When were the laws of the game changed?

Just been roused from my slumber by a comment at the Fulham v Man United game that it wasn’t a foul because the player grabbing hold of another player’s arm didn’t have hold of it for long enough :shrug:. A few hours earlier while watching Villa v West Ham, Jamie Carragher said it wasn’t a penalty because the player grabbing an opponent’s shirt did not have hold of it for long enough.

When were the laws of the game amended to read “no offence will have been committed if the player grabbing hold of an opponent or their shirt does not do so for more than x amount of seconds”?

It’s weird how some offences are punished outside the penalty area yet the self same offence inside the area is ignored.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by splott parker

It’s weird how some offences are punished outside the penalty area yet the self same offence inside the area is ignored.

---

Isn’t it just.

The notion that you can commit a foul on an opponent as long as you don’t foul them for too long is a new one on me though.

Haven't heard that one before.

Another one I don't get is why it's ok to obstruct an opponent to shepherd the ball out of play when you couldn't do it anywhere else on the pitch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

Just been roused from my slumber by a comment at the Fulham v Man United game that it wasn’t a foul because the player grabbing hold of another player’s arm didn’t have hold of it for long enough :shrug:. A few hours earlier while watching Villa v West Ham, Jamie Carragher said it wasn’t a penalty because the player grabbing an opponent’s shirt did not have hold of it for long enough.

When were the laws of the game amended to read “no offence will have been committed if the player grabbing hold of an opponent or their shirt does not do so for more than x amount of seconds”?

---

Bob, there has been a deliberate policy over several decades to chip away and change the Laws of the Game into rules. Where once decisions were made on fact (handball and offside were prime examples of this) now there are so many sub-clauses to consider that decisions are now based on opinion. The advent of VAR is a second level of this opinion based decision making.

We have gone so far away from the reason for the Laws of the Game that decisions have become arbitrary and almost meaningless.

Goalkeepers waste far more time with the ball now than then ever did before the back pass rules were brought it.

Could you imagine what Brian Clough would make of a centre half passing the ball to a goalkeeper within the 6 yd box for a goal kick? Or a kick off passed back to a goalkeeper?

StT.
<><

[The Campaign for the Re-instatement of The Laws of the Game ... TCftRoTLotG]

PS: A shorter title would be appreciated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Undercoverinwurzelland

Haven't heard that one before.

Another one I don't get is why it's ok to obstruct an opponent to shepherd the ball out of play when you couldn't do it anywhere else on the pitch.

---

:furious: that one has driven me nuts for years. The defender doesn't have the ball under control so it's just obstruction

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve the Tea

We have gone so far away from the reason for the Laws of the Game that decisions have become arbitrary and almost meaningless.

---

Exactly, like goals being disallowed because a player's toenail is offside - they've not gained any unfair advantage!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

Just been roused from my slumber by a comment at the Fulham v Man United game that it wasn’t a foul because the player grabbing hold of another player’s arm didn’t have hold of it for long enough :shrug:. A few hours earlier while watching Villa v West Ham, Jamie Carragher said it wasn’t a penalty because the player grabbing an opponent’s shirt did not have hold of it for long enough.

When were the laws of the game amended to read “no offence will have been committed if the player grabbing hold of an opponent or their shirt does not do so for more than x amount of seconds”?

---

What would you say about a contact in the penalty box on an attacking player who has the ball at his feet, the softest of touches by the defender, with his foot, on the attacking players leg, not enough contact or force to inhibit the move, but a foul nevertheless.Play on or blow up for the foul?

Another one is, in the area again, an attacker is obviously impeded or fouled but it’s not a pen because the ball had gone or the offended had lost control. Anywhere else on the pitch it’s termed ‘an off the ball incident which has been, perhaps, flagged by the linesman’, play is stopped and a free kick given. A foul is a foul on or off the ball in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by splott parker

Another one is, in the area again, an attacker is obviously impeded or fouled but it’s not a pen because the ball had gone or the offended had lost control. Anywhere else on the pitch it’s termed ‘an off the ball incident which has been, perhaps, flagged by the linesman’, play is stopped and a free kick given. A foul is a foul on or off the ball in my opinion.

