On February 20 2014 08:24 MaGic~PhiL wrote: Maybe they should change the rules indeed? Just a yellow? Or no red if its the goalkeeper? Dont know..
I mean the rule makes sense but then again its pretty devastating..
The rule is brutal but makes a lot of sense.. imho yellow + one goal on the board, no penalty, would be much better for the remaining game
People don't want to see free goals awarded, they want to see the ball actually go in. Really, I don't even understand why this is being argued, it's not like we haven't seen what happens without this rule. The rule was changed maybe 20-25 years ago, anyone old enough will remember, it was and is a very very good change.
If fans don't want to see these kind of cards, then coaches should tell their players to be a bit more careful when they're the last man.
By the way, if those of you who are younger haven't seen what the game was like in general, before FIFA said "enough is enough" and decided to change the rules to protect attacking players for the good of the game. Here's a little reminder:
In this game Gentile committed 23 fouls against Maradona, with many more that weren't called. All he got was a yellow card.
The red card + penalty has nothing to do with protecting attacking players, a reckless challenge is a reckless challenge and is a red card regardless of position. The red card rule for a goalscoring opportunity was introduced to prevent defenders or goalkeepers from taking out a player who was bound for goal. The corresponding penalty however is only a consequence of the position where the foul is being committed, there is no different rule.
I personally would much rather have a goal awarded btw. People do not want to see free goals, but they do not want to see a potentially great match ruined by a red card + penalty. A free goal is the lesser of two evils.
How old are you? I'm serious, were you watching the game before these rule changes? Do you remember when they changed and how they affected the game when they changed?
On February 20 2014 08:24 MaGic~PhiL wrote: Maybe they should change the rules indeed? Just a yellow? Or no red if its the goalkeeper? Dont know..
I mean the rule makes sense but then again its pretty devastating..
The rule is brutal but makes a lot of sense.. imho yellow + one goal on the board, no penalty, would be much better for the remaining game
People don't want to see free goals awarded, they want to see the ball actually go in. Really, I don't even understand why this is being argued, it's not like we haven't seen what happens without this rule. The rule was changed maybe 20-25 years ago, anyone old enough will remember, it was and is a very very good change.
If fans don't want to see these kind of cards, then coaches should tell their players to be a bit more careful when they're the last man.
By the way, if those of you who are younger haven't seen what the game was like in general, before FIFA said "enough is enough" and decided to change the rules to protect attacking players for the good of the game. Here's a little reminder:
In this game Gentile committed 23 fouls against Maradona, with many more that weren't called. All he got was a yellow card.
The red card + penalty has nothing to do with protecting attacking players, a reckless challenge is a reckless challenge and is a red card regardless of position. The red card rule for a goalscoring opportunity was introduced to prevent defenders or goalkeepers from taking out a player who was bound for goal. The corresponding penalty however is only a consequence of the position where the foul is being committed, there is no different rule.
I personally would much rather have a goal awarded btw. People do not want to see free goals, but they do not want to see a potentially great match ruined by a red card + penalty. A free goal is the lesser of two evils.
How old are you? I'm serious, were you watching the game before these rule changes? Do you remember when they changed and how they affected the game when they changed?
Stop patronizing. Nobody is arguing about the change to the red card system, we are arguing about the double whammy which is a penalty + red card.
edit: You know it's not even a double whammy. It's a red card + penalty + 1 match suspension for a challenge for the ball where Robben's first touch is too brilliant for Szchesny.
For me that is not a reckless challenge because you can see he tries to get out of the way but it is impossible. He goes into a ball basically by the time of contact. Also if the keeper gets their first it would not of been a penalty imo. But none of that happened so
On February 20 2014 08:24 MaGic~PhiL wrote: Maybe they should change the rules indeed? Just a yellow? Or no red if its the goalkeeper? Dont know..
I mean the rule makes sense but then again its pretty devastating..
The rule is brutal but makes a lot of sense.. imho yellow + one goal on the board, no penalty, would be much better for the remaining game
People don't want to see free goals awarded, they want to see the ball actually go in. Really, I don't even understand why this is being argued, it's not like we haven't seen what happens without this rule. The rule was changed maybe 20-25 years ago, anyone old enough will remember, it was and is a very very good change.
If fans don't want to see these kind of cards, then coaches should tell their players to be a bit more careful when they're the last man.
By the way, if those of you who are younger haven't seen what the game was like in general, before FIFA said "enough is enough" and decided to change the rules to protect attacking players for the good of the game. Here's a little reminder:
In this game Gentile committed 23 fouls against Maradona, with many more that weren't called. All he got was a yellow card.
