News on new OED word inclusion

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:58 pm

Junaid Mubeen · Post by **Junaid Mubeen** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 4:47 pm

Perhaps we should also have an alternative for the diving shit that is Steven Gerrard.

Lucy Gowers · Post by **Lucy Gowers** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:07 pm

Junaid Mubeen wrote:Perhaps we should also have an alternative for the diving shit that is Steven Gerrard.

But Stevie hates divers. Fernando Torres is on record as saying he's cut all the diving he used to do in La Liga out of his game because Stevie won't put up with it.

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:23 pm

I hate diving as much as the next guy. I wish I could defend Gerrard, but I can't, I think it sucks.

But the sad truth (IMHO) is that players like Cristiano Ronaldo have made it part of the game - I imagine in the brain of the professional footballer it is hard to justify staying on your feet when the only respect you get is from commentators and analysts, whilst those around you who dive get rewarded for cheating with penalties and free kicks. Any player can only be so honest once they realise that that honesty is costing their team results. That's why even the supposed good guys of the game like Gerrard and Owen have been caught at it.

Lovely animation but obviously as a Liverpool fan I've had that shoved in my face on plenty of occasions and it hardly provides an argument.
It'd be way too daunting to have to sift through the hundreds of equivalent examples for Ronaldo, and no one's going to spend fifteen minutes watching it.

It was nice to see Ronaldo not getting the penalty he deserved from Ledley King's challenge on Sunday.
Finally (we've all been waiting a few years) his reputation is beginning to precede him, but I fear there isn't enough years left in his career for the balance to ever be righted.

Junaid Mubeen · Post by **Junaid Mubeen** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:34 pm

I wonder, if Ronaldo a) was English and b) played for anyone other than Man U, would he still be under such scutiny? The man's a diver, no doubt, but no more so than lots of other top players in the Prem (like Gerrard, Drogba, Torres. Owen..). That's not justification, but does highlight the inconsistency of the criticism aimed at him. Another example is Rooney, constantly berated for his aggression on the pitch for Man U, but lauded as having a bulldog spirit as soon as he puts on the England jersey. One point I will make about Ronaldo is that although he does himself no favours, he is more susceptible to being fouled than anyone else. If you move as fast as he does, defenders are more likely to mistime their tackle. We certainly shouldn't be applauding referees' errors in judgement, even if we think the player deserves it for past offences. If you want to blast a Man U player for diving, have a go at Nani, 'cos he really is a cheat.

Jon O'Neill · Post by **Jon O'Neill** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:58 pm

Junaid Mubeen wrote:Torres.

WHEN??

Junaid Mubeen · Post by **Junaid Mubeen** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 6:06 pm

Jon O'Neill wrote:
Junaid Mubeen wrote:Torres.
WHEN??

The most glaringly obvious one was against Inter last season, getting Materazzi sent off!

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 6:12 pm

Junaid Mubeen wrote:I wonder, if Ronaldo a) was English and b) played for anyone other than Man U, would he still be under such scutiny? The man's a diver, no doubt, but no more so than lots of other top players in the Prem (like Gerrard, Drogba, Torres. Owen..). That's not justification, but does highlight the inconsistency of the criticism aimed at him. Another example is Rooney, constantly berated for his aggression on the pitch for Man U, but lauded as having a bulldog spirit as soon as he puts on the England jersey. One point I will make about Ronaldo is that although he does himself no favours, he is more susceptible to being fouled than anyone else. If you move as fast as he does, defenders are more likely to mistime their tackle. We certainly shouldn't be applauding referees' errors in judgement, even if we think the player deserves it for past offences. If you want to blast a Man U player for diving, have a go at Nani, 'cos he really is a cheat.

I would like to think that he'd face the same scrutiny at any big club. In all honesty I think even most United fans would find it hard to deny that Ronaldo dives more than anyone else in the Premiership. Yes, that fact taken alone is confusing, as it is a result of him being on the ball more than anyone else, having more eyes watching him than anyone else, and as you say having quicker feet than anyone else. BUT, with all that said, the fact remains that he still dives more than anyone too. So I'd like to think that the Man United-ness isn't the contributing factor here, it's the player himself.

On the other hand, I agree wholeheartedly that he wouldn't face such scrutiny if he was English. The Rooney example you picked out was perfect Junaid.