---

Yes, but we didn't see much of that even before the game went all 'Modern'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Undercoverinwurzelland

Haven't heard that one before.

Another one I don't get is why it's ok to obstruct an opponent to shepherd the ball out of play when you couldn't do it anywhere else on the pitch.

---

IMPEDING THE PROGRESS OF AN OPPONENT WITHOUT CONTACT

A player may shield the ball by taking a position between an opponent and the ball if the ball is within playing distance and the opponent is not held off with the arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent.


so the ball needs to be within playing distance to shepherd the ball out :thumbup: but when a playing is running, they are in play and heading to the ball, its a rule thats always tough to call

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuerto

What would you say about a contact in the penalty box on an attacking player who has the ball at his feet, the softest of touches by the defender, with his foot, on the attacking players leg, not enough contact or force to inhibit the move, but a foul nevertheless.Play on or blow up for the foul?

---

First, I don’t think contact automatically equals a foul, so, provided the contact is as soft as you say, I don’t see it’s a foul.

On the other hand, if it’s a shirt pull that only lasts for a second, that’s a foul and a penalty for me - same with a grab at an arm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve the Tea

Bob, there has been a deliberate policy over several decades to chip away and change the Laws of the Game into rules. Where once decisions were made on fact (handball and offside were prime examples of this) now there are so many sub-clauses to consider that decisions are now based on opinion.

---

I understand what you’re trying to say Steve, but the fact is that decisions have always been based on opinion, including hand ball offences and offsides.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Undercoverinwurzelland

Exactly, like goals being disallowed because a player's toenail is offside - they've not gained any unfair advantage!

---

And the second Millwall goal last week. A Millwall player, barely a yard in front of the City keeper, had to virtually jump over the ball as it went into the net. Not a word word spoken about it.

StT.
<><

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve the Tea

And the second Millwall goal last week. A Millwall player, barely a yard in front of the City keeper, had to virtually jump over the ball as it went into the net. Not a word word spoken about it.

StT.
<><

---

Probably on account of the fact that he wasn’t offside.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman

I understand what you’re trying to say Steve, but the fact is that decisions have always been based on opinion, including hand ball offences and offsides.

---

That's how it is. We would have to get rid of that great big lump of Human Being officiating the game if it wasn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman

I understand what you’re trying to say Steve, but the fact is that decisions have always been based on opinion, including hand ball offences and offsides.

---

Hi Dave,

I appreciate what you are saying and there is a degree that clearly it is as the ref sees it. My gripe is that now there are so many sub clauses where once it was a clear one liner in the Laws that today you can vitually, 'seek to justify,' any wrong decision. You can't tell me that partiality doesn't come into it.

Calvert-Lewin's red for a deliberate backward movement of the elbow into a players face, drawing blood by the way, resulted Sky's Sue Smith and Stephen Warnock both saying it wasn't even a yellow. I contrast this with the recent surreal red given to Robbo for just seeking to use his arms for balance and I despair.

StT.
<><

[The Campaign for the Real Laws of the Game]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blue matt

IMPEDING THE PROGRESS OF AN OPPONENT WITHOUT CONTACT

A player may shield the ball by taking a position between an opponent and the ball if the ball is within playing distance and the opponent is not held off with the arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent.


so the ball needs to be within playing distance to shepherd the ball out :thumbup: but when a playing is running, they are in play and heading to the ball, its a rule thats always tough to call

---

Load of bollox. I think I’ve mentioned this before, but there’s an edition of the Big Match Revisited from about 1978 where a Chelsea player does what we see every week these days and obstructs (I prefer that word to “shepherds”) a Man City player as the ball is going out for a goal kick and the ref gives Man City a free kick and books the Chelsea player - rather than slating the decision, the commentator is very matter of fact about the whole thing and carries on as if nothing untoward has happened.