The red card + penalty has nothing to do with protecting attacking players, a reckless challenge is a reckless challenge and is a red card regardless of position. The red card rule for a goalscoring opportunity was introduced to prevent defenders or goalkeepers from taking out a player who was bound for goal. The corresponding penalty however is only a consequence of the position where the foul is being committed, there is no different rule.
I personally would much rather have a goal awarded btw. People do not want to see free goals, but they do not want to see a potentially great match ruined by a red card + penalty. A free goal is the lesser of two evils.
How old are you? I'm serious, were you watching the game before these rule changes? Do you remember when they changed and how they affected the game when they changed?
Stop patronizing. Nobody is arguing about the change to the red card system, we are arguing about the double whammy which is a penalty + red card.
The thing with the double penalty is that it is a "set" rule in a situation that can be very different depending on the situation. Yesterday it "killed" a great game yes but remember the World Cup 2010 Ro8 between Ghana and Uruguay. Suarez saved them there with taking the red card, imagine this situation with a penalty and just a yellow card. It wouldn´t be enough of a punishment.
If you exclude the "last man = red card" from things that happens in the box you could invite some plays that would be ugly but make sense in situations to give your goalkeeper at least a shot at it.
On February 20 2014 08:24 MaGic~PhiL wrote: Maybe they should change the rules indeed? Just a yellow? Or no red if its the goalkeeper? Dont know..
I mean the rule makes sense but then again its pretty devastating..
The rule is brutal but makes a lot of sense.. imho yellow + one goal on the board, no penalty, would be much better for the remaining game
People don't want to see free goals awarded, they want to see the ball actually go in. Really, I don't even understand why this is being argued, it's not like we haven't seen what happens without this rule. The rule was changed maybe 20-25 years ago, anyone old enough will remember, it was and is a very very good change.
If fans don't want to see these kind of cards, then coaches should tell their players to be a bit more careful when they're the last man.
By the way, if those of you who are younger haven't seen what the game was like in general, before FIFA said "enough is enough" and decided to change the rules to protect attacking players for the good of the game. Here's a little reminder:
In this game Gentile committed 23 fouls against Maradona, with many more that weren't called. All he got was a yellow card.
The red card + penalty has nothing to do with protecting attacking players, a reckless challenge is a reckless challenge and is a red card regardless of position. The red card rule for a goalscoring opportunity was introduced to prevent defenders or goalkeepers from taking out a player who was bound for goal. The corresponding penalty however is only a consequence of the position where the foul is being committed, there is no different rule.
I personally would much rather have a goal awarded btw. People do not want to see free goals, but they do not want to see a potentially great match ruined by a red card + penalty. A free goal is the lesser of two evils.
How old are you? I'm serious, were you watching the game before these rule changes? Do you remember when they changed and how they affected the game when they changed?
Stop patronizing. Nobody is arguing about the change to the red card system, we are arguing about the double whammy which is a penalty + red card.
The thing with the double penalty is that it is a "set" rule in a situation that can be very different depending on the situation. Yesterday it "killed" a great game yes but remember the World Cup 2010 Ro8 between Ghana and Uruguay. Suarez saved them there with taking the red card, imagine this situation with a penalty and just a yellow card. It wouldn´t be enough of a punishment.
If you exclude the "last man = red card" from things that happens in the box you could invite some plays that would be ugly but make sense in situations to give your goalkeeper at least a shot at it.
Yeah, a yellow card then wouldn't have worked. It really is a very tough rule to be honest,
On February 20 2014 08:24 MaGic~PhiL wrote: Maybe they should change the rules indeed? Just a yellow? Or no red if its the goalkeeper? Dont know..
I mean the rule makes sense but then again its pretty devastating..
The rule is brutal but makes a lot of sense.. imho yellow + one goal on the board, no penalty, would be much better for the remaining game
People don't want to see free goals awarded, they want to see the ball actually go in. Really, I don't even understand why this is being argued, it's not like we haven't seen what happens without this rule. The rule was changed maybe 20-25 years ago, anyone old enough will remember, it was and is a very very good change.
If fans don't want to see these kind of cards, then coaches should tell their players to be a bit more careful when they're the last man.
By the way, if those of you who are younger haven't seen what the game was like in general, before FIFA said "enough is enough" and decided to change the rules to protect attacking players for the good of the game. Here's a little reminder:
In this game Gentile committed 23 fouls against Maradona, with many more that weren't called. All he got was a yellow card.
The red card + penalty has nothing to do with protecting attacking players, a reckless challenge is a reckless challenge and is a red card regardless of position. The red card rule for a goalscoring opportunity was introduced to prevent defenders or goalkeepers from taking out a player who was bound for goal. The corresponding penalty however is only a consequence of the position where the foul is being committed, there is no different rule.
