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.
Printable View
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