That’s because, by the standards of the time, nothing strange had happened (that said, maybe a booking was a bit over the top). In the last forty five years or so, there has been a 180 degree turnaround in the way this situation has been officiated with the defending team benefiting now when it used to favour the attacking one - surely, that’s wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman

Probably on account of the fact that he wasn’t offside.

---

Think you’re probably right, the staggering figure of Siopis, giddy after being turned inside out and then back again was probably playing the Millwall player onside.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

Load of bollox. I think I’ve mentioned this before, but there’s an edition of the Big Match Revisited from about 1978 where a Chelsea player does what we see every week these days and obstructs (I prefer that word to “shepherds”) a Man City player as the ball is going out for a goal kick and the ref gives Man City a free kick and books the Chelsea player - rather than slating the decision, the commentator is very matter of fact about the whole thing and carries on as if nothing untoward has happened.

That’s because, by the standards of the time, nothing strange had happened (that said, maybe a booking was a bit over the top). In the last forty five years or so, there has been a 180 degree turnaround in the way this situation has been officiated with the defending team benefiting now when it used to favour the attacking one - surely, that’s wrong?

---

Is the defender just supposed to get out of the way though and allow the attacking player the ball? The same could be said of the old traditional no 9 shielging the ball, holding the ball up while pinning the central defender, jut waiting for an option, a runner etc. That's obstruction as well, although i'd call it good play, strong, intelligent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuerto

Is the defender just supposed to get out of the way though and allow the attacking player the ball? The same could be said of the old traditional no 9 shielging the ball, holding the ball up while pinning the central defender, jut waiting for an option, a runner etc. That's obstruction as well, although i'd call it good play, strong, intelligent.

---

The defender is trying to stop the game - unless the attacker is trying to buy a free kick, they’re trying to keep the ball in play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve the Tea

Bob, there has been a deliberate policy over several decades to chip away and change the Laws of the Game into rules. Where once decisions were made on fact (handball and offside were prime examples of this) now there are so many sub-clauses to consider that decisions are now based on opinion. The advent of VAR is a second level of this opinion based decision making.

We have gone so far away from the reason for the Laws of the Game that decisions have become arbitrary and almost meaningless.

Goalkeepers waste far more time with the ball now than then ever did before the back pass rules were brought it.

Could you imagine what Brian Clough would make of a centre half passing the ball to a goalkeeper within the 6 yd box for a goal kick? Or a kick off passed back to a goalkeeper?

StT.
<><

[The Campaign for the Re-instatement of The Laws of the Game ... TCftRoTLotG]

PS: A shorter title would be appreciated.

---

Brian Clough would probably be the most likely manager of that era to approve of a short goal kick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman

Probably on account of the fact that he wasn’t offside.

---

My recollection was that he was partly infront of the defender. I didn't think the player was clearly on-side. I could be wrong,

StT.
<><

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

Brian Clough would probably be the most likely manager of that era to approve of a short goal kick.

---

The thought of seeing defenders like Larry Lloyd and Kenny Burns receiving a goal kick from the goal keeper near their 6 yd line would probably have resulted in Clough retorting, "Get rid of it sonny." Sadly, lardy, we'll never know.

StT.
<><

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve the Tea

My recollection was that he was partly infront of the defender. I didn't think the player was clearly on-side. I could be wrong

---

I've just watched the highlights again and froze the frame where the second goal was struck. In fact, there were no less than three City men playing the Millwall guy onside (Goutas, Siopis and Rinomhota). They were all to the keeper's right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

The defender is trying to stop the game - unless the attacker is trying to buy a free kick, they’re trying to keep the ball in play.