I personally would much rather have a goal awarded btw. People do not want to see free goals, but they do not want to see a potentially great match ruined by a red card + penalty. A free goal is the lesser of two evils.
How old are you? I'm serious, were you watching the game before these rule changes? Do you remember when they changed and how they affected the game when they changed?
Stop patronizing. Nobody is arguing about the change to the red card system, we are arguing about the double whammy which is a penalty + red card.
edit: You know it's not even a double whammy. It's a red card + penalty + 1 match suspension for a challenge for the ball where Robben's first touch is too brilliant for Szchesny.
In other words you're too young to have been watching football before the rules were changed, and don't remember how games used to play out before that. OK. They changed them for a reason.
On February 20 2014 18:23 Pandemona wrote: For me that is not a reckless challenge because you can see he tries to get out of the way but it is impossible. He goes into a ball basically by the time of contact. Also if the keeper gets their first it would not of been a penalty imo. But none of that happened so
It's a flying knee to Robben's shin, when all of his weight is on that leg, in a challenge that completely misses the ball. If this happened in a different position, people would be arguing if it should be a yellow or a straight red, but because the GK did it, they say it wasn't reckless.
On February 20 2014 08:24 MaGic~PhiL wrote: Maybe they should change the rules indeed? Just a yellow? Or no red if its the goalkeeper? Dont know..
I mean the rule makes sense but then again its pretty devastating..
The rule is brutal but makes a lot of sense.. imho yellow + one goal on the board, no penalty, would be much better for the remaining game
People don't want to see free goals awarded, they want to see the ball actually go in. Really, I don't even understand why this is being argued, it's not like we haven't seen what happens without this rule. The rule was changed maybe 20-25 years ago, anyone old enough will remember, it was and is a very very good change.
If fans don't want to see these kind of cards, then coaches should tell their players to be a bit more careful when they're the last man.
By the way, if those of you who are younger haven't seen what the game was like in general, before FIFA said "enough is enough" and decided to change the rules to protect attacking players for the good of the game. Here's a little reminder:
In this game Gentile committed 23 fouls against Maradona, with many more that weren't called. All he got was a yellow card.
The red card + penalty has nothing to do with protecting attacking players, a reckless challenge is a reckless challenge and is a red card regardless of position. The red card rule for a goalscoring opportunity was introduced to prevent defenders or goalkeepers from taking out a player who was bound for goal. The corresponding penalty however is only a consequence of the position where the foul is being committed, there is no different rule.
I personally would much rather have a goal awarded btw. People do not want to see free goals, but they do not want to see a potentially great match ruined by a red card + penalty. A free goal is the lesser of two evils.
How old are you? I'm serious, were you watching the game before these rule changes? Do you remember when they changed and how they affected the game when they changed?
Stop patronizing. Nobody is arguing about the change to the red card system, we are arguing about the double whammy which is a penalty + red card.
edit: You know it's not even a double whammy. It's a red card + penalty + 1 match suspension for a challenge for the ball where Robben's first touch is too brilliant for Szchesny.
In other words you're too young to have been watching football before the rules were changed, and don't remember how games used to play out before that. OK. They changed them for a reason.
You do realize that up until the late 90s we still have ROUGH football all over the world and wasn't until UEFA and FIFA presidents decided to get stupidly strict on everything that it changed. Hence the reason some people think the likes of Pele and Maradonna have another reason to be called better players than Messi and Ronaldo due to they did all they did whilst being kicked the living shit out of them xD I don't understand what 1970s tackles has to do with anything in this debate though? I mean there is still a gulf in decisions that are made in England to those made in Spain due to the different interpretations and cultures of the game. However in Europe it is a level playing field so again pointless debate no?
On February 20 2014 18:23 Pandemona wrote: For me that is not a reckless challenge because you can see he tries to get out of the way but it is impossible. He goes into a ball basically by the time of contact. Also if the keeper gets their first it would not of been a penalty imo. But none of that happened so
It's a flying knee to Robben's shin, when all of his weight is on that leg, in a challenge that completely misses the ball. If this happened in a different position, people would be arguing if it should be a yellow or a straight red, but because the GK did it, they say it wasn't reckless.
Flying knee? Thats how he is landing because of the way he scrunches up into a ball knowing he isn't getting their first. He tries to get into a ball to probably not make contact with him. A reckless challenge is when you try to win the ball with a challenge that isn't 100% going to win you the ball and with some force? That is not what it looks like to me. The opposite in fact because the Arsenal keeper is fucking shite xD That tackle can't happen anywhere else because of the way the keeper dives for the ball. He is coming out, goes to dive on the ball realizes he won't get their first, scrunches up into a ball and falls into Robben. Result, Keeper is shit, deserves his red card and Bayern miss a penalty.