I also don't think he'd face so much scrutiny if he wasn't so clearly in love with himself and displayed all the big-headedness that he does (who knows, maybe he's a nice guy, but something tells me I'd rather go for a pint with nearly every other member of the United team before him).

It's always hard to structure an argument which is based around criticising a player who plays for a rival team, as it fairly undeniably looks as if the hate comes from nowhere but that rivalry. So for what it's worth, I may as well point out that I like plenty of United players even if I despise the team as a whole - Van der Sar, Giggs and Carrick are three that come to mind who I have the utmost respect for in terms of professionalism and attitude.

The players you point out - Gerrard I've discussed. Owen I don't recall diving more than perhaps twice. Drogba seems a changed man in the last season or so (probably cos he's not played much tho!). Torres, equally, a world away from La Liga style, perfectly respectable player now. Diving once or twice doesn't make a player a diver in my opinion.

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 6:14 pm

Will request Charlie changes thread title now that we've got into diving discussions

Jon O'Neill · Post by **Jon O'Neill** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 9:18 pm

Junaid Mubeen wrote:
Jon O'Neill wrote:
Junaid Mubeen wrote:Torres.
WHEN??
The most glaringly obvious one was against Inter last season, getting Materazzi sent off!

I don't think it was glaringly obvious. It wasn't a booking, but it wasn't a dive either. IIRC, he was off-balance. See your Ronaldo argument.

Junaid Mubeen · Post by **Junaid Mubeen** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:12 pm

It's important to note that diving is the most obvious but not the unique aspect of cheating in Football. Whether it's claiming a corner that you know damn well ain't one or not admitting to a blatant hand ball, everyone cheats. I see little point in trying to single out certain players for doing so when pretty much everyone's at it (certainly at the top clubs). I don't quantify cheating by counting the number of dives etc...if you're willing to do it at all, you're a cheat. The question is, in the grand scheme of things does it really make a difference? Maybe in the odd cup tie, but I don't think the Premier League would alter much if all players suddenly became honest.

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:22 pm

Junaid Mubeen wrote:I don't think the Premier League would alter much if all players suddenly became honest.

You might be underestimating. Perhaps you're right in terms of results not changing much, but surely attitudes would.
Less cheating -> less ill feeling -> less malicious tackling -> less injuries and potentially more flowing, more beautiful football.
You may say that I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one.

Junaid Mubeen · Post by **Junaid Mubeen** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:25 pm

Matt Morrison wrote:
Junaid Mubeen wrote:I don't think the Premier League would alter much if all players suddenly became honest.
You might be underestimating. Perhaps you're right in terms of results not changing much, but surely attitudes would.
Less cheating -> less ill feeling -> less malicious tackling -> less injuries and potentially more flowing, more beautiful football.
You may say that I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one.

Oh sure, I think you are absolutely right. I meant in terms of results and success, which is the priority at the top end of all sport. If you can play attractively, then that's a bonus. I do admire teams that put style over substance (Arsenal?) but with Man U there is a happy medium. Can the same really be said for Liverpool, who are mediocre (relatively) on both fronts?

Martin Gardner · Post by **Martin Gardner** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:26 pm

It's definitely the absolute worst side of football. My favourite sport is snooker, and they're known for being very honorable; they will declare a foul on themselves if the referee misses it. You can't be a world class footballer today and be honest, it's a bit like the Machievellian argument in The Prince. If a player is not prepared to do 'evil', he will be replaced by other players that are. That's one of the key principles of The Prince (so not necessarily my own opinion).

Look how I managed to raise the tone a little.

Jon O'Neill · Post by **Jon O'Neill** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:29 pm

Junaid Mubeen wrote:
Matt Morrison wrote:
Junaid Mubeen wrote:I don't think the Premier League would alter much if all players suddenly became honest.
You might be underestimating. Perhaps you're right in terms of results not changing much, but surely attitudes would.
Less cheating -> less ill feeling -> less malicious tackling -> less injuries and potentially more flowing, more beautiful football.
You may say that I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one.
Oh sure, I think you are absolutely right. I meant in terms of results and success, which is the priority at the top end of all sport. If you can play attractively, then that's a bonus. I do admire teams that put style over substance (Arsenal?) but with Man U there is a happy medium. Can the same really be said for Liverpool, who are mediocre (relatively) on both fronts?

Laughable imbalance. I wouldn't expect any less from a glory-hunter.

Jimmy Gough · Post by **Jimmy Gough** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:32 pm

Everybody loves a good dive really.