---

I see it differently, the defender is protecting the ball and seeing it out. That's why i think officials allow it to happen, and more importantly, you don't see the players kicking up a fuss about it really, unless it's injury time and they're chasing a goal. There are plenty of unwritten 'Rules' in a competitive football match, and rightly so in my opinion, because the official would end up blowing his whistle every thirty seconds if they didn't exist. Every corner would result in a penalty,every deliberate contact would end up with a free kick, thus stopping the game and making it less entertaining. I believe in more power for officials to referee the game as they see fit, and for players to bend the rules as far as they can in order to get an advantage, it's not just football that equates to, but probably all levels of high level professionalism. There's nothing wrong with getting your body between the ball and the opposing player in my opinion, and the defender has absolutely no obligation in letting the attacking player have the ball, and that's accepted on the field of play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuerto

I see it differently, the defender is protecting the ball and seeing it out. That's why i think officials allow it to happen, and more importantly, you don't see the players kicking up a fuss about it really, unless it's injury time and they're chasing a goal. There are plenty of unwritten 'Rules' in a competitive football match, and rightly so in my opinion, because the official would end up blowing his whistle every thirty seconds if they didn't exist. Every corner would result in a penalty,every deliberate contact would end up with a free kick, thus stopping the game and making it less entertaining. I believe in more power for officials to referee the game as they see fit, and for players to bend the rules as far as they can in order to get an advantage, it's not just football that equates to, but probably all levels of high level professionalism. There's nothing wrong with getting your body between the ball and the opposing player in my opinion, and the defender has absolutely no obligation in letting the attacking player have the ball, and that's accepted on the field of play.

---

Your one sentence, ‘Every corner would end up a penalty’, why not? Perhaps it would at first but hopefully defenders would get the message that assaulting their opponent in the box would result in a spot kick. Anyone else remember that midweek League Cup tie at Anfield a few years back? Their centre back, Skrtel, was assaulting Darren Purse on every occasion, it was plain as day. If a pen had been given first off it may have curtailed him. Instead he was given carte blanche to do as he liked. It’s wrong, and that spoils the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by splott parker

Your one sentence, ‘Every corner would end up a penalty’, why not? Perhaps it would at first but hopefully defenders would get the message that assaulting their opponent in the box would result in a spot kick. Anyone else remember that midweek League Cup tie at Anfield a few years back? Their centre back, Skrtel, was assaulting Darren Purse on every occasion, it was plain as day. If a pen had been given first off it may have curtailed him. Instead he was given carte blanche to do as he liked. It’s wrong, and that spoils the game.

---

:thumbup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by splott parker

Your one sentence, ‘Every corner would end up a penalty’, why not? Perhaps it would at first but hopefully defenders would get the message that assaulting their opponent in the box would result in a spot kick. Anyone else remember that midweek League Cup tie at Anfield a few years back? Their centre back, Skrtel, was assaulting Darren Purse on every occasion, it was plain as day. If a pen had been given first off it may have curtailed him. Instead he was given carte blanche to do as he liked. It’s wrong, and that spoils the game.

---

The game has changed, take a look at a corner from 30 years ago compared to now, there isn't the contact, movement and numbers we see now, and there has always been contact at set pieces, it's impossible for there not to be. Do we really want a game where every little pull, push, arse into players is penalised, because i don't, it would ruin the game, and i'm not talking blatant fouls like the one we saw Tanner commit on Darling for the Goutas goal against the jacks, that should have been a free kick, but he got away with it, good, more power to Tanner. I can't recall you or Bob having a problem with that one. Consistency boys, as we say about referees....... :hehe: :thumbup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman

I've just watched the highlights again and froze the frame where the second goal was struck. In fact, there were no less than three City men playing the Millwall guy onside (Goutas, Siopis and Rinomhota). They were all to the keeper's right.

---

Glad its sorted.

StT.
<><

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuerto

The game has changed, take a look at a corner from 30 years ago compared to now, there isn't the contact, movement and numbers we see now, and there has always been contact at set pieces, it's impossible for there not to be. Do we really want a game where every little pull, push, arse into players is penalised, because i don't, it would ruin the game, and i'm not talking blatant fouls like the one we saw Tanner commit on Darling for the Goutas goal against the jacks, that should have been a free kick, but he got away with it, good, more power to Tanner. I can't recall you or Bob having a problem with that one. Consistency boys, as we say about referees....... :hehe: :thumbup:

---

I didn’t have a problem with Goutas’ goal because you know full well there were plenty of other fouls taking place at the same time. If referees started giving penalties every time they saw any sort of foul being committed by a defender, there’d be ructions for a while, but soon defenders would be told by managers to actually start defending rather than rely on their wrestling talent. Attackers would, of course, look to take advantage of any clampdown on defenders, but if defenders were not so intent on committing fouls themselves, instances of cheating by forwards would be a lot easier to spot.

