Brighton - Chelsea preseason match in Philly this summer! Absolutely perfect. Could see a SoSH delegation attending this one. Tailgate at the Linc, anybody?
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?"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 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.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.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 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.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.
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.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.
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.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
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.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.
expected to return after the winter break in JanuaryBrentford is lucky it starts right away - half of this ban is over the summer.
Premier League doesn't have a winter break.expected to return after the winter break in January
It’s not a real break (unlike several European leagues which pause for several weeks), but rather each team gets 1 weekend off but it’s staggered so the league actually never stops (so basically like an nfl bye week)
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 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.
Brentford owner, Matthew Benham, is a player in the betting markets. Brentford's kit sponsor is Hollywood BetsAgreed. 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.
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.Brentford owner, Matthew Benham, is a player in the betting markets. Brentford's kit sponsor is Hollywood Bets
Any context here? That was brave. I hope the guy they pulled into the morass came out OK.Knollsy with a legendary performance here.
View: https://twitter.com/WestHam_Central/status/1659353585581273089
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.Any context here? That was brave. I hope the guy they pulled into the morass came out OK.
People on Twitter are saying the guy in the green shirt is not actually Knollsy.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.
West Ham away support probably has a lot of guys who look like Knollsy!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.
What a great watch. The referenced article is really good as a companion. The links drawn between tactics and societal / cultural differences were fascinating.
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.Maybe he is done at Brentford. How can the rest of the squad accept him back after this?