Global Football Odds & Ends

HowBoutDemSox

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 12, 2009
9,885
Here’s the full US summer series schedule:

Saturday, July 22 @ Lincoln Financial Field, Philadelphia, PA
Match 1: Chelsea vs Brighton & Hove Albion (7:00PM)

Sunday, July 23 @ Lincoln Financial Field, Philadelphia, PA
Match 2: Fulham vs Brentford (4:00PM)
Match 3: Newcastle United vs Aston Villa (7:00PM)

Wednesday, July 26 @ Mercedes-Benz Stadium, Atlanta, GA
Match 4: Brentford vs Brighton & Hove Albion (5:30PM)

Wednesday, July 26 @ Exploria Stadium, Orlando, FL
Match 5: Fulham vs Aston Villa (7:00PM)

Wednesday, July 26 @ Mercedes-Benz Stadium, Atlanta, GA
Match 6: Chelsea vs Newcastle United (8:15PM)

Friday, July 28 @ Red Bull Arena, Harrison, New Jersey
Match 7: Brighton & Hove Albion vs Newcastle United (7:30PM)

Sunday, July 30 @ FedExField, Landover, Maryland
Match 8: Aston Villa vs Brentford (12:00PM)
Match 9: Chelsea vs Fulham (2:45PM)

Sign up on the Premiere League website to get access to tickets when they go on sale: https://www.premierleague.com/SummerSeries
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
20,600
Pittsburgh, PA
if we're doing a SoSH get-together I'd rather do the double-header on the Sunday, not least to catch our USMNT boys on Fulham.

(let's be real, Pulisic is probably gone from Chelsea, and even if he's not, they're not playing him)
 

Zososoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 30, 2009
9,139
South of North
UEFA has a rules committee comprised of current and former players and managers. They're being convened to discuss rules and make recommendations. It's a new committee, and they just had their inaugural meeting:

"We had the best coaches in the world in the room," Ceferin said. "We showed them a situation where a ball hits the hand of a player and we said penalty or no penalty, half said penalty, half said no penalty.

"Those are coaches of the best teams in the world. I think that the referee on the pitch should decide because otherwise we don't need a referee anymore. We can just have a machine that says handball or no handball, and I don't like it. I don't like it. We have to, and we will start working on that to tell the referees that they have to decide if it's a natural move or not, and so on."

The board, which includes managers such as Carlo Ancelotti and Jose Mourinho, plus former players like Paolo Maldini and Luis Figo, was approved by the UEFA executive committee to give independent opinions on football-related topics.

This week it issued recommendations after discussing the handball law, specifically the aspect that states that not every touch of the arm or hand with the ball is an offence.

"The Board recommends that UEFA should clarify that no handball offence should be called on a player if the ball is previously deflected from his own body and, in particular, when the ball does not go towards the goal," it said.

"On the same notice, the Board recommends that not every handball should automatically lead to a caution after every shot at goal, as anticipated by current guidelines."

The Board also said UEFA should contact football's law-making body, the International Football Association Board (IFAB), to amend the law on sending off players for handball decisions.


It suggested that a player should be sent off for denying a goal-scoring opportunity only if they "deliberately and intentionally" touch the ball with their hand or arm.

"In case of other handball offences, the players should only be cautioned," it added.

Ceferin also repeated his dislike for the current offside rule.