I’ve seen defending of the type you talk about from thirty years ago being described as a lost art and I tend to agree - the modern game is better than the one I grew up with in so many ways, but I’m not sure that defending has improved much - by that I mean things like good, clean tackling, positioning and anticipation.

The defender faced with the ball slowly running out for a goal kick should have to show defensive ability in getting out of an awkward position, not just park himself in front of the opponent in a manner they wouldn’t be allowed to do in other areas of the pitch.

When I read debates like this I wonder how many people in favor would be on here complaining about the referee breaking up the game/not letting things flow/making it all about him if the game was actually called like they are asking for. OK, eventually players might adapt but do we really want to watch a game with a whistle every 30 seconds for a few years until it happens? Just listen to the crowds reaction when the ref takes a little bit of time to try to sort out some of the shenanigans that happen at a corner these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

I didn’t have a problem with Goutas’ goal because you know full well there were plenty of other fouls taking place at the same time. If referees started giving penalties every time they saw any sort of foul being committed by a defender, there’d be ructions for a while, but soon defenders would be told by managers to actually start defending rather than rely on their wrestling talent. Attackers would, of course, look to take advantage of any clampdown on defenders, but if defenders were not so intent on committing fouls themselves, instances of cheating by forwards would be a lot easier to spot.

I’ve seen defending of the type you talk about from thirty years ago being described as a lost art and I tend to agree - the modern game is better than the one I grew up with in so many ways, but I’m not sure that defending has improved much - by that I mean things like good, clean tackling, positioning and anticipation.

The defender faced with the ball slowly running out for a goal kick should have to show defensive ability in getting out of an awkward position, not just park himself in front of the opponent in a manner they wouldn’t be allowed to do in other areas of the pitch.

---

I disagree with you on the subject matter, but that's fine, your argument is legitimate and worthy in my opinion and it makes sense, i just don't think it's achievable and we probably do see te game differently, and that's how it should be. As for defending, i tend to agree. My opinion on central defenders playing the ball out from the back has changed somewhat (Fullbacks and wingbacks have always done it) because a fair amount of them have no business being on the ball on the majority of occasions, never mind when they're being pressed. They're central defenders for a reason, they'd have started up front ot in midfield, realised that they couldn't play and ended up at the back........ :hehe: That's an old gits view on it, but i'm not changing my mind..... :thumbup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LA Bluebird

When I read debates like this I wonder how many people in favor would be on here complaining about the referee breaking up the game/not letting things flow/making it all about him if the game was actually called like they are asking for. OK, eventually players might adapt but do we really want to watch a game with a whistle every 30 seconds for a few years until it happens? Just listen to the crowds reaction when the ref takes a little bit of time to try to sort out some of the shenanigans that happen at a corner these days.

---

Don’t try and sort things out, just give a penalty - it would take much less than a few years for a better game to emerge if we didn’t have to go through the current farce where no one takes any notice of what the ref says when he holds up the game yet again before allowing a corner to be taken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LA Bluebird

When I read debates like this I wonder how many people in favor would be on here complaining about the referee breaking up the game/not letting things flow/making it all about him if the game was actually called like they are asking for. OK, eventually players might adapt but do we really want to watch a game with a whistle every 30 seconds for a few years until it happens? Just listen to the crowds reaction when the ref takes a little bit of time to try to sort out some of the shenanigans that happen at a corner these days.

---

That's pretty much my take on it as well. And i don't mind a bit of clever fouling, but that's just me, i understand why people find that odd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

Don’t try and sort things out, just give a penalty - it would take much less than a few years for a better game to emerge if we didn’t have to go through the current farce where no one takes any notice of what the ref says when he holds up the game yet again before allowing a corner to be taken.

