AC Milan sold Thiago Silva and Ibrahimovic to PSGSay goodbye to the titles this year fellas
Very interesting. Methinks Ibrahimovic' days at the top are numbered.
Official Football Thread
- Thread starter national acrobat
- Start date
Very interesting. Methinks Ibrahimovic' days at the top are numbered.
Yup. I don't blame the guy though, he wanted to stay.
Black Wizard
Pleb Hunter
Are you a big fan NP?Glasgow Rangers relegated to third division
Not a BIG fan, but I prefer them over Celtic 
Black Wizard
Pleb Hunter
They both annoy me equally. Personally I think the SFA, SPL and the other 11 clubs should have found a way to put them back in the SPL for financial reasons. The TV deal with Sky says that there must be 4 Old Firm derbies per season, and that's the only reason any broadcaster would want to show Scottish football (which is fair enough), so Sky might decide to pull out of the deal with the SPL. Having Dundee in the SPL in Rangers' place for the coming season helps Dundee United and St. Johnstone a little bit since they'll get at least one more home game with a big attendance and the Dundee Derby will probably attract a bit of TV interest. The other teams, however, will have an even tougher time of it financially without Rangers.
Dr. Eddies Wingman
Brighter than thousand_suns
@Wingman, what do you think of Omar Elabdellaoui? A Norwegian youth international, coming to "my" club, Feyenoord.
I must admit, I don't know much about him. According to Sources™, he played for the Oslo club Skeid before joining the Manchester City academy. He played 12 matches for Strømsgodset (current leaders in the Norwegian league, to the surprise of many) last year. His cousins Muhammed "Moa" and Mustafa "Mos" Abdellaoue are far more known, Moa being a regular in the Norwegian first team and scoring plenty in his first Bundesliga season.
But if this guy is as talented as his cousins, he'll do well.
national acrobat
Ancient Mariner
FAO, Loose Cannon:
You now have a reason to support QPR, as they've signed Canadian player Junior Hoillett, a very good young prospect.
We actually used to have another Canadian player, Marc Bircham. I say Canadian, he wasn't at all really, he was a local hero; I think he qualified through his grandfather or something. But he holds the brilliant record of being the only footballer to represent a country without ever stepping foot in it.
You now have a reason to support QPR, as they've signed Canadian player Junior Hoillett, a very good young prospect.
We actually used to have another Canadian player, Marc Bircham. I say Canadian, he wasn't at all really, he was a local hero; I think he qualified through his grandfather or something. But he holds the brilliant record of being the only footballer to represent a country without ever stepping foot in it.
Black Wizard
Pleb Hunter
Dundee United have just outplayed Dynamo Moscow in the first half. The score is 1-0 but it should be 2-0!
So I started this in the Olympic thread, but it fits better over here, where you true football fans can have at me.
I have a real problem with way football can severely penalize teams for an official’s mistake on a penalty call — much more severely in any other team sport. It goes against the spirit of fair competition.
My numbers are not exact, but they are ballpark, so please respond to the spirit of my argument.
In volleyball, it's easy — a missed call by an official automatically costs the unfortunate team one point. Since you need 25 points to win a set and 75 to win a match, the official’s mistake reduces that team’s chance of victory by 1.3 per cent.
Basketball is little tougher. Let’s say for sake of argument you need 100 points to win. If a team shoots 80 per cent from the foul line, the price of a missed foul is 1.6 points. The official’s mistake reduces that team’s chance of victory by 1.6 per cent.
Ice hockey’s penalties are harsher. If a team typically needs four goals to win and power play typically hits at 20 per cent, an official’s mistake on a penalty call reduces that team’s chance of victory by 5 per cent.
But football is nuts. Two goals are often enough to win. Penalty kicks are successful 75 per cent of the time. An official’s mistake on a hand ball in the crease reduces the unlucky team’s chance of victory by 38 per cent! Even if you up the total needed to win to three goals, it’s still a whopping 25 per cent hit.
To me, saying a missed handball in the penalty area in football is worth five times as much as a missed attacking zone hold in hockey, or 25 times as much as a missed chop to the shooting arm in basketball is absolutely ridiculous.
Can someone please demonstrate why it’s not?
I have a real problem with way football can severely penalize teams for an official’s mistake on a penalty call — much more severely in any other team sport. It goes against the spirit of fair competition.
My numbers are not exact, but they are ballpark, so please respond to the spirit of my argument.
In volleyball, it's easy — a missed call by an official automatically costs the unfortunate team one point. Since you need 25 points to win a set and 75 to win a match, the official’s mistake reduces that team’s chance of victory by 1.3 per cent.
Basketball is little tougher. Let’s say for sake of argument you need 100 points to win. If a team shoots 80 per cent from the foul line, the price of a missed foul is 1.6 points. The official’s mistake reduces that team’s chance of victory by 1.6 per cent.
Ice hockey’s penalties are harsher. If a team typically needs four goals to win and power play typically hits at 20 per cent, an official’s mistake on a penalty call reduces that team’s chance of victory by 5 per cent.
But football is nuts. Two goals are often enough to win. Penalty kicks are successful 75 per cent of the time. An official’s mistake on a hand ball in the crease reduces the unlucky team’s chance of victory by 38 per cent! Even if you up the total needed to win to three goals, it’s still a whopping 25 per cent hit.