"Two centimeters of offside is not offside for me," he said. "We have to see if the line should be thicker."
I think the suggestions re handballs are generally good. The proposed changes are 1) it's not a handball if a defender deflects the ball [unintentionally] into their arm, plus some odd wording about whether a shot is on target or not, and 2) not every handball should lead to a caution. First, I don't think we want refs trying to determine whether a shot is on goal or not in real-time. I mean, you can certainly create some rules about a handball that's clearly not on goal (FK vs. pen perhaps), but I think the discretionary guidance has to have a very high threshold for that or it becomes another hugely problematic point. Second, I'm not sure I understand the interpretation of handball cautions they're criticizing. While we're on the subject, what was the old rule with indirect FK? If the ref deemed the offense unintentional, it was indirect from the spot of the foul? What role, if any, does the indirect FK have in the future of the handball rule in your opinion?
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
20,600
Pittsburgh, PA
Those would be good, positive suggestions. I think the "is the ball on goal" is to address things like the Liverpool-Spurs UCL Final , the Sissoko handball, where it was a cross that hit him from close range and he had absolutely no opportunity to clear out. It's one thing if there's an obvious shot coming and it should be the defender's responsibility not to use arms to "make themselves bigger" than their existing shadow when going for the block. But this is trying to reduce, and nearly eliminate, unintentional handballs that aren't on shots. And I think that's good, because we don't want attackers cynically trying to aim the ball at a defender's hands to draw a call, we want them trying to put the ball in the net.

The cautions thing I didn't quite get either, but I guess they're reducing the number of cautions given that are in addition to a handball violation call.

Greater use of an indirect FK would be appropriate too, and I hope they consider that. We basically don't want a play to result in a penalty kick if it's not in response to a player being unreasonably prevented from scoring. Your Arjen Robben vs Mexico 2014 type plays... I'm not sure this would fix it, necessarily, but if he got an indirect FK from the end line right near the edge of the box, it at least doesn't take his xG from like 0.02 to 0.80 the way a PK does.

The most encouraging thing there is the offside rule. I think they will eventually land on Arsene Wenger's proposal to have it be an offside offense only if all of the attacker is past all of the last defender. That's easy to officiate live, that's easy to evaluate in a VAR scenario, and it gives a buffer to the attacker that doesn't invalidate a bunch of opportunities. You'd still coach your attacker to stay level with the defender until the ball is played, but if they end up a half-step ahead - but not a whole step! - then we at least get to see fun attacking play. Doing so would disadvantage the defense, because a player could be legally played the ball while they're running by them, but the end result would be more exciting attacking plays.

I'm of the opinion (as I've said here before) that there shouldn't be offside when the ball is past the 6-yard line, either. A centering kick or some pinball-like play within very close proximity to the goal doesn't create some unfair advantage to the attacking team the way that just poaching WAY offside would. Simple rule change: the assistant ref stops tracking the progress of last defender (or the ball) when they reach the 6 yard box; any play once the last defender or ball is closer to the defender's net than that can't be ruled offside. Once the defense and ball goes out past the 6, he resumes tracking where that offside line is. Far too many exciting sequences of play with things getting pinged around in the box end with some marginal offside ruling which is probably correct by the letter of the rule, but in no way is addressing the kind of situation that offsides was created to address. Let 'em play, I say.
 

SocrManiac

Tommy Seebach’s mustache
SoSH Member
Apr 15, 2006
8,245
Somers, CT
Those would be good, positive suggestions. I think the "is the ball on goal" is to address things like the Liverpool-Spurs UCL Final , the Sissoko handball, where it was a cross that hit him from close range and he had absolutely no opportunity to clear out. It's one thing if there's an obvious shot coming and it should be the defender's responsibility not to use arms to "make themselves bigger" than their existing shadow when going for the block. But this is trying to reduce, and nearly eliminate, unintentional handballs that aren't on shots. And I think that's good, because we don't want attackers cynically trying to aim the ball at a defender's hands to draw a call, we want them trying to put the ball in the net.

The cautions thing I didn't quite get either, but I guess they're reducing the number of cautions given that are in addition to a handball violation call.

Greater use of an indirect FK would be appropriate too, and I hope they consider that. We basically don't want a play to result in a penalty kick if it's not in response to a player being unreasonably prevented from scoring. Your Arjen Robben vs Mexico 2014 type plays... I'm not sure this would fix it, necessarily, but if he got an indirect FK from the end line right near the edge of the box, it at least doesn't take his xG from like 0.02 to 0.80 the way a PK does.