Referees who are deliberately controversial to get a name for themselves need to fuck off though...

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:37 pm

Fantastic timing, just spotted this:
Ronaldo: Brilliant Player, Brilliant Cheat - http://www.football365.com/story/0,1703 ... 76,00.html

You know an article that starts "Cristiano Ronaldo is, by any objective measure, an utter knob." is probably going to be on the money

Junaid Mubeen · Post by **Junaid Mubeen** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:39 pm

Jon O'Neill wrote:I wouldn't expect any less from a glory-hunter.

It's not easy supporting a team that is expected to win every single game. "Glory-hunter" has always seemed a strange term to me, as I don't particularly revel in the glory of what others achieve. Man U winning makes me happy, sure, but can't say their success in any way belongs to me. How on Earth did I contribute in any significant way?!

Paul Howe · Post by **Paul Howe** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:58 pm

What puzzles me is the difference in how diving and strategic fouling (i.e. deliberately fouling to stop play in a dangerous situation, and accepting the yellow card) are viewed. The latter disrupts play and replaces a strong attacking position with a more easily contained one, so it's just as cheaty and damaging to the goal of having an exciting game, yet it's usually applauded as sensible play or at least not looked upon with the sneering contempt reserved for divers.

I'm not trying to defend either, and wish the game was played in a more honourable spirit, but can't help laughing at the double standard.

Matt Morrison wrote:I hate diving as much as the next guy. I wish I could defend Gerrard, but I can't, I think it sucks.

But the sad truth (IMHO) is that players like Cristiano Ronaldo have made it part of the game - I imagine in the brain of the professional footballer it is hard to justify staying on your feet when the only respect you get is from commentators and analysts, whilst those around you who dive get rewarded for cheating with penalties and free kicks. Any player can only be so honest once they realise that that honesty is costing their team results. That's why even the supposed good guys of the game like Gerrard and Owen have been caught at it.

Ludicrous. Ronaldo is hardly the first player ever to take a dive, so you could just as easily apply the excuse you make for Gerrard and Owen to Ronaldo, who grew up in a football culture where diving is the norm. They're all cheats, end of, and it's entirely possible to be world class without resorting to diving (cf Fernando Torres). I reckon people find Gerrard particularly galling since he came out with this little gem...

"I don't think there's anything worse than a player diving when no one's been anywhere near him. It does ruin the game. If I saw a team-mate doing it, I would definitely have a word"

before going on a one man mission to remake Platoon.

Blimey, that was long.

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 12:37 am

Paul Howe wrote:What puzzles me is the difference in how diving and strategic fouling (i.e. deliberately fouling to stop play in a dangerous situation, and accepting the yellow card) are viewed. The latter disrupts play and replaces a strong attacking position with a more easily contained one, so it's just as cheaty and damaging to the goal of having an exciting game, yet it's usually applauded as sensible play or at least not looked upon with the sneering contempt reserved for divers.

Yes, that's probably true. It usually gets called 'tactical' by the commentators

Perfect recent example was Vidic at Newcastle last night. Perhaps due it to being quite SO badly pulled off, there was a bit more of a fuss than such 'tactical fouls' usually get, but I did still hear one commentator say "You can understand why he's chosen to do it". Can't believe it only got a yellow card (though not too upset as he's in my fantasy team).

Paul Howe wrote:
Matt Morrison wrote:players like Cristiano Ronaldo have made it part of the game - I imagine in the brain of the professional footballer it is hard to justify staying on your feet when the only respect you get is from commentators and analysts, whilst those around you who dive get rewarded for cheating with penalties and free kicks.
Ludicrous. Ronaldo is hardly the first player ever to take a dive, so you could just as easily apply the excuse you make for Gerrard and Owen to Ronaldo, who grew up in a football culture where diving is the norm. They're all cheats, end of, and it's entirely possible to be world class without resorting to diving (cf Fernando Torres).

Yeah, fair point. I certainly didn't mean to suggest Ronaldo was responsible for the worldwide demise of the game. I guess what I meant to say was that I think Ronaldo has 'helped' bring it to the Premiership (and thus English football in general). The Gerrard animation above is an interesting case in point - (from what I remember of it whilst typing this) all, or the large majority, of those clips are from the past few seasons. If you want to tarnish Gerrard with the 'diver' brush. you surely have to admit that part of his game has only developed over the last few years, just like in the Premiership as a whole.