On February 20 2014 18:09 Craze wrote: I don't see why it needs to be a free goal. A penalty is probably a higher success rate than a 1 on 1 with a keeper on a breakaway with defenders closing in behind, that's a guess though. It should be a penalty and a yellow card, only red if it's reckless.
To those who disliked the game so much though can I ask why? You don't like seeing one team completely dominate, or one team "park the bus" and defend for their lives? I think the defensive mindset and playing down a man made for an enthralling match. In these matches I find myself more drawn to watching the defense maintain their shape and put in a crazy physical shift.
It was still some of the best quality football in the world.
Tactically both teams played a really good game. Bayern didn't need to risk pushing harder because they were winning their away match. Arsenal needed to defend no matter what to have a slight chance in the second match. BUT... after the amount of chances created during the first 15 minutes you have to feel that you were missing out on something due to the red card forcing a change in playstyle.
On February 20 2014 08:24 MaGic~PhiL wrote: Maybe they should change the rules indeed? Just a yellow? Or no red if its the goalkeeper? Dont know..
I mean the rule makes sense but then again its pretty devastating..
The rule is brutal but makes a lot of sense.. imho yellow + one goal on the board, no penalty, would be much better for the remaining game
People don't want to see free goals awarded, they want to see the ball actually go in. Really, I don't even understand why this is being argued, it's not like we haven't seen what happens without this rule. The rule was changed maybe 20-25 years ago, anyone old enough will remember, it was and is a very very good change.
If fans don't want to see these kind of cards, then coaches should tell their players to be a bit more careful when they're the last man.
By the way, if those of you who are younger haven't seen what the game was like in general, before FIFA said "enough is enough" and decided to change the rules to protect attacking players for the good of the game. Here's a little reminder:
In this game Gentile committed 23 fouls against Maradona, with many more that weren't called. All he got was a yellow card.
The red card + penalty has nothing to do with protecting attacking players, a reckless challenge is a reckless challenge and is a red card regardless of position. The red card rule for a goalscoring opportunity was introduced to prevent defenders or goalkeepers from taking out a player who was bound for goal. The corresponding penalty however is only a consequence of the position where the foul is being committed, there is no different rule.
I personally would much rather have a goal awarded btw. People do not want to see free goals, but they do not want to see a potentially great match ruined by a red card + penalty. A free goal is the lesser of two evils.
How old are you? I'm serious, were you watching the game before these rule changes? Do you remember when they changed and how they affected the game when they changed?
Stop patronizing. Nobody is arguing about the change to the red card system, we are arguing about the double whammy which is a penalty + red card.
edit: You know it's not even a double whammy. It's a red card + penalty + 1 match suspension for a challenge for the ball where Robben's first touch is too brilliant for Szchesny.
In other words you're too young to have been watching football before the rules were changed, and don't remember how games used to play out before that. OK. They changed them for a reason.
You do realize that up until the late 90s we still have ROUGH football all over the world and wasn't until UEFA and FIFA presidents decided to get stupidly strict on everything that it changed. Hence the reason some people think the likes of Pele and Maradonna have another reason to be called better players than Messi and Ronaldo due to they did all they did whilst being kicked the living shit out of them xD I don't understand what 1970s tackles has to do with anything in this debate though? I mean there is still a gulf in decisions that are made in England to those made in Spain due to the different interpretations and cultures of the game. However in Europe it is a level playing field so again pointless debate no?
The point is all these rule changes happened together and they came from the same place. They wanted to put an end to deliberate fouls ruining the game, inside and outside the box.
The red card on illegal moves to stop clear scoring chances, whether with a handball or a tackle was a welcome change by everyone when it happened. I remember me and my dad going "about damn time" when they made the change, because we had all seen so many games where teams were denied goals with cheap moves like this and it felt very unfair.
Naturally, if you make an illegal move inside the box, it also has to be a penalty. There are also plenty of examples of teams still getting an advantage by not conceding a goal, ending the game in a scoreless draw, even after a penalty + red card.
On February 20 2014 08:24 MaGic~PhiL wrote: Maybe they should change the rules indeed? Just a yellow? Or no red if its the goalkeeper? Dont know..
I mean the rule makes sense but then again its pretty devastating..
The rule is brutal but makes a lot of sense.. imho yellow + one goal on the board, no penalty, would be much better for the remaining game
People don't want to see free goals awarded, they want to see the ball actually go in. Really, I don't even understand why this is being argued, it's not like we haven't seen what happens without this rule. The rule was changed maybe 20-25 years ago, anyone old enough will remember, it was and is a very very good change.
If fans don't want to see these kind of cards, then coaches should tell their players to be a bit more careful when they're the last man.