The most encouraging thing there is the offside rule. I think they will eventually land on Arsene Wenger's proposal to have it be an offside offense only if all of the attacker is past all of the last defender. That's easy to officiate live, that's easy to evaluate in a VAR scenario, and it gives a buffer to the attacker that doesn't invalidate a bunch of opportunities. You'd still coach your attacker to stay level with the defender until the ball is played, but if they end up a half-step ahead - but not a whole step! - then we at least get to see fun attacking play. Doing so would disadvantage the defense, because a player could be legally played the ball while they're running by them, but the end result would be more exciting attacking plays.

I'm of the opinion (as I've said here before) that there shouldn't be offside when the ball is past the 6-yard line, either. A centering kick or some pinball-like play within very close proximity to the goal doesn't create some unfair advantage to the attacking team the way that just poaching WAY offside would. Simple rule change: the assistant ref stops tracking the progress of last defender (or the ball) when they reach the 6 yard box; any play once the last defender or ball is closer to the defender's net than that can't be ruled offside. Once the defense and ball goes out past the 6, he resumes tracking where that offside line is. Far too many exciting sequences of play with things getting pinged around in the box end with some marginal offside ruling which is probably correct by the letter of the rule, but in no way is addressing the kind of situation that offsides was created to address. Let 'em play, I say.
I would agree, but there needs to be language about goalkeeper interference. Without restriction, we would see a hockey situation where you put a player on the goalkeeper to obstruct.
 

Zososoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 30, 2009
9,139
South of North
Those would be good, positive suggestions. I think the "is the ball on goal" is to address things like the Liverpool-Spurs UCL Final , the Sissoko handball, where it was a cross that hit him from close range and he had absolutely no opportunity to clear out. It's one thing if there's an obvious shot coming and it should be the defender's responsibility not to use arms to "make themselves bigger" than their existing shadow when going for the block. But this is trying to reduce, and nearly eliminate, unintentional handballs that aren't on shots. And I think that's good, because we don't want attackers cynically trying to aim the ball at a defender's hands to draw a call, we want them trying to put the ball in the net.

The cautions thing I didn't quite get either, but I guess they're reducing the number of cautions given that are in addition to a handball violation call.

Greater use of an indirect FK would be appropriate too, and I hope they consider that. We basically don't want a play to result in a penalty kick if it's not in response to a player being unreasonably prevented from scoring. Your Arjen Robben vs Mexico 2014 type plays... I'm not sure this would fix it, necessarily, but if he got an indirect FK from the end line right near the edge of the box, it at least doesn't take his xG from like 0.02 to 0.80 the way a PK does.

The most encouraging thing there is the offside rule. I think they will eventually land on Arsene Wenger's proposal to have it be an offside offense only if all of the attacker is past all of the last defender. That's easy to officiate live, that's easy to evaluate in a VAR scenario, and it gives a buffer to the attacker that doesn't invalidate a bunch of opportunities. You'd still coach your attacker to stay level with the defender until the ball is played, but if they end up a half-step ahead - but not a whole step! - then we at least get to see fun attacking play. Doing so would disadvantage the defense, because a player could be legally played the ball while they're running by them, but the end result would be more exciting attacking plays.