Will also second/third the support of Torres. I think overall he's a fantastically fair player.
We have a couple of players who go down too easily, but genuinely Gerrard is the only one that, after a brief think, I'd happily accuse of deliberate diving at times.
In general, there's a reason why we win the Fair Play award so often.

Paul Howe · Post by **Paul Howe** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 1:34 am

Matt Morrison wrote: Yeah, fair point. I certainly didn't mean to suggest Ronaldo was responsible for the worldwide demise of the game. I guess what I meant to say was that I think Ronaldo has 'helped' bring it to the Premiership (and thus English football in general). The Gerrard animation above is an interesting case in point - (from what I remember of it whilst typing this) all, or the large majority, of those clips are from the past few seasons. If you want to tarnish Gerrard with the 'diver' brush. you surely have to admit that part of his game has only developed over the last few years, just like in the Premiership as a whole.

Well, I'm not obsessed enough with Steven Gerrard to pinpoint when he started diving. I do think diving culture was established in the prem before Ronaldo arrived though, and see it more as a symptom of the influx of foreign players (I feel a bit dirty making a bloody furriners argument, but in this case I think it has some merit) and the tightening of refereeing standards which has made the modern game a far less brutal affair with no opportunity for players to take justice into their own hands.

In short, I think you're pinning too much blame on Ronaldo in particular, and I don't think you can hold Gerrard and others in higher regard just because they got started a bit later and were just copying everyone else, everyone should be held to the same standards. It's just an unfortunate fact that the incentives for diving outweigh the penalties for getting caught (since it's usually pretty hard for the ref to distinguish a dive from a genuine foul or loss of balance, and only the really obvious ones get punished). In that situation you have to either rely on some notion of honour (and sadly we've seen how quickly that goes out the window when there's even a slight advantage to be gained), or somehow change the incentives to punish diving more heavily.

Which leads me somewhat indirectly to my next topic.... what rule of football would you change in order to improve the game? We all know Liverpool haven't won the league since the backpass rule was introduced, so this is a fine example of a rule change having a positive effect.

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:07 am

Paul Howe wrote:what rule of football would you change in order to improve the game?

Allow backpasses again. Definitely.

No, in all seriousness that's an interesting question. Will have a proper think tomorrow.

Martin Gardner · Post by **Martin Gardner** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 7:10 am

I don't think you can be an honest professional footballer these days. The game just won't allow it. And I think diving's been around for a long time so there's no need to blame anyone. As a rule, I'd like to see discipline enforced more. I hate the way that players crowd round the referee and basically intimidate him. I think the captain, like in rugby, should be the one to protest to the referee and maybe ask him to ask his assistants. In Major League Baseball, if you start arguing like that, they throw you straight out of the game! Obviously they get a replacement player in, so in football that wouldn't work as well because it wouldn't justify a red card, but I think an automatic yellow card for excessive arguing with the referee is appropriate.

David Williams · Post by **David Williams** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:40 am

Television cameras should be banned from all games. Players like Ronaldo and Gerrard would be mythical gods to people who actually went to watch their local team. All matches should kick off at 3:00 on a Saturday and finish at 4:40 on the dot, for the convenience of those attending. All boots should be dubbined and all hair should be brylcreemed.

Gary Male · Post by **Gary Male** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 10:36 am

Paul Howe wrote: what rule of football would you change in order to improve the game?

FIFA-enforced salary cap at something like £50,000 per week budget to cover the wages for the whole first team.

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 11:17 am

Martin Gardner wrote:I think the captain should be the one to protest to the referee... an automatic yellow card for excessive arguing with the referee is appropriate.

This has improved this season Martin, with those two exact directives. Captains have been told to be the sole interaction with the ref, and in general there has been less aggro towards the ref and assistants, all thanks to this Respect campaign they've started. There's still a way to go but this season has seen definite improvements, and it's not rare at all to see players yellowed for arguing now, although it's still inconsistent.

Gary Male wrote:
Paul Howe wrote: what rule of football would you change in order to improve the game?
FIFA-enforced salary cap at something like £50,000 per week budget to cover the wages for the whole first team.

This would have been a great rule to introduce about 10-15 years ago. Just imagine trying to enforce it now though. I think it could literally destroy the whole game.