By the way, if those of you who are younger haven't seen what the game was like in general, before FIFA said "enough is enough" and decided to change the rules to protect attacking players for the good of the game. Here's a little reminder:
In this game Gentile committed 23 fouls against Maradona, with many more that weren't called. All he got was a yellow card.
The red card + penalty has nothing to do with protecting attacking players, a reckless challenge is a reckless challenge and is a red card regardless of position. The red card rule for a goalscoring opportunity was introduced to prevent defenders or goalkeepers from taking out a player who was bound for goal. The corresponding penalty however is only a consequence of the position where the foul is being committed, there is no different rule.
I personally would much rather have a goal awarded btw. People do not want to see free goals, but they do not want to see a potentially great match ruined by a red card + penalty. A free goal is the lesser of two evils.
How old are you? I'm serious, were you watching the game before these rule changes? Do you remember when they changed and how they affected the game when they changed?
Stop patronizing. Nobody is arguing about the change to the red card system, we are arguing about the double whammy which is a penalty + red card.
edit: You know it's not even a double whammy. It's a red card + penalty + 1 match suspension for a challenge for the ball where Robben's first touch is too brilliant for Szchesny.
In other words you're too young to have been watching football before the rules were changed, and don't remember how games used to play out before that. OK. They changed them for a reason.
You do realize that up until the late 90s we still have ROUGH football all over the world and wasn't until UEFA and FIFA presidents decided to get stupidly strict on everything that it changed. Hence the reason some people think the likes of Pele and Maradonna have another reason to be called better players than Messi and Ronaldo due to they did all they did whilst being kicked the living shit out of them xD I don't understand what 1970s tackles has to do with anything in this debate though? I mean there is still a gulf in decisions that are made in England to those made in Spain due to the different interpretations and cultures of the game. However in Europe it is a level playing field so again pointless debate no?
The point is all these rule changes happened together and they came from the same place. They wanted to put an end to deliberate fouls ruining the game, inside and outside the box.
The red card on illegal moves to stop clear scoring chances, whether with a handball or a tackle was a welcome change by everyone when it happened. I remember me and my dad going "about damn time" when they made the change, because we had all seen so many games where teams were denied goals with cheap moves like this and it felt very unfair.
Naturally, if you make an illegal move inside the box, it also has to be a penalty. There are also plenty of examples of teams still getting an advantage by not conceding a goal, ending the game in a scoreless draw, even after a penalty + red card.
Yes but the game still wasn't purpose fouls back then, they were just fouls that were not deemed it so at the time. It's only now after rule changes and stricter refs can you look back and go "oh well in the 70s and 80s that was never a foul" or "players were a lot tougher back then" but you can also argue the game is 100% faster now to what is was back then and at fast speed more stuff can happen.
On February 20 2014 18:56 sitromit wrote: The point is all these rule changes happened together and they came from the same place. They wanted to put an end to deliberate fouls ruining the game, inside and outside the box.
The red card on illegal moves to stop clear scoring chances, whether with a handball or a tackle was a welcome change by everyone when it happened. I remember me and my dad going "about damn time" when they made the change, because we had all seen so many games where teams were denied goals with cheap moves like this and it felt very unfair.
Naturally, if you make an illegal move inside the box, it also has to be a penalty. There are also plenty of examples of teams still getting an advantage by not conceding a goal, ending the game in a scoreless draw, even after a penalty + red card.
Edit: Actually got completely sided with my argument. Why have you been patronizing when we both agree that the rule makes sense. The thing I'm arguing is something to make it less crippling for matches. Your experience in the past means that the rule cannot be abolished our experience now means that the rules needs to be changed.
I liked that even Neuer sad the red card rule was stupid on TV right after the game. Made me respect him more (but I guess all goalies hate that rule...).
I had the feeling that Arsenal retreated a bit too far back when defending, but it's understandable being one man down I guess.
On February 20 2014 19:13 lord_nibbler wrote: I liked that even Neuer sad the red card rule was stupid on TV right after the game. Made me respect him more (but I guess all goalies hat that rule...).
I had the feeling that Arsenal retreated a bit too far back when defending, but it's understandable being one man down I guess.
I think they were in their right to do that, but as other said. WHY DO THAT TACTIC WITH OZIL ON THE PITCH lol. Makes no sense, just because he is 40million or whatever, that does not mean he HAS to stay on the pitch. Silly Wenger not showing enough grit to take him off and keep pacey Ox on who was linking up well with the young Arsenal striker who again impressed me after doing well vs Liverpool.
On February 20 2014 08:24 MaGic~PhiL wrote: Maybe they should change the rules indeed? Just a yellow? Or no red if its the goalkeeper? Dont know..
I mean the rule makes sense but then again its pretty devastating..