I'm of the opinion (as I've said here before) that there shouldn't be offside when the ball is past the 6-yard line, either. A centering kick or some pinball-like play within very close proximity to the goal doesn't create some unfair advantage to the attacking team the way that just poaching WAY offside would. Simple rule change: the assistant ref stops tracking the progress of last defender (or the ball) when they reach the 6 yard box; any play once the last defender or ball is closer to the defender's net than that can't be ruled offside. Once the defense and ball goes out past the 6, he resumes tracking where that offside line is. Far too many exciting sequences of play with things getting pinged around in the box end with some marginal offside ruling which is probably correct by the letter of the rule, but in no way is addressing the kind of situation that offsides was created to address. Let 'em play, I say.
I've never heard of the no-offside zone idea and I like it! But as @SocrManiac replied, you would still need to prevent keeper interference.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
20,600
Pittsburgh, PA
I think I see what you guys mean - situations where an offside player is screening the goalie on a shot, who would no longer be offside under this scenario. However, most of those shots come from way outside the 6 yard box. If the last defender and ball are already outside the 6, then offside still applies and a player who's past the last defender can't screen the goalie. It's only if the play is happening all right around the goalmouth, attackers and defenders and ball alike, that I would say take away the offside. Because no style of play that offside was created to prevent is being prevented in that situation, and you want to encourage attacking football so long as it's fair.
 

SocrManiac

Tommy Seebach’s mustache
SoSH Member
Apr 15, 2006
8,245
Somers, CT
In my biased eyes, the goal is awfully big. Players are fantastic at exploiting opportunities. Giving an attacking team additional ability to obstruct a goalkeeper is, in my opinion, not a Good Thing. I'm envisioning scenarios where a team breaks that six yard barrier and sends a player directly to the keeper to prevent or obstruct movement on crosses. It's something that the best indoor teams do (due to the lack of offside) and feels a little imbalanced to me.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
21,970
IDK how they fix it, but personally my biggest issue with the rules is penalty kicks awarded to fouls/infractions that take place in the box, but are not anywhere close to DOGSO.

The example I'll use, because it happened not that long ago and impacted my team, is in the Southampton vs Spurs game when Pape Sarr attempted a clearance at the edge of the box, only to have Ainsley Maitland-Niles leap in front of him trying to get the ball, and have Sarr clip him with his leg. A clear foul, but Maitland-Niles had his back to goal, didn't have control of the ball, and it wasn't anywhere close to being in a goal scoring position. It's harsh that those infractions lead to penalty kicks, and it happens all the time. It also leads to inconsistencies taking place where contact that would be fouls at midfield aren't called in the box because it would be too harsh for something to lead to a penalty.

Not sure what they could do to change it, maybe so that there are more in-direct free kicks in the box, but to me it's the most imbalanced aspect of the game.
 

SocrManiac

Tommy Seebach’s mustache
SoSH Member
Apr 15, 2006
8,245
Somers, CT
I agree wholeheartedly. UEFA just did an exercise with coaches and players identifying handball penalties and the results were nearly split 50/50. Nobody knows.

Can language be crafted that talks about goal scoring opportunities? I doubt it. You know it when you see it, you know it when it isn't. But you can't legislate it.

Shrink the box? Change the shape? Create more boxes? "Handball in this area is a pen, foul in this area is a pen, etc.

No clue. I'm glad I don't have to come up with the solution, but in the age of VAR we sure as shit need one.

We also need harsh-ass penalties, even if retroactive, on simulation. Like, now.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
20,600
Pittsburgh, PA
In my biased eyes, the goal is awfully big. Players are fantastic at exploiting opportunities. Giving an attacking team additional ability to obstruct a goalkeeper is, in my opinion, not a Good Thing. I'm envisioning scenarios where a team breaks that six yard barrier and sends a player directly to the keeper to prevent or obstruct movement on crosses. It's something that the best indoor teams do (due to the lack of offside) and feels a little imbalanced to me.
I was a goalie too, though not at your level. I just can't see how a team that's getting the ball into the final 6 yards (often for a cross, sometimes to dribble along the end line) doesn't already have the opportunity to screen a goalie, or if it's pulled back then it's probably pulled back beyond the 6 and offside would again apply. We're mostly talking about rebound and set-piece flick-on kind of scramble situations.

The exact* rule I would propose: "if any part of the field closer to the end-line than the 6-yard box line is onside for the attacking team, then all of the field from the 6-yard line to the end line is onside for the attacking team."