---

OK, so in theory then next season game one we have a game where City lose 6-4 in a game with 10 penalties and obstruction/fouling being called exactly to the rulebook, leading to fouls and stoppages being tripled and a massive decrease in open play. That's something you are perfectly fine with and more importantly you think that is something that most paying City fans want to see?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LA Bluebird

When I read debates like this I wonder how many people in favor would be on here complaining about the referee breaking up the game/not letting things flow/making it all about him if the game was actually called like they are asking for. OK, eventually players might adapt but do we really want to watch a game with a whistle every 30 seconds for a few years until it happens? Just listen to the crowds reaction when the ref takes a little bit of time to try to sort out some of the shenanigans that happen at a corner these days.

---

You’re bang on. Fans are incredibly one-eyed these days where officials are concerned and the amount of stick referees and linesmen get at games, on forums like this and in the media is just ludicrous as far as I’m concerned.

It’s something that seems to have increased significantly in recent years. I noticed the difference at the CCS as soon as I became a season ticket holder again in 2022 after a ten-year break. Barely a challenge gets made against a City player these days without fans howling for a free kick or demanding a yellow card no matter how clean the challenge was. While it’s genuinely comical at times, it irritates me more often than not because it’s just so stupid. Meanwhile, almost every match thread will contain complaints about the officials and claims they are the worst we’ve had this season or ever.

Referees and linesmen have always been given stick, but not like it is these days. Fans seem to ignore the glaringly obvious - the fact that almost all professional players are now cheats to a greater or lesser degree. Going to ground after the slightest contact (or no contact at all), feigning injury, continual shirt pulling, blatant time wasting - they all do it, and it’s apparently considered to be OK if one of your team is the guilty party.

The officials have a genuinely thankless task. I’m amazed anyone wants to become a referee in this day and age.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuerto

I disagree with you on the subject matter, but that's fine, your argument is legitimate and worthy in my opinion and it makes sense, i just don't think it's achievable and we probably do see te game differently, and that's how it should be. As for defending, i tend to agree. My opinion on central defenders playing the ball out from the back has changed somewhat (Fullbacks and wingbacks have always done it) because a fair amount of them have no business being on the ball on the majority of occasions, never mind when they're being pressed. They're central defenders for a reason, they'd have started up front ot in midfield, realised that they couldn't play and ended up at the back........ :hehe: That's an old gits view on it, but i'm not changing my mind..... :thumbup:

---

Agree about playing out from the back by Centre backs. I like seeing it done well and it can be very effective when it works, but how many of the ninety two sides in the four divisions are capable of doing it consistently and effectively over the course of a season? I’d say five or six maybe (and even theyd have the occasional disaster), yet it often seems like all of them think they can do it time after time in every game they play! The huge majority of those clubs would have to admit that playing out from the back using Centre backs has been counter productive if they carried out a truly objective “audit” of its use through the course of a season.

If Middlesbrough lose out on a play off spot by a point come the end of the season, they can put it down to the farcical winning goal they conceded on Saturday on the alter of the hallowed playing out from the back.

https://www.skysports.com/football/v...hip-highlights

https://youtu.be/VT5Tzo7V9eg?si=Dg031HmVDPt3Kw9G

I was watching Bridgend St and our ‘keeper had it in his head that he should be short passing to his defenders until one extremely loudly shouted at him ‘F*ck Off’ :hehe:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuerto

The game has changed, take a look at a corner from 30 years ago compared to now, there isn't the contact, movement and numbers we see now, and there has always been contact at set pieces, it's impossible for there not to be. Do we really want a game where every little pull, push, arse into players is penalised, because i don't, it would ruin the game, and i'm not talking blatant fouls like the one we saw Tanner commit on Darling for the Goutas goal against the jacks, that should have been a free kick, but he got away with it, good, more power to Tanner. I can't recall you or Bob having a problem with that one. Consistency boys, as we say about referees....... :hehe: :thumbup:

---

The laws on fouling, I’m sure, haven’t been changed, tolerance has but the offence hasn’t, mores the pity.