Snide/Unsportsman Conduct in our game

[VincentGuerin]

Footballers, football coaches, and football fans are all dicks.

Cheating and grubby behaviour will never go away, the only team who doesn't cheat are Hearts, but the rest of you do it and we need to accept that. But it doesn't need to be as shite as it is now.

Every now and then you see refs who wave up divers etc, but refs could make things much better by using the powers they have.

Book people consistently for diving, don't just wave them up.

Book people for blocking free-kicks being taken or for kicking the ball away. These things happen in every game, and referees could stop them tomorrow.

And the lack of respect for refs could be dealt with easily if refs just used their cards. Players would stop screaming and swearing in officials' faces if they were going to be sent off and get stick from their managers and teammates.

[Coventry Saint]

7 hours ago, Kapowzer said:

Fuelled by our game at the weekend where Joe Hart pulled a wideo.

Pretty sure that can't be true. Many Celtic fans were affronted at the 'anti football' we resorted to the other week, so I doubt they'd ever do it themselves.

 

I do generally love a bit of shithousery, especially when you're watching a game as a neutral.

Jim Goodwin was always the master of the subtle art of getting barely-perceptible digs in at players. Very difficult to spot and a joy to watch.

Spoiler

 

[BFTD]

8 hours ago, Kapowzer said:

• Players falling on the ball and committing a deliberate handball to force the referee's decision.

That one's always annoyed me, and I don't think I've ever seen anyone not get a free-kick after doing it. It's almost like a trip switch in a referee's mind that, well, he's gone down and grabbed the ball, so I take it that he must have been fouled, then.

[VincentGuerin]

4 minutes ago, BFTD said:

That one's always annoyed me, and I don't think I've ever seen anyone not get a free-kick after doing it. It's almost like a trip switch in a referee's mind that, well, he's gone down and grabbed the ball, so I take it that he must have been fouled, then.

I think it's just the path of least resistance.

It's easier to just give the foul and the game moves on than stop it, book someone for deliberate handball, face a much bigger fuss as his teammates shout about the foul they wanted etc.

Giving the foul is just easier. Same principle as why big teams get decisions the world over, or why defenders are rarely penalised for clear fouls when defending set-pieces but attackers are done if they put the slightest of arms on a defender. It's just the easy option.

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Hoose Rice said:

Oh fantastic.  Another Ryan Porteous thread.

Who are Motherwell playing at the weekend again?  

Nobody mentioned Porteous, it's almost as if you know he's a cheat so any mention of cheating the hibees dive in with two feet to defend Porteous even when he's nothing to do with the post.

[Thistle_do_nicely]

The one i really, genuinely dont like (admittedly if it goes in my teams favour it just leaves me chuckling/relieved) is long balls down a channel; attacker and defender both going after ball; defender "gets their body between the ball and the attacker".

All ok up to that point, but if the attacking player so much as brushes a finger against the defender, they go down (sometimes theatrically, with a scream etc or as per the OP theyll grab the ball to force the refs hand) and the ref will give a free kick.

The closer it gets to the corner flag, the more likely the defender is to get a foul, for some reason.

I think the frustrating thing is that the attacking player is at such a huge disadvantage even if they're genuinely, visibly doing their best *not* to give away a foul, whereas the defender gets rewarded for being a shithouse with no intention of doing anything other than "winning" a free kick.

Edited October 6, 2022 by Thistle_do_nicely

[stressball]

Allan McGregor

 

/thread

[Richey Edwards]

8 hours ago, Kapowzer said:

 

• Suarez's handball in the world cup and ensuing missed penalty. To be fair FIFA did punish him retrospectively but no consolation for Ghana.

 

If the ball is heading towards the goal and a player handles it to prevent a goal, the goal should be awarded IMO. 

There should be no penalty as that gives the offending player's team the chance to prevent a goal that they don't deserve to be able to prevent.

[Alert Mongoose]

14 minutes ago, Coventry Saint said:

Pretty sure that can't be true. Many Celtic fans were affronted at the 'anti football' we resorted to the other week, so I doubt they'd ever do it themselves.

 

I do generally love a bit of shithousery, especially when you're watching a game as a neutral.

Jim Goodwin was always the master of the subtle art of getting barely-perceptible digs in at players. Very difficult to spot and a joy to watch.

  Hide contents

 

I've just been asked if I'm okay in the morning teams meeting. Must have been outwardly triggered rather than just seething on in the inside.

[VincentGuerin]

4 minutes ago, Thistle_do_nicely said:

The one i really, genuinely dont like (admittedly if it goes in my teams favour it just leaves me chuckling/relieved) is long balls down a channel; attacker and defender both going after ball; defender "gets their body between the ball and the attacker".

All ok up to that point, but if the attacking player so much as brushes a finger against the defender, they go down (sometimes theatrically, with a scream etc or as per the OP theyll grab the ball to force the refs hand) and the ref will give a free kick.

The closer it gets to the corner flag, the more likely the defender is to get a foul, for some reason.