This would probably restore about 0.2-0.3 goals per game that were previously disallowed, or one every 3-4 matches. It's a small minority of offside calls (which are about 3.5-4.0 per game), most attempts to get behind the defense start with some running room ahead of them. Here are a few examples of things that would not be offside under my proposal, all of which I think would be fair to the defense (though of course any reduction in offside disadvantages them):

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9EF-BDWxTs


View: https://youtu.be/k38ZFJNb3hw?t=218

(Also, I assume the one at 3'20" at that clip is the sort of goalie interference you're worried about; my proposal would not really alter those situations.)

View: https://youtu.be/iND8HoYDL-I?t=710

(note that the one at 12'30" would also be allowed, the offside line is juuust into the 6 yard box as the penultimate defender is basically on the line when the ball is played, so the attacker two steps inside the 6 is onside too. 12'45" is a more-obvious version of this same scenario, and so Deuce's goal would be allowed.)

Basically, when the ball's right near your goal, you have to actually mark the attackers, that would be the lesson here.


* Plus any implications for AR positioning or training, e.g. they stop at the 6-yard line, maybe some hand signal to indicate that there's no more offside, and only start shuffling back to their left once the ball or last defender push back beyond that line.
 
Last edited:

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
20,600
Pittsburgh, PA
And while I'm at it: Here's an example of a handball-in-the-box PK call that might be affected if these UEFA recommendations were adopted. Unintentional, ball was not a shot on goal. Under the current rules it's either a play-on or a PK, but I think this should be a direct FK in circumstances like this. PK is way too harsh, ref should be able to make it a FK from the spot of the foul if it's not intentional or blocking a shot on goal.

View: https://youtu.be/fhHzqXBtJtw?t=157


Also while I was looking for example clips, I came across this, which some of you probably remember but I didn't - anyway, it's rare that a football video with a sensationalist title actually lives up to its own hype.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clDgKBosAGk


I mean, good god almighty. That's "pull your team off the field to protest a fixed match" level stuff.
 

OCST

Sunny von Bulow
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2004
24,010
The 718

BrazilianSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2006
3,670
Brasil
This is the technique I’ve been taught in my goalkeepers class. I’m struggling with my positioning, not getting great distance in my goal kicks, but I got this move down pat.

View: https://twitter.com/footbalIfights/status/1650609588272607234?s=20
I've done that, to a friend, during training in high school... But I didn't go full tilt, just enough to give a scare.

But when I first started playing Futsal, at around age 10, keepers couldn't touch the ball outside the area. So, since it was gonna be a foul either way, my coach told me to go for the attacker and not the ball.
 

67YAZ

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2000
8,207
Unreal. Bixby was just screening the keeper and it feel right at her feet…for a backheel?!?!
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
21,970
PSG is paying Messi a shit load of money to be the face of football in Qatar, and he is taking trips out to KSA and surely cashing that check as well.

It's really disappointing that despite mind-blowing wealth and fame, both Ronaldo and Messi are cool with standing with oppressive governments for just some more cash.
 

Zososoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 30, 2009
9,139
South of North
PSG is paying Messi a shit load of money to be the face of football in Qatar, and he is taking trips out to KSA and surely cashing that check as well.

It's really disappointing that despite mind-blowing wealth and fame, both Ronaldo and Messi are cool with standing with oppressive governments for just some more cash.
The only way to redeem themselves is to spend that money selflessly and wisely, and even then it's less noble than taking a stand. But that's easy to say from my seat.
 