The rule is brutal but makes a lot of sense.. imho yellow + one goal on the board, no penalty, would be much better for the remaining game
People don't want to see free goals awarded, they want to see the ball actually go in. Really, I don't even understand why this is being argued, it's not like we haven't seen what happens without this rule. The rule was changed maybe 20-25 years ago, anyone old enough will remember, it was and is a very very good change.
If fans don't want to see these kind of cards, then coaches should tell their players to be a bit more careful when they're the last man.
By the way, if those of you who are younger haven't seen what the game was like in general, before FIFA said "enough is enough" and decided to change the rules to protect attacking players for the good of the game. Here's a little reminder:
In this game Gentile committed 23 fouls against Maradona, with many more that weren't called. All he got was a yellow card.
The red card + penalty has nothing to do with protecting attacking players, a reckless challenge is a reckless challenge and is a red card regardless of position. The red card rule for a goalscoring opportunity was introduced to prevent defenders or goalkeepers from taking out a player who was bound for goal. The corresponding penalty however is only a consequence of the position where the foul is being committed, there is no different rule.
I personally would much rather have a goal awarded btw. People do not want to see free goals, but they do not want to see a potentially great match ruined by a red card + penalty. A free goal is the lesser of two evils.
How old are you? I'm serious, were you watching the game before these rule changes? Do you remember when they changed and how they affected the game when they changed?
Stop patronizing. Nobody is arguing about the change to the red card system, we are arguing about the double whammy which is a penalty + red card.
edit: You know it's not even a double whammy. It's a red card + penalty + 1 match suspension for a challenge for the ball where Robben's first touch is too brilliant for Szchesny.
In other words you're too young to have been watching football before the rules were changed, and don't remember how games used to play out before that. OK. They changed them for a reason.
You do realize that up until the late 90s we still have ROUGH football all over the world and wasn't until UEFA and FIFA presidents decided to get stupidly strict on everything that it changed. Hence the reason some people think the likes of Pele and Maradonna have another reason to be called better players than Messi and Ronaldo due to they did all they did whilst being kicked the living shit out of them xD I don't understand what 1970s tackles has to do with anything in this debate though? I mean there is still a gulf in decisions that are made in England to those made in Spain due to the different interpretations and cultures of the game. However in Europe it is a level playing field so again pointless debate no?
The point is all these rule changes happened together and they came from the same place. They wanted to put an end to deliberate fouls ruining the game, inside and outside the box.
The red card on illegal moves to stop clear scoring chances, whether with a handball or a tackle was a welcome change by everyone when it happened. I remember me and my dad going "about damn time" when they made the change, because we had all seen so many games where teams were denied goals with cheap moves like this and it felt very unfair.
Naturally, if you make an illegal move inside the box, it also has to be a penalty. There are also plenty of examples of teams still getting an advantage by not conceding a goal, ending the game in a scoreless draw, even after a penalty + red card.
Yes but the game still wasn't purpose fouls back then, they were just fouls that were not deemed it so at the time. It's only now after rule changes and stricter refs can you look back and go "oh well in the 70s and 80s that was never a foul" or "players were a lot tougher back then" but you can also argue the game is 100% faster now to what is was back then and at fast speed more stuff can happen.
There were fouls that would have been called today, that weren't called then, but yellow and red cards were also used a lot more sparingly for fouls that were called too. That led to situations like the one against Gentile vs Maradona, where the guy committed more fouls that were called against a single player, than we often see against a whole team in a typical game today. It was very common to just tackle players from behind when defenders missed them, and it wasn't even always a yellow card. That also led to a lot of injuries. The cards are good for the game, that's been my experience as a spectator and fan.
The rule is brutal but makes a lot of sense.. imho yellow + one goal on the board, no penalty, would be much better for the remaining game
People don't want to see free goals awarded, they want to see the ball actually go in. Really, I don't even understand why this is being argued, it's not like we haven't seen what happens without this rule. The rule was changed maybe 20-25 years ago, anyone old enough will remember, it was and is a very very good change.
If fans don't want to see these kind of cards, then coaches should tell their players to be a bit more careful when they're the last man.
By the way, if those of you who are younger haven't seen what the game was like in general, before FIFA said "enough is enough" and decided to change the rules to protect attacking players for the good of the game. Here's a little reminder:
In this game Gentile committed 23 fouls against Maradona, with many more that weren't called. All he got was a yellow card.
The red card + penalty has nothing to do with protecting attacking players, a reckless challenge is a reckless challenge and is a red card regardless of position. The red card rule for a goalscoring opportunity was introduced to prevent defenders or goalkeepers from taking out a player who was bound for goal. The corresponding penalty however is only a consequence of the position where the foul is being committed, there is no different rule.
I personally would much rather have a goal awarded btw. People do not want to see free goals, but they do not want to see a potentially great match ruined by a red card + penalty. A free goal is the lesser of two evils.
