Cowshed

28 minutes ago, spudski said:

Which makes no sense at all. No point in having laws in place, if the ref is going to ignore them and play to his rules.

Given the timescale the non quick free kick was taken going to ceremonial does make sense. Free kicks around the box taking that long post ten seconds will go on the whistle. This free kick is unusual (controversial), it did not follow norms. 

3 hours ago, spudski said:

I know they do...you are missing my point completely. 

Why have laws in place, saying you do not have to play to the refs whistle at free kicks, corners and throw ins? 

A ref has overrided those rules, if he's told players to play to the whistle. 

What refs usually do should have no relevance. They are wrong to override the laws. Just because they do it...it doesn't make it right. 

You may as well not have the laws in place at all. 

Because that is what the ref wants. The ref if moving players away from the ball to ten metres uses the whistle - He will state play to my whistle, he will state what he wants. That manages the game, its control, its management.

11 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Yes Dave. A game can be stopped without use of the whistle, and restarted without one. Yes refs will use their voice, sigh language (the arms) at times in games. Some refs will blow for everything and restart everything with the whistle. The point was if  you, or your team is out of shape, delay what is going to occur. 

Perhaps .. Yes players are coached to slow down dead balls to get their team mates into shape. Its a process that starts early. Children will give the ball back at their and their team mates disadvantage, learning experiences alter that behaviour. Switching on can mean intervening to instantly hinder the opponents ability to use a dead ball quickly. 

And yes get a yellow card. Generally no cards are given. You do what you can to affect outcomes. 

Why do you seem to be on .. The side of attempting to gain success yes. You interpret the rules and push them to gain advantage. If the ref allows you a minimal gain you take that advantage. If the ref intervenes take the sanction if there is one, but the quest to gain advantage continues - Because your team doesn't, doesn't mean the opposition won't.  

18 minutes ago, Steve Watts said:

Could you imagine the carnage?!? 

I don't think it was ever a designated number of seconds, though I agree the general feeling at the time was 6 seconds.  I think referees do still have words with the keeper and gives a warning for blatantly taking the piss.  My assumption for why it's not really implemented very often is that there wasn't any real clarity as to when that "count" should start.  The common sense approach would accept that the "count" doesn't start until a situation arises that the ball can be released.  That's to say if a striker was blocking the release the count wouldn't start until the keeper is able to release the ball unimpeded.  If he drops to the deck to smother the ball, there's another judgment call then to be made as to how long down is too long.  Too many variables would make for even more massive inconsistencies in the application of the rules, hence it being rarely used.

If a keeper holds the ball for more than six seconds it can be a indirect free kick. Six seconds is in the rules now. Refs very rarely enforce it. Refs do have that word with keepers as you observe. 

Its an odd rule with too many variables that effect the release of the ball in six seconds = Refs ignore the rule. 

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Quite simply, once the whistle goes, you shouldn’t be allowed to touch the ball and should move away as quickly as possible.  So that would cover off picking it up…which often leads to a melee of players trying to grab it.

Whatever the motives of the offside…see above rule, whistle goes, stop, move away.

Refs frequently wont blow the whistle. Your nice Corinthian spirit there of moving and leaving the ball to the chivalrous opponents to not take advantage of you being out of possession would be a real disadvantage to your team. 

Knock the ball away and make them get it back. Grab the ball and get your team mates in shape. Stand in front of it, delay it.. The game is there to be won.  

6 minutes ago, spudski said:

I see it completely differently. 

The laws of the game are in place. 

Teams play to those rules. 

A referee deciding to play to the whistle is over riding those rules. 

He's changing the laws of the game for his benefit. 

How are fans, managers and players meant to find continuity....if refs do as they like at Free kicks.

Also you are relying on communication from the ref being heard by everyone. 

It's too open to being controversial. 

 

No. that is incorrect. A ref can use his whistle at free kicks. They do frequently. 