HowBoutDemSox

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 12, 2009
9,885
More big name teams making the trip to the US this summer, including a Texas El Classico match

Saturday, July 22
FC Barcelona vs. Juventus at Levi's Stadium, Santa Clara, CA

Sunday, July 23
Real Madrid vs. AC Milan at The Rose Bowl Stadium, Pasadena, CA

Wednesday, July 26
Arsenal vs. FC Barcelona at SoFi Stadium, Inglewood, CA

Wednesday, July 26
Real Madrid vs. Manchester United at NRG Stadium, Houston, TX

Thursday, July 27
Juventus vs. AC Milan at Dignity Health Sports Park, Carson, CA

Saturday, July 29
FC Barcelona vs. Real Madrid at AT&T Stadium, Arlington, TX

Tuesday, Aug. 1
AC Milan vs. FC Barcelona at Allegiant Stadium, Las Vegas, NV

Wednesday, Aug. 2
Juventus vs. Real Madrid at Camping World Stadium, Orlando FL

https://www.espn.com/soccer/barcelona-espbarcelona/story/4945673/barcelona-real-madrid-clasico-dallas-highlights-6-team-us-summer-tour
 

Dummy Hoy

Angry Pissbum
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2006
8,200
Falmouth
I completely understand the need to punish him, and to be alert for other such instances.

But I am also fully on the side of questioning how he gets singled out and punished when blatant racism, violence, and massive financial fraud by clubs get lighter punishment. I’m also on the side of recognizing the hypocrisy of punishing people for gambling when shirts, stadiums, and media sponsors are awash with gambling company cash.
 

fletcherpost

sosh's feckin' poet laureate
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,826
Glasgow, Scotland
I completely understand the need to punish him, and to be alert for other such instances.

But I am also fully on the side of questioning how he gets singled out and punished when blatant racism, violence, and massive financial fraud by clubs get lighter punishment. I’m also on the side of recognizing the hypocrisy of punishing people for gambling when shirts, stadiums, and media sponsors are awash with gambling company cash.
Agreed. I think it's way too severe and for all the reasons stated multiple times. I read that Brentford are considering their options. I have no idea what their options are.

I watch a lot of football on Sky and BT Sport and the betting adverts are relentless, but they always have a tagline line 'Gamble responsibly' - Bet365 or 'When the fun stops, stop' - Sky Bet, who advertise on Sky Sports with Sky Sports presenters. There's pundits, ex pros who advertise Betting Apps and sites.

Crouchy is currently in one.

I really hope there's some kind of appeal and the ban is reduced and he has to do some kind of community thing that benefits others. I understand rules are rules, but punishments ought to fit the crimes and for me racism is always worse. But I'm no legal person.
 
Jul 15, 2005
4,128
Chicago
Agreed. I think it's way too severe and for all the reasons stated multiple times. I read that Brentford are considering their options. I have no idea what their options are.

I watch a lot of football on Sky and BT Sport and the betting adverts are relentless, but they always have a tagline line 'Gamble responsibly' - Bet365 or 'When the fun stops, stop' - Sky Bet, who advertise on Sky Sports with Sky Sports presenters. There's pundits, ex pros who advertise Betting Apps and sites.

Crouchy is currently in one.

I really hope there's some kind of appeal and the ban is reduced and he has to do some kind of community thing that benefits others. I understand rules are rules, but punishments ought to fit the crimes and for me racism is always worse. But I'm no legal person.
Brentford owner, Matthew Benham, is a player in the betting markets. Brentford's kit sponsor is Hollywood Bets
 

fletcherpost

sosh's feckin' poet laureate
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,826
Glasgow, Scotland
Brentford owner, Matthew Benham, is a player in the betting markets. Brentford's kit sponsor is Hollywood Bets
This is not news to me. I was listening to some convo on sports media about it and the gist was Betting Companies play around double to sponsor the match shirt.

Regardless i still think 8 months is too much.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,079
Philadelphia
Any context here? That was brave. I hope the guy they pulled into the morass came out OK.
Dunno, I think this was after the match ended. The AZ ultras seemed intent on rushing the stand where the players' families and some away fans had been sitting and our man Knollsy and his buddy seem to have defended the top of that staircase and turned away like 50 guys.