I think the frustrating thing is that the attacking player is at such a huge disadvantage even if they're genuinely, visibly doing their best *not* to give away a foul, whereas the defender gets rewarded for being a shithouse with no intention of doing anything other than "winning" a free kick.

I think that falls into the easy option reference I made above.

Give a defender a foul and there's a wee grumble for a second, but ultimately nobody really remembers it. Allow play to continue, the attackers score, and you could have days of pundits pouring over the replay debating whether it was a foul or not.

Easy option, free-kick to the defender.

[Sergeant Wilson]

35 minutes ago, invergowrie arab said:

Shithousery is brilliant.

Sadly in Scotland we never advanced to the level of  stabbing each other with hat pins and our world cup record is there for all to see.

The best we can seem to manage is stealin yairds and placing the ball slightly outside the corner quadrant. 

A guy I worked with played Junior and claimed to have taken a pin on with him to stab people jostling at corners.

Less subtly, he threw a bin at spectators.

[kingjoey]

52 minutes ago, Alert Mongoose said:

Maybe the one where the 'keeper holds on to it for ages before kicking. I've absolutely no idea if the six second law still applies?

This really, really gets to me. It is still in the Laws Of The Game and it is never, ever, ever applied. Why is it there? Just make it 15 seconds and be done with it.

[craigkillie]

13 minutes ago, Thistle_do_nicely said:

The one i really, genuinely dont like (admittedly if it goes in my teams favour it just leaves me chuckling/relieved) is long balls down a channel; attacker and defender both going after ball; defender "gets their body between the ball and the attacker".

All ok up to that point, but if the attacking player so much as brushes a finger against the defender, they go down (sometimes theatrically, with a scream etc or as per the OP theyll grab the ball to force the refs hand) and the ref will give a free kick.

The closer it gets to the corner flag, the more likely the defender is to get a foul, for some reason.

I think the frustrating thing is that the attacking player is at such a huge disadvantage even if they're genuinely, visibly doing their best *not* to give away a foul, whereas the defender gets rewarded for being a shithouse with no intention of doing anything other than "winning" a free kick.

It's more that the defender is goalside and closer to the ball. You can swap the players round and the forward will most likely get a foul if they go down.

Edited October 6, 2022 by craigkillie

[craigkillie]

4 minutes ago, kingjoey said:

This really, really gets to me. It is still in the Laws Of The Game and it is never, ever, ever applied. Why is it there? Just make it 15 seconds and be done with it.

Because if it wasn't there then a goalkeeper could legitimately hold on to the ball for the entirety of the half if his side were 1-0 up. The law is purely there as a deterrent against timewasting, if you made it 15 seconds then keepers would hold on to the ball even longer.

This requirement for everything to be interpreted so literally is exactly what led us down the horrible path to VAR.

[BFTD]

12 minutes ago, Thistle_do_nicely said:

The one i really, genuinely dont like (admittedly if it goes in my teams favour it just leaves me chuckling/relieved) is long balls down a channel; attacker and defender both going after ball; defender "gets their body between the ball and the attacker".

All ok up to that point, but if the attacking player so much as brushes a finger against the defender, they go down (sometimes theatrically, with a scream etc or as per the OP theyll grab the ball to force the refs hand) and the ref will give a free kick.

The closer it gets to the corner flag, the more likely the defender is to get a foul, for some reason.

I think the frustrating thing is that the attacking player is at such a huge disadvantage even if they're genuinely, visibly doing their best *not* to give away a foul, whereas the defender gets rewarded for being a shithouse with no intention of doing anything other than "winning" a free kick.

Made all the more funny/frustrating when the ball doesn't quite go out of play, and the defender is left standing over the ball doing a "you shall not pass!" with no attempt made to kick it themselves.

[invergowrie arab]

17 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

A guy I worked with played Junior and claimed to have taken a pin on with him to stab people jostling at corners.

Less subtly, he threw a bin at spectators.

I imagine his opponents took with good grace and a chuckle 

[Kapowzer]

I’d add another, this is one that has crept in the last few years. Players trying to place the ball on the very extremity of the corner arc, like the extra cm or the makes the slightest difference. All that ends up is the linesman hovering over it, moving a bawhair back and 10 seconds gone.

I’d be in favour in a ball in play countdown clock what is at present about 30 mins a half? I suspect Alex Ferguson is not.

Edited October 6, 2022 by Kapowzer

[kingjoey]

22 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

Because if it wasn't there then a goalkeeper could legitimately hold on to the ball for the entirety of the half if his side were 1-0 up. The law is purely there as a deterrent against timewasting, if you made it 15 seconds then keepers would hold on to the ball even longer.

This requirement for everything to be interpreted so literally is exactly what led us down the horrible path to VAR.

It wasn't a serious question, as I obviously realise that there has to be a time limit. 

[jagfox]

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2004/feb/03/europeanfootball.sport

Digital penetration is a step too far imo.

[Sergeant Wilson]

22 minutes ago, invergowrie arab said:

I imagine his opponents took with good grace and a chuckle 

His theory was that the sudden blinding pain was difficult to identify in the heat of the moment. He, presumably, would  look innocent and hold his arms out, pleading innocence.