You are saying the goal is "controversial". It is remarkable, its not a normal goal because of the refs unusual actions. The majority of referees would not be allowing that free quick to be taken in that manner after that duration of time. There are other elements that are uneven. Refs at that level are accomplished and skilled, that lack of level of control and that rare goal is more akin to Sunday league. 

4 minutes ago, spudski said:

And this is where controversy occurs. 

Referees changing how they are going to control a match, from one game to the other. 

'On my whistle'  is over ruling the laws of the game. 

A free kick can be taken at any time once given, as long as the defending team have moved 10 yards away...by law you don't have to wait for a whistle to restart. 

https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-13---free-kicks 

 

 

On my whistle isn't over ruling the laws of game. A ref can blow the whistle at any time to stop the game and restart it. A ref can inform a defending team on my whistle at free kicks, direct keeper etc and they routinely do. Its good practice information. 

This goal was very inconsistent.  Its not a quick free kick at all. Its ten seconds plus after the offence the "quick" free kick is taken. Players around the ball. Players doing laces up. The refs proximity to the ball is odd. He is getting there quickly to stop the game.  If you want quick free kicks the ref stays away (they do), Its not normal practice. Its not normal control given the level of the game. The majority of refs do not allow free kicks to be taken like this. Hence I wonder what the players expectations would be from his instruction.

21 hours ago, spudski said:

....apparently the player asked the ref whether it was ok to take it quickly. And he said yes. 

I guess as defenders you have to be constantly alert and not expect to play to the whistle. 

All time club record broken as well. 40 this season so far. 

 

The referee should also be giving the defending team instruction .. On my whistle etc. Refs providing information of what the expectations are part of their control of the game. 

So the answer could be no depending on what information the ref has given the players. 

17 hours ago, Clutton Caveman said:

Over the last few years, referees have been given the power to stamp our bad behaviour.

Years ago they were allowed to advance a free kick 10 yards for decent. They did it for a couple of weeks and then it disappeared.

Recently we see players booked when more than 2 players approach the ref. This also seems to have died out. Seems to me they cannot complain if they don't maximise rule changes that help them. With recent form they certainly seem to need help.

I think that in any other job you do not have to put up with somebody having a foul mouthed rant at you. Why should refs have to put up with this? Foul and abusive language used to be a sending off offence.

Kicking the ball away was a yellow card. Now when any decision such as a throw in or free kick is given against a player he automatically kicks it away. The only way you get a yellow now is to punt it into the stand.

All of these small things in my opinion detract from the quality of the product and the entertainment level.

As I am venting, can anyone understand why the obstruction rule was phased out? In its day this rule prevented the time wasting around the corner flag made defenders play the ball as it approached the goal line. Again increased entertainment

Finally grappling in the box at corners and free kicks. This is only negative in my opinion. For me any holding using the arms on an player in the box should be a free kick or penalty. This is a fairly recent phenomenon as usual creeping in from from the continent. If this simple rule was applied , entertainment would improve.

Really finally. If Sykes can be retrospectively banned for violent conduct, why can't divers or players who fake facial contact suffer the same fate.

End of rant. 

You use the word entertainment frequently, but not game. 

You are using examples there that are not new phenomenons. Players and coaches will always look to create advantages to achieve their objective - their success. 

Referees are generally objective. They have to decide what to let go and what to penalise, and what to sanction. Referees do not view what is a game as product and entertainment. Neither do players. Its a game were the object is to win. Referees attempt to keep the game going. If referees intervene for every transgression your product and your entertainment will suffer, and the game will not flow.

21 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Spot on.

Think 4-3-3 ia a very modern, suitable setup. Not the be all and end all and there were good performances albeit unsuccessful results or good results with questionable performances with a back 3.

However totally agree on the pressing point, I also believe and have argued this on here periodically in recent years that 4-3-3 is better for possession football therefore the possession and press combo ajd that with players such as recently Massengo, before him Nagy, arguably would have helped Pack, Smith and Brownhill to be even better...Walsh had he been fit is another.

