Talking Footy

sydneyfc wrote:

cos789 wrote:

If soccer is so entertaining why don't people watch the nsl?
Soccer toady is about defensive setups, offside traps, moving the ball down the wings to force a corner kick and manufacture a goal from there or go inbound and draw a penalty in the box.
Midfield play is typically very boring. And you have the slightest imagination. If a team puts numbers in it's attacking half that means the defensive half is lacking.
Have you seen a game of GAA? A very attractive game that soccer should be like. When Australia Vs Ireland IR was big news in the UK the GAA got a big boost in interest from British soccer fans.

I dont know what GAA is exactly .

You don't know what GAA is AT ALL. Gaelic Football. It's like soccer except you can use your hands and no-offside.
IR is hybrid between GAA and AFL and allows tackling but looks a lot like GAA.
I don't know what you see as so attractive about soccer as you don't even know the basic tactics.
And you haven't answered about penalising only deliberate handballs and outs and not the manufactured ones.
Then again FIFA cannot distinguish between a trip and a dive so I guess it's all too hard.

cos789 wrote:

sydneyfc wrote:

cos789 wrote:

If soccer is so entertaining why don't people watch the nsl?
Soccer toady is about defensive setups, offside traps, moving the ball down the wings to force a corner kick and manufacture a goal from there or go inbound and draw a penalty in the box.
Midfield play is typically very boring. And you have the slightest imagination. If a team puts numbers in it's attacking half that means the defensive half is lacking.
Have you seen a game of GAA? A very attractive game that soccer should be like. When Australia Vs Ireland IR was big news in the UK the GAA got a big boost in interest from British soccer fans.

I dont know what GAA is exactly .

You don't know what GAA is AT ALL. Gaelic Football. It's like soccer except you can use your hands and no-offside.
IR is hybrid between GAA and AFL and allows tackling but looks a lot like GAA.
I don't know what you see as so attractive about soccer as you don't even know the basic tactics.
And you haven't answered about penalising only deliberate handballs and outs and not the manufactured ones.
Then again FIFA cannot distinguish between a trip and a dive so I guess it's all too hard.

hardly, i see nothing that needs to be changed about the way the game is played as it stands. referee interpretations when it comes to fouls and simulation will always need work but as it stands the game is fine. every single rule change you've suggested seems ridiculous and your only way of supporting the idea is that soccer is boring to watch for you

no one asked you to enjoy the game, if it's not your cup of tea, that's fine. like i said, find me a sport anywhere in the world where people will unanimously go out of their way to watch it or enjoy it. you won't find any.

and you're a master tactician? you're on record claiming that the main aim for soccer is to win a corner and get a penalty

you're not going to please everyone, but as long as the overwhelming majority are happy then that's good enough to me.

things i find attractive about soccer are things that start so basic like first touch, different passing techniques, ball recycling and rotation, watching teams dominate possession, the stories behind clubs and teams, the rivalries, outrageous skills, determination - even a bit of a controversy and drama. plenty of stuff to keep me entertained.

i can watch a team playing with their entire team behind the ball sitting in and around the box and see the beauty of it.

i dont need to invent some silly rules like changing the offside rule or removing goalkeepers to help keep my attention span

And you haven't answered about penalising only deliberate handballs and outs and not the manufactured ones.
Then again FIFA cannot distinguish between a trip and a dive so I guess it's all too hard.

deliberate and accidental handball interpretations already exist. referees interpret it in their own way

not in the box

cos789 wrote:

not in the box

ive seen plenty of handballs not given by referees due to the players having their hands by their waist

technically the ball has "hit the arm" but because the player didn't intend to make a play at it with his hand then no penalty is given. ive seen decisions go against the defender in that situation too - hell it happened recently for australia against the netherlands.

by the same token if a player goes to defend a ball and has his hand up in the air far away from the rest of his body - even if he didn't intend to - but stops the ball with his arm or hand in the box, then that can be considered a pen depending on the referee's perspective

and then you have the deliberate hand balls

plenty of different ways to interpret what a penalty is and what is not

Australia scored a free kick because lil ozzie kicked the ball into the guys hand.
You seem full of bs now.

cos789 wrote:

Australia scored a free kick because lil ozzie kicked the ball into the guys hand.
You seem full of bs now.

8-9 times out of 10 a referee wouldn't of given that as a penalty. It was pretty harsh

btw it was a penalty kick not a free kick noob!

you seem to have run out of steam? not much left to say? was expecting more from a master tactician

sydneyfc wrote:

cos789 wrote:

Australia scored a free kick because lil ozzie kicked the ball into the guys hand.
You seem full of bs now.

8-9 times out of 10 a referee wouldn't of given that as a penalty. It was pretty harsh.

harsh yes and all too familiar. 10 out of 10 ten times the ref will pay a free kick. Even the commentators said it was an automatic free kick.
Are you saying the commentators know less than you??

And nooooooooooooob if I say "free kick" people know exactly what I mean whilst "penalty kick" is ambiguous.
And if you want people to speak your jargon then don't monopolize the word "football".

cos789 wrote:

sydneyfc wrote:

cos789 wrote:

Australia scored a free kick because lil ozzie kicked the ball into the guys hand.
You seem full of bs now.

8-9 times out of 10 a referee wouldn't of given that as a penalty. It was pretty harsh.

harsh yes and all too familiar. 10 out of 10 ten times the ref will pay a free kick. Even the commentators said it was an automatic free kick.
Are you saying the commentators know less than you??

And nooooooooooooob if I say "free kick" people know exactly what I mean whilst "penalty kick" is ambiguous.
And if you want people to speak your jargon then don't monopolize the word "football".

a free kick is given outside the box

a penalty kick is given after a foul occurs by a defender or any player in that team, in their own box

'the commentators'

you mean the craig foster and dave basheer? they were cheerleading for australia and made no attempt to not show their bias. and not that that's a bad thing...they do the aussie telecast after all.

The referee was ridiculed from press and experts around the world for calling it a hand ball.

Yest the decision was NEVER going to revoked.

And I heard nobody ridiculing the ref. All I herad was "automatic penalty".