To me, saying a missed handball in the penalty area in football is worth five times as much as a missed attacking zone hold in hockey, or 25 times as much as a missed chop to the shooting arm in basketball is absolutely ridiculous.
Can someone please demonstrate why it’s not?
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Statistics are handy to compare but let's not forget that these sports have different circumstances.
A handball itself is already a complex matter. And a penalty matter as well. Ever heard of schwalbes?
It's not difficult to fake a penalty. Faking is hardly possible in the sports you mention, or I could even go further: it hardly happens. A volleyball player does not fall to the ground, hoping to get extra points. I doubt this happens in hockey or basketball either.
So penalties have less consequences in the sports you mentioned but because a penalty can be so decisive in football, one needs to be careful about it. The only solution I can imagine is using technology to control these matters.
And your whole argument does not show how often a penalty is missed by a ref in football, compared to missing one in other sports. Perhaps that happens 1:100.
A handball itself is already a complex matter. And a penalty matter as well. Ever heard of schwalbes?
It's not difficult to fake a penalty. Faking is hardly possible in the sports you mention, or I could even go further: it hardly happens. A volleyball player does not fall to the ground, hoping to get extra points. I doubt this happens in hockey or basketball either.
So penalties have less consequences in the sports you mentioned but because a penalty can be so decisive in football, one needs to be careful about it. The only solution I can imagine is using technology to control these matters.
And your whole argument does not show how often a penalty is missed by a ref in football, compared to missing one in other sports. Perhaps that happens 1:100.
My argument arose from missed calls, but I suppose you could turn it around and apply it to perfect officiating as well.
Why should a handball inside the penalty area penalize the offending team so severely?
Most handballs seem to be accidental. Relatively few prevent scoring chances.
Scoring chances in football are so hard to come by. Why is such an easy chance rewarded so capriciously?
Why is it considered such a heinous act that it reduces your chances of winning by so much?
It seems to remove the game result from the hands of the athletes and instead reward the lucky bounce.
Why should a handball inside the penalty area penalize the offending team so severely?
Most handballs seem to be accidental. Relatively few prevent scoring chances.
Scoring chances in football are so hard to come by. Why is such an easy chance rewarded so capriciously?
Why is it considered such a heinous act that it reduces your chances of winning by so much?
It seems to remove the game result from the hands of the athletes and instead reward the lucky bounce.
Rotam
Night and day I scan horizon, sea and sky
First of all, you're almost saying whistle for a penalty is the same thing as scoring it. It isn't.
Secondly, all the players knows that inside the area only the keeper can touch the ball with his hands. That is not the same as the ball touches the hands or the arms. So, defenders (or the best of them) always defends with their hands in their backs.
One thing is deliberate touch it, one thing is the ball by the kick's power or a detour touches one's arms or hands. That is not a penalty. Canada is right (i saw it on a Tv's report). The lucky bounce as you say it, is not about luck at all, because it is a fault made by the defender (or any player), not by the ball coming to a defender.
The debate is all about the technology being part of the game. There are a few introductions in the last years, but they are almost secondary (like the ref's headphones). You have to understand significant part of the worldwide success of football derives from the fans' discussions. Football wouldn't be the same if you couldn't discuss the goal of the 1966 World Cup final or Maradona's hand goal in 1986.
The International Board is very conservative to implement major changes in the sport. Because they agree that mistakes, by nature, are part of the game. Players can fail, the managers can fail, so can referees.
Football industry is a relatively recent news to the sport, so it is a difficult balance, if you think about it.
Secondly, all the players knows that inside the area only the keeper can touch the ball with his hands. That is not the same as the ball touches the hands or the arms. So, defenders (or the best of them) always defends with their hands in their backs.
One thing is deliberate touch it, one thing is the ball by the kick's power or a detour touches one's arms or hands. That is not a penalty. Canada is right (i saw it on a Tv's report). The lucky bounce as you say it, is not about luck at all, because it is a fault made by the defender (or any player), not by the ball coming to a defender.
The debate is all about the technology being part of the game. There are a few introductions in the last years, but they are almost secondary (like the ref's headphones). You have to understand significant part of the worldwide success of football derives from the fans' discussions. Football wouldn't be the same if you couldn't discuss the goal of the 1966 World Cup final or Maradona's hand goal in 1986.
The International Board is very conservative to implement major changes in the sport. Because they agree that mistakes, by nature, are part of the game. Players can fail, the managers can fail, so can referees.
Football industry is a relatively recent news to the sport, so it is a difficult balance, if you think about it.
1) I'm not saying awarding a penalty kick is the same as awarding a goal. I'm saying it is three out of every four times.
2) That doesn't answer why a defender is penalized so severely for making a mistake
3) If it was a bad call, why do the rules allow officials' mistakes to give a team a 38 per cent advantage?
4) Are you saying rules should not be changed because changing them is bad marketing?
5) The game need not be fair because life isn't fair?
2) That doesn't answer why a defender is penalized so severely for making a mistake
3) If it was a bad call, why do the rules allow officials' mistakes to give a team a 38 per cent advantage?
4) Are you saying rules should not be changed because changing them is bad marketing?
5) The game need not be fair because life isn't fair?