Hegeler probably would have suited a 3, Henriksen too- closer proximity, tighter unit- probably better for possession in a 3 than a 2 abd by a 3 I mean 3 true CMs, not say 2 CMs and one of Paterson/Weimann, let alone Palmer or O'Dowda.

Its geometrical. 4-3-3 can be used to cover more of the pitch using width and depth, which creates greater passing angles to maintain possession versus other formations. 

19 hours ago, Percy Pig said:

I've had this argument many times and I really can't be bothered to have it again. 

What I will say is that formation and style are not even remotely related. You can play gegenpress in a 352 and a 433, you can play long ball, tiki-taka etc etc. Our style has not changed. 

Gegenpressing is associated with 4-3-3. Numerically two cannot press the ball with as much intensity as a three in a unit. 4-3-3 also keeps players in closer proximity to counter press. Formation and style there are related. 

31 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

But you’re often gonna get differences of opinions on players and their current and future levels….

 

Yes.

32 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

 there is probably some diplomacy in the answers Nige and Tins gave, and also ensuring they come across as joined up too.

A second yes. Your exceptionally good at this, 

40 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Isn’t it as simple as:

- City were happy for him to stay at Wimbledon

- Ryley was happy to stay at Wimbledon

Portsmouth made an offer to buy him

- City were happy with the construct of the fee

- Ryley was happy with his side of the deal

Player transfers to Portsmouth 

Just shows how quickly things can change.

I merely answered the point about all and correct. All at Bristol City did not think this was the correct decision. 

5 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

I'm not pretending to know him or his motivations or desires at the time. However, right now the move does seem to have been good for all parties.

 Ryley leaving BCFC was not considered to be the correct decision by all at the club. Ryley did not expect to be leaving BCFC when he went to Wimbledon to gain experience to further his development as a Bristol City player in the long term, and neither did Brian Tinnion.    

44 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Exactly. The lad's played 93% of the maximum potential minutes he could have played since joining Pompey. 9 full 90 minute games in a solid League 1 side.

What would he have played in that same time here? Maybe, maybe, a couple of cameo 10 minutes here and there. 

Correct decision from all parties to let him go. 

Ryley Towler did not want to leave. He had not pushed for a move. The move was a surprise to the player. 

He was going out on loan to gain experience to improve as a player for BCFC, something he relished doing. This was his picture and the picture being painted for him. 

The decision to let him go was not from all parties at BCFC.  

13 minutes ago, hinsleburg said:

For me it's Weimann

Not just in terms of distance covered but the intelligence of his movement and runs.

I think work rate is often stereotyped as just 'who runs the most' but I'd be interested in seeing 'number of sprints' as think that's a much better metric, as alluded to above somebody could probably amble about for 90 minutes and cover a good chunk of ground without working too hard. But Weimann has the ability to go 100% right until the end constantly making runs and pressing, think he's a freak in the best possible way! Constantly harassing opposition and officials as well as covering team mates where needed, very lucky to have had him for so long and think we are a better side with him in it!

Agree with the Stead shout above as well for similar reasons, I think what was in some ways more impressive about Stead was physically he's not as well built for it compared to people like Weimann

I don't have the metrics, but players barely sprint in games. What’s is measured as sprints are not sprints, and that is around 1% of the game. Sprinting is what is known as actualisation, actualisation is where sprinting speed is reached, and this occurs after approximately sixty metres of acceleration in a straight line. Footballers generally do not run in straight lines, rarely if ever for sixty metres and the overwhelming majority of movements in any direction/directions are less than twenty metres.

Players as a collective average do around 1,400 changes of direction.

Players walk more than they sprint. Its around 36%. Standinmg still is 18%. Jog 16%. Low speed running 15%. Moderate speed running 10%. High  running 2%. Jumping 2%