Without a doubt the rule I'd like to see would allow retrospective action to be taken on foul play.
Sorry to bring Ronaldo into it again but two weeks ago when he stamped on the back of a Blackburn player's legs... I find it absolutely deplorable and administratively indefensible that he is allowed to get away with that simply because the referee saw it at the time and decided not to act. It was clearly a red card offence (just compounded by the fact he went on to score the winning goal), and I can't see any reason this sort of thing cannot be dealt with afterwards.
It's almost as if the governing bodies are cotton-wooling the refs, unwilling to bring focus on the things that they have got wrong. But regardless of the subject matter, if you had to make a decision based on either an eyewitness account from one individual in the heat of the moment, or retrospective evidence reviewed and agreed on by millions of people, it's clear which side you'd take.
And let's not forget how hypocritical it is - punishments can be rescinded after the event if the ref saw it wrong, but they can't be applied/increased if the ref saw it wrong. Ridiculous.

And a couple of small improvements; I'd like to see refs pay more attention to time-wasting, and I think away goals shouldn't count in extra time.

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 11:35 am

Matt Morrison wrote:Just imagine trying to enforce it now though. I think it could literally destroy the whole game.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 11:56 am

Phil Reynolds wrote:
Matt Morrison wrote:Just imagine trying to enforce it now though. I think it could literally destroy the whole game.
You say that like it's a bad thing.

Get out Phil, this thread's not for your type!

Michael Wallace · Post by **Michael Wallace** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 12:03 pm

I haven't really understood football's reluctance to use any sort of video-assisted refereeing - I know there's an argument for breaking up the play or whatever, but it's easy to find examples where there seems really no excuse (what springs to mind is "did the ball cross the line" in the case of disputed goals - even if the ball was cleared and play continued for a bit, the moment the ball goes dead they can check it, and if it was a goal, then you just ignore what happened in the time in between, and if not no harm done, although now I think about it that seems like it could get messy (what if someone gets carded in the period that 'didn't actually happen because there had really been a goal'?)).

Also, wrt Ronaldo - my main memory of him is winking after getting Rooney sent off in the World Cup. The bastard.

Paul Howe · Post by **Paul Howe** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 12:28 pm

Interesting suggestions.

Mine would be to change the rule about getting sent off for denying a clear goal scoring opportunity. There are two cases: foul outside the box, where loss of scoring chance is compensated by the loss of a player, and foul inside box, where loss of scoring chance is compensated by loss of player AND another great scoring chance.

Neither of these trades seem particularly fair. My solution would be to award a penalty for denying a clear goal scoring chance, even if the offence occurred outside the box, and not send the player off. This reinstates the scoring chance and doesn't alter the balance of the game afterwards. Cards could still be awarded if the foul itself was bad enough to justify it, and if the offence prevents a certain goal (e.g. handball off the line, keeper brings down player and no covering defender) then the red could still be given. Obviously this creates an element of ambiguity, but that exists with the current rule too.

Another idea I've heard is that each side should lose 1 player every 5 minutes in extra time, and play on until someone scores a golden goal. I'm not sure this is fairer than penalties, and the poor sods left at the end would be knackered, but it would ensure some mental finishes.

Michael Wallace · Post by **Michael Wallace** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 12:38 pm

Paul Howe wrote:Another idea I've heard is that each side should lose 1 player every 5 minutes in extra time, and play on until someone scores a golden goal. I'm not sure this is fairer than penalties, and the poor sods left at the end would be knackered, but it would ensure some mental finishes.

I've heard this suggested as well. It would be interesting to see what effect it would have on the sort of player you'd have as a keeper (although would you necessarily keep your keeper until last? Probably not, actually).

I'm reminded of an advert for something-or-other (maybe some sports brand?) where there was some 'multiball' thing - I quite like that idea for extra time. Add another ball every five minutes until someone scores. Perhaps they could combine both ideas...

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 12:56 pm

Michael Wallace wrote:now I think about it that seems like it could get messy (what if someone gets carded in the period that 'didn't actually happen because there had really been a goal'?)).

It's perfectly possible to get carded while the ball is dead (e.g. for arguing with the referee) so this isn't a big problem.

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 1:10 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:
Michael Wallace wrote:now I think about it that seems like it could get messy (what if someone gets carded in the period that 'didn't actually happen because there had really been a goal'?)).
It's perfectly possible to get carded while the ball is dead (e.g. for arguing with the referee) so this isn't a big problem.

