• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Best/Worst moments of pettiness so far.

Niall

International Captain
Pepe would have been strong fav to win this, but early exit means he wont feature as prominently as he would like, however his dive v Morocco was top notch.

I'l nominate Otamendi for the below v Croatia. He did the same Yesterday also:laugh:

Shout to Panama also who were a pretty unpleasant bunch also.


Other nominations welcome.

EDIT....If a mod can close this great, no need for this thread as a similar one a few threads down and busy enough. No idea how I missed that.
 
Last edited:

wpdavid

International Coach
I didn't think this needed its own thread, so here seemed as good a place as anywhere.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/jul/04/cloud-hanging-world-cup-fifa-england-colombia

The article's fine; I don't think any sane person could disagree with much of it.

What I found interesting was some of the comments. Lots of eminently sensible comments about refs actually applying the rules of the game and issuing yellow cards for dissent, even if only when it's prolonged and/or vehement. But the really interesting suggestion was about applying a version of rugby's penalty try rule where one team deliberately delays the taking of a penalty kick, as we saw from Colombia this week. Just award the goal and be done with. Maybe extend it to moving a free kick 10 metres forward if that's going on, and if that makes it a penalty, fine. Maybe that would shut the ****ers up.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I didn't think this needed its own thread, so here seemed as good a place as anywhere.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/jul/04/cloud-hanging-world-cup-fifa-england-colombia

The article's fine; I don't think any sane person could disagree with much of it.

What I found interesting was some of the comments. Lots of eminently sensible comments about refs actually applying the rules of the game and issuing yellow cards for dissent, even if only when it's prolonged and/or vehement. But the really interesting suggestion was about applying a version of rugby's penalty try rule where one team deliberately delays the taking of a penalty kick, as we saw from Colombia this week. Just award the goal and be done with. Maybe extend it to moving a free kick 10 metres forward if that's going on, and if that makes it a penalty, fine. Maybe that would shut the ****ers up.
The rugby rule I'd most like to see in football is where the team that commits a foul isn't allowed to touch the ball after the free kick has been given. It's not the worst means of time-wasting, but it's the easiest one to fix, and tactical fouling is less effective when the player can just pick up the ball and go.
 

Howe_zat

Audio File
A couple of things to import from rugby might be:

- Only the captain talks to the ref about decisions. This is probably just the teacher speaking but a bunch of players crowding the ref and yelling is just crazy. How you're supposed to convey authority while having that is beyond me.

- A more robust advantage system? In rugby you can play on when you're fouled in full knowledge that if things don't work out you can go back for the penalty. Amdram injury feigning is only the tactical move when you're fouled because if you play on then you get nothing. Not sure how you could implement it in football but it'd be a good idea to incentivise ambition by fouled players.
 
Last edited:

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
The rugby rule I'd most like to see in football is where the team that commits a foul isn't allowed to touch the ball after the free kick has been given. It's not the worst means of time-wasting, but it's the easiest one to fix, and tactical fouling is less effective when the player can just pick up the ball and go.
Yeah, banning teams who have just conceded from touching the ball would be good also.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
A more robust advantage system? In rugby you can play on when you're fouled in full knowledge that if things don't work out you can go back for the penalty. Amdram injury feigning is only the tactical move when you're fouled because if you play on then you get nothing. Not sure how you could implement it in football but it'd be a good idea to incentivise ambition by fouled players.
I like the idea but it would be quite a radical change with a lot of unpredictable knock-on effects. It wouldn't cut down on injury feigning very much though.

I think there's a lot less injury feigning than most people think. It's more that players used to feign the absence of pain, and they don't anymore. Very minor-looking fouls- having your foot trod on or being forcefully tripped- can inhibit your movement quite a lot for a few minutes. Why should you get up and play on at 60%? You don't owe it to the opponent who just kicked you. The only reason anyone did it before is because the big-dick culture told them to.
 

wpdavid

International Coach
Apparently there's a petition been started to replay the game due to 'the penalty that wasn't' and the Colombian goal that was disallowed as the ref had stopped play. 170,000 signatures to date.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
The ten yard rule for dissent was trialled in 01-02. Possibly only lower leagues but Jason Koumas scores a beauty from a free kick that was moved forwards once. Never got continued for whatever reason.
 

Tom Halsey

International Coach
It was definitely in the Prem too. I remember Beckham fuming at it one game (vs Southampton I think) when it got applied, as it meant he had to get the ball up and down in a shorter distance. He scored the free-kick anyway.

I remember it being pretty unpopular on the grounds that it doesn't always necessarily advantage the side who has the free-kick, depending on where it is.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
It was definitely in the Prem too. I remember Beckham fuming at it one game (vs Southampton I think) when it got applied, as it meant he had to get the ball up and down in a shorter distance. He scored the free-kick anyway.

I remember it being pretty unpopular on the grounds that it doesn't always necessarily advantage the side who has the free-kick, depending on where it is.
I suppose a solution to that would be to give the team with the free kick an option to move the ball up to ten metres forward.

Definitely agree with the idea of only the captain being able to speak to the ref.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
At the end of the day, they just need a directive to punish dissent the same way they’ve reacted to shirtpulling and wrestling at corners

The longer rules are ignored the harder they become to apply. Go in hard and things will get better

I reaslise this is all easier said than done but at the moment you can only assume when refs are assessed their failure to handle dissent is glossed over
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
Dissent is punishable with a yellow card anyway, there's nothing wrong with the rules.

Referees are to blame for it being rampant because for some reason they seem reluctant to actually utilise those rules.
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
A couple of things to import from rugby might be:

- Only the captain talks to the ref about decisions. This is probably just the teacher speaking but a bunch of players crowding the ref and yelling is just crazy. How you're supposed to convey authority while having that is beyond me.

- A more robust advantage system? In rugby you can play on when you're fouled in full knowledge that if things don't work out you can go back for the penalty. Amdram injury feigning is only the tactical move when you're fouled because if you play on then you get nothing. Not sure how you could implement it in football but it'd be a good idea to incentivise ambition by fouled players.
Football's far too quick and fluid to borrow rugby's advantage rule. Referees are quite happy to bring play back if no advantage materialises but in football you get a matter of seconds because you can advance very quickly down the field due to being able to pass forwards.

The one thing they could do is stop the ****ing clock while VAR is consulted.
 

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
Dissent is punishable with a yellow card anyway, there's nothing wrong with the rules.

Referees are to blame for it being rampant because for some reason they seem reluctant to actually utilise those rules.
Probably under pressure from the men in suits not to send off too many players and "ruin the spectacle" tbh. Or some other money-related reason.
 

Indipper

State Regular
Since we are talking rugby to football things, VAR needs a more sensible implementation. Every goal and every penalty should be checked. Send-offs too maybe. Also, give teams the option to request reviews. Just for good measure, though that might be a bit too much then.
 

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
Everything is checked by VAR isn't it? It's just that only things that look decidedly dodgy that actually get referred to the on pitch ref.
 

dontcloseyoureyes

BARNES OUT
Since we are talking rugby to football things, VAR needs a more sensible implementation. Every goal and every penalty should be checked. Send-offs too maybe. Also, give teams the option to request reviews. Just for good measure, though that might be a bit too much then.
You know nothing about VAR.
 

Top