing time wasting and booked 3 Burnley players for it, why would the new law be called instead?Quote:
Originally Posted by sneggyblubird
Is the thinking that refs will see a corner as a "lesser" punishment and more in the spirit of the game than an indirect free kick close to the goal? I don't really understand it.
Blimey, just as well we haven't got Ryan Allsop any more. The man turned time wasting and faking an injury into an art form. Let's think for a moment, if there are 90 minutes in a game, the opposition would be awarded a corner least least twice every minute. Gosh, that's 180 corner kicks to the opposition. They'd probably score from a few them, especially if they were big on set pieces, so to be fair to Allsop and his team, the number of corner kicks would probably be whittled down to say 150 corners per game. Imagine it, every time a team played against Allsop, every clued up manager would stuff the team with as many players over 6ft 5 inch players as possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by splott parker
I always felt Allsop could have made it as a Hollywood actor, and been in big demand for the blockbuster type war movies. Not an actor say, in the way of Brad Pitt or Johnny Depp, or for us oldies a classic actor like Sean Connery or Steve McQueen, nor for the very oldies like Cary Grant or John Wayne. However, he could have made it as an extra, someone who is shot, goes down in a hail of bullets, writhes dramatically around and then slowly dies as life ebbs out of him. Sort of how he looked when saving a shot when down at the City on a weekly basis.
Sorry, I didn't phrase my post very well. I even rewrote that bit a couple of times but it still didn't read clearly. No, the taker can't play it again off the post but Bluebirdman's suggestion was that a rebound off, or via, the keeper should be treated in the same way. It would stop the 'unfairness' of the keeper making a great save but seeing the ball go back to the taker who then rolls it into an empty net with the keeper on the ground and defenders unable to make up the six yard start the taker had on them.Quote:
Originally Posted by splott parker
:thumbup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loramski
I always thought it was is this a library :sherlock:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pontprennau Bluebird
Quote:
Originally Posted by delmbox
It’s a stupid, misplaced ditty, the only place it worked was at HIGHBURY !!!!
As in “ Highbury is a library”
Keep up Delm, chants have moved on:hehe:Quote:
Originally Posted by delmbox