How old are you? I'm serious, were you watching the game before these rule changes? Do you remember when they changed and how they affected the game when they changed?
Stop patronizing. Nobody is arguing about the change to the red card system, we are arguing about the double whammy which is a penalty + red card.
edit: You know it's not even a double whammy. It's a red card + penalty + 1 match suspension for a challenge for the ball where Robben's first touch is too brilliant for Szchesny.
In other words you're too young to have been watching football before the rules were changed, and don't remember how games used to play out before that. OK. They changed them for a reason.
You do realize that up until the late 90s we still have ROUGH football all over the world and wasn't until UEFA and FIFA presidents decided to get stupidly strict on everything that it changed. Hence the reason some people think the likes of Pele and Maradonna have another reason to be called better players than Messi and Ronaldo due to they did all they did whilst being kicked the living shit out of them xD I don't understand what 1970s tackles has to do with anything in this debate though? I mean there is still a gulf in decisions that are made in England to those made in Spain due to the different interpretations and cultures of the game. However in Europe it is a level playing field so again pointless debate no?
The point is all these rule changes happened together and they came from the same place. They wanted to put an end to deliberate fouls ruining the game, inside and outside the box.
The red card on illegal moves to stop clear scoring chances, whether with a handball or a tackle was a welcome change by everyone when it happened. I remember me and my dad going "about damn time" when they made the change, because we had all seen so many games where teams were denied goals with cheap moves like this and it felt very unfair.
Naturally, if you make an illegal move inside the box, it also has to be a penalty. There are also plenty of examples of teams still getting an advantage by not conceding a goal, ending the game in a scoreless draw, even after a penalty + red card.
Yes but the game still wasn't purpose fouls back then, they were just fouls that were not deemed it so at the time. It's only now after rule changes and stricter refs can you look back and go "oh well in the 70s and 80s that was never a foul" or "players were a lot tougher back then" but you can also argue the game is 100% faster now to what is was back then and at fast speed more stuff can happen.
There were fouls that would have been called today, that weren't called then, but yellow and red cards were also used a lot more sparingly for fouls that were called too. That led to situations like the one against Gentile vs Maradona, where the guy committed more fouls that were called against a single player, than we often see against a whole team in a typical game today. It was very common to just tackle players from behind when defenders missed them, and it wasn't even always a yellow card. That also led to a lot of injuries. The cards are good for the game, that's been my experience as a spectator and fan.
Again because that is the way the game was played back then. You ask any player from that era and they say exactly the same thing, it was just the way it was played and it was fine. I mean Chopper Harris got his nickname for being a big tackling player, yet still rated as a good player xD Just the way the game was played back then. Then FIFA and UEFA decided to change this and the game changed with it. It is not a well back then he should of been sent off for that, or now a days these players can't handle a tackle etc etc. Again you mention tackling from behind, that back up until early 2000s was still "fine" in the premiership unless you were no where near the ball. Still tackles from behind now can still win the ball, but the issue with tackling from behind is that 9/10 you ALWAYS take the player before the ball hence it is a foul. But there is still good tackles made from behind that are always punished with a yellow now. Back in the 70s and that it was fine to do that and rightly so imo. It always comes back to the debate, football is SUPPOSED to be a physical game, taking away tackles in the game due to everyone being scared of getting sent off is not the way to go about it. Or before long we will have a basketball style game which no one wants (well i don't...)
On February 20 2014 19:13 lord_nibbler wrote: I liked that even Neuer sad the red card rule was stupid on TV right after the game. Made me respect him more (but I guess all goalies hat that rule...).
I had the feeling that Arsenal retreated a bit too far back when defending, but it's understandable being one man down I guess.
I think they were in their right to do that, but as other said. WHY DO THAT TACTIC WITH OZIL ON THE PITCH lol. Makes no sense, just because he is 40million or whatever, that does not mean he HAS to stay on the pitch. Silly Wenger not showing enough grit to take him off and keep pacey Ox on who was linking up well with the young Arsenal striker who again impressed me after doing well vs Liverpool.
That was bizarre to me as well. Özil has no stamina, I would have preferred Cazorla to chase the pitch instead of Özil and I'm sure many Arsenal fans would agree.
On February 20 2014 18:56 sitromit wrote: The point is all these rule changes happened together and they came from the same place. They wanted to put an end to deliberate fouls ruining the game, inside and outside the box.
The red card on illegal moves to stop clear scoring chances, whether with a handball or a tackle was a welcome change by everyone when it happened. I remember me and my dad going "about damn time" when they made the change, because we had all seen so many games where teams were denied goals with cheap moves like this and it felt very unfair.