West Ham needs to gift Knollsy a ticket to the final.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
21,970
Dunno, I think this was after the match ended. The AZ ultras seemed intent on rushing the stand where the players' families and some away fans had been sitting and our man Knollsy and his buddy seem to have defended the top of that staircase and turned away like 50 guys.

West Ham needs to gift Knollsy a ticket to the final.
People on Twitter are saying the guy in the green shirt is not actually Knollsy.

View: https://twitter.com/freddiebonfa/status/1659335576363909120?s=20



View: https://twitter.com/gdboxing/status/1659461829322571783?s=20



It's an awesome story, but I wonder how many of these AZ fans were "rushing to get to the players families and away fans" rather than just fans headed out to exit the building; and this is more of an instance of a handful of drunk fans fighting each other. Either way, I doubt West Ham is going to want to come out in support of fans fighting other fans, even if there is a veneer of nobility to it.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,079
Philadelphia
It's an awesome story, but I wonder how many of these AZ fans were "rushing to get to the players families and away fans" rather than just fans headed out to exit the building; and this is more of an instance of a handful of drunk fans fighting each other. Either way, I doubt West Ham is going to want to come out in support of fans fighting other fans, even if there is a veneer of nobility to it.
West Ham away support probably has a lot of guys who look like Knollsy!

I don't think this was AZ fans headed to the exit though, as that's just not how stadium seating is designed in Europe. Everything is geared toward segregating the away and home fans, not just where they sit but also the access to the seats and sometimes even the concourses and how they access the stadium. Those AZ fans almost certainly had their own entrance/exit from their own section but instead jumped over some kind of barrier and went looking for trouble.
 

67YAZ

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2000
8,207
First, congrats to @Dummy Hoy! Not sure how you fans survived that.

I was pretty shocked by the AZ ultras because I have been to many Dutch matches and considered the Netherlands to have a more subdued culture. I reached out to a Dutch friend and he relayed that AZ has a long had a reputation in Holland for hooliganism. My friend is a PSV fan; in 1996 a 16 year old PSV supporter was stabbed during a rumble with AZ ultras. But the turning point was a massive brawl between Ajax and Feynoord hooligans in 1997. This prompted a an intensive, multi-pronged effort to stamp out hooliganism. And it worked pretty well, not 100%, but if lead to thing like AZ and Feynoord ultras meeting up on a remote beach to brawl, no longer getting violent in and around matches.

But since COVID hit, things have gotten out of control again. During one match without fans due to COVID rules, some AZ fans broke into the stadium, which forced a forfeit.

The event that got the most attention in the country this year was a Feynoord fan throwing a lighter at Ajax’s Davy Klassen, which sent the player to the hospital for a concussion and stitches.

But the West Ham attempted invasion Is the #1 story right now and the government is promising to address it along with a series of violent events that have rocked the Netherlands’ self-conception as a peaceful, tolerance country.

Also in Dutch news - Feynoord won the league! And PSV finished second, which pushed Ajax down to 3rd and into the Europa League. Keep an eye on PSV’s Xavi Simons he’s a 20yo tiny (5’6”, 130lb) magician. He had 16g and 8 assists this year, really breaking out once Gakpo left.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
31,615
I just couldn’t bring myself to drop 290€ on a ticket for AC Milan tonight to go by myself and stand in the rain. Neither could the bro in front of me at the ticket office. Maybe next time.
 

SocrManiac

Tommy Seebach’s mustache
SoSH Member
Apr 15, 2006
8,245
Somers, CT
Maybe he is done at Brentford. How can the rest of the squad accept him back after this?
Teams can put up with an awful lot of shit from talented players. Maybe this is a different situation since he was putting his money where his disdain for his teammates lives. We'll see.
 

OCST

Sunny von Bulow
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2004
24,010
The 718
I was prepared to cut Toney a lot of slack, on the hypocrisy that has been pointed out here, but betting on one’s own side, especially to lose, that just can’t be tolerated.