See your point Charlie but disagree. It would be a huge problem.
If a player gets carded while the ball is dead for arguing with the referee or for fighting, that's all their own responsibility.
If they get carded for a bad challenge in a period of play which they should not have been forced to partake in, that's messy, and suddenly becomes the responsibility of the referee, the assistants, the video analysis team, the rules of the game, AND the player.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 1:59 pm

Matt Morrison wrote:
Charlie Reams wrote:
Michael Wallace wrote:now I think about it that seems like it could get messy (what if someone gets carded in the period that 'didn't actually happen because there had really been a goal'?)).
It's perfectly possible to get carded while the ball is dead (e.g. for arguing with the referee) so this isn't a big problem.
See your point Charlie but disagree. It would be a huge problem.
If a player gets carded while the ball is dead for arguing with the referee or for fighting, that's all their own responsibility.
If they get carded for a bad challenge in a period of play which they should not have been forced to partake in, that's messy, and suddenly becomes the responsibility of the referee, the assistants, the video analysis team, the rules of the game, AND the player.

That is slightly more complex, but still I think you'd just say that any cards would stand as normal. If the players believe that the game is continuing normally (play to the whistle and all that) then a bad tackle is a bad tackle and still deserving of a booking. In current rules, a player who doesn't hear the whistle and lands a crunching tackle when the game is technically stopped would still be booked, so I think that's the closest analogy. (Incidentally I claim the first correct use of the word technically in the history of C4C.)

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:06 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:
Matt Morrison wrote:If a player gets carded while the ball is dead for arguing with the referee or for fighting, that's all their own responsibility.
If they get carded for a bad challenge in a period of play which they should not have been forced to partake in, that's messy, and suddenly becomes the responsibility of the referee, the assistants, the video analysis team, the rules of the game, AND the player.
That is slightly more complex, but still I think you'd just say that any cards would stand as normal. If the players believe that the game is continuing normally (play to the whistle and all that) then a bad tackle is a bad tackle and still deserving of a booking.

Good point. I think the real problems would rise from injuries sustained in this period. Managers would go fucking nuts, and suddenly we've have clubs sueing the FA for compensation all over the place.

Charlie Reams wrote:(Incidentally I claim the first correct use of the word technically in the history of C4C.)

You could have at least claimed it technically rather than incidentally

Go on then, link us up you show off.

Martin Gardner · Post by **Martin Gardner** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 5:36 pm

Michael Wallace wrote:I haven't really understood football's reluctance to use any sort of video-assisted refereeing

Good point. Obviously you can't use it for every single incident, but say if it was used only for goals or immediate goal-scoring opportunities, that would be OK. So if there's a foul on the half-way like, no video-ref. If it's a case of the goalkeeper being fouled while the ball was being headed into the net, you can use it. See rugby for an example of this.

Martin Gardner · Post by **Martin Gardner** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 5:37 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:
Michael Wallace wrote:now I think about it that seems like it could get messy (what if someone gets carded in the period that 'didn't actually happen because there had really been a goal'?)).
It's perfectly possible to get carded while the ball is dead (e.g. for arguing with the referee) so this isn't a big problem.

In fact, you don't even have to be one of the 22 players on the pitch! Or even a player at all!

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 6:45 pm

Martin Gardner wrote:
Charlie Reams wrote:
Michael Wallace wrote:now I think about it that seems like it could get messy (what if someone gets carded in the period that 'didn't actually happen because there had really been a goal'?)).
It's perfectly possible to get carded while the ball is dead (e.g. for arguing with the referee) so this isn't a big problem.
In fact, you don't even have to be one of the 22 players on the pitch! Or even a player at all!

Really?

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 6:54 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:
Martin Gardner wrote:In fact, you don't even have to be one of the 22 players on the pitch! Or even a player at all!
Really?

Basically true yes, although Martin's statement was a bit of a blanket comment.
Managers and staff can be sent from the bench into the stands - this would be the non-player equivalent of a red card, but a card isn't actually shown, and a touchline ban for future matches is not automatic but decided at an FA hearing.

Players on the subs bench can be yellow carded without being on the pitch. I'm not sure I've ever seen a substitute get red carded (which of course wouldn't affect the match in hand other than that player's availability as a sub, but would still see them banned for three matches) though I've seen substitutes given a yellow card loads of times. Reasons include: arguing with referee or assistant referees, holding on to the ball or kicking it away when it comes to them in a time-wasting fashion, interfering with play whilst warming up. This last one happened recently with Dean Windass who, whilst running up and down the line stretching his legs, tried to get in the way of Rory Delap who was attempting to take a long throw in.