Naturally, if you make an illegal move inside the box, it also has to be a penalty. There are also plenty of examples of teams still getting an advantage by not conceding a goal, ending the game in a scoreless draw, even after a penalty + red card.
Edit: Actually got completely sided with my argument. Why have you been patronizing when we both agree that the rule makes sense. The thing I'm arguing is something to make it less crippling for matches. Your experience in the past means that the rule cannot be abolished our experience now means that the rules needs to be changed.
Because I'm not convinced that it's crippling. Let's go back to yesterday's game, how I see it as a neutral fan who's not a supporter of either team...
Arsenal started off well and created chances in the first 15 minutes, and got rewarded for their efforts with a penalty, which they wasted. After that, Bayern gradually took control of the game, and by the time the penalty position happened towards the end of the 1st half, I was expecting them to score any time. Bayern was the side playing better for that portion of the game, and they deserved to score and they were denied by an illegal move.
If a player tries to tackle a runner and completely misses the ball and takes out his legs from under him, that's usually considered a dangerous tackle and punished accordingly. Szczesny is getting a break for being a GK, but what he did is no different, he lunged with no self control but was too slow and completely missed the ball, and cracked Robben on the shin. That's a dangerous tackle in my book, regardless of where it happened on the pitch.
Then Arsenal saved the penalty, so what should have been a sure goal continued to be a draw. In the 2nd half, arguably Arsenal had no chance because they were a man down, but have we all not seen teams preserve a draw with 10 men before or even win? In the end, I didn't leave the game feeling someone had been robbed, or that one side got an unfair advantage. I felt that Bayern deserved to win, and Arsenal didn't, after their brilliant start fizzled off in 15-20 minutes.
So if the rules did in the end result in the more deserving side winning, how can they be bad?
On February 20 2014 18:56 sitromit wrote: The point is all these rule changes happened together and they came from the same place. They wanted to put an end to deliberate fouls ruining the game, inside and outside the box.
The red card on illegal moves to stop clear scoring chances, whether with a handball or a tackle was a welcome change by everyone when it happened. I remember me and my dad going "about damn time" when they made the change, because we had all seen so many games where teams were denied goals with cheap moves like this and it felt very unfair.
Naturally, if you make an illegal move inside the box, it also has to be a penalty. There are also plenty of examples of teams still getting an advantage by not conceding a goal, ending the game in a scoreless draw, even after a penalty + red card.
Edit: Actually got completely sided with my argument. Why have you been patronizing when we both agree that the rule makes sense. The thing I'm arguing is something to make it less crippling for matches. Your experience in the past means that the rule cannot be abolished our experience now means that the rules needs to be changed.
Because I'm not convinced that it's crippling. Let's go back to yesterday's game, how I see it as a neutral fan who's not a supporter of either team...
Arsenal started off well and created chances in the first 15 minutes, and got rewarded for their efforts with a penalty, which they wasted. After that, Bayern gradually took control of the game, and by the time the penalty position happened towards the end of the 1st half, I was expecting them to score any time. Bayern was the side playing better for that portion of the game, and they deserved to score and they were denied by an illegal move.
If a player tries to tackle a runner and completely misses the ball and takes out his legs from under him, that's usually considered a dangerous tackle and punished accordingly. Szczesny is getting a break for being a GK, but what he did is no different, he lunged with no self control but was too slow and completely missed the ball, and cracked Robben on the shin. That's a dangerous tackle in my book, regardless of where it happened on the pitch.
Then Arsenal saved the penalty, so what should have been a sure goal continued to be a draw. In the 2nd half, arguably Arsenal had no chance because they were a man down, but have we all not seen teams preserve a draw with 10 men before or even win? In the end, I didn't leave the game feeling someone had been robbed, or that one side got an unfair advantage. I felt that Bayern deserved to win, and Arsenal didn't, after their brilliant start fizzled off in 15-20 minutes.
So if the rules did in the end result in the more deserving side winning, how can they be bad?
I consider myself a neutral fan too and I feel the best team won. However had Szczesny not tackled Robben and had it just been 0-1 I feel Arsenal could potentially have mounted a comeback (or at least have made it more of a spectacle). Of course this is all ifs and maybe's, but surely you must agree that the first 30 minutes were really fun to watch. After the red card Arsenal parked the bus and hoped for the best.
Anyway another thing to point out is had Kroos not provided that little bit of magic and Arsenal parked the bus successfully. Bayern would have felt they got the worst end of the deal, just like Ghana did during the Suarez incident. I think the most fair way to resolve this is by awarding a card based on the severity of the challenge and a free goal (Playground rules). However that doesn't work because many will argue that a 1v1 isn't a 100% goal either.
I'm not convinced by the rule obviously, because it's making up for something that is lost (a goal) by taking away something else (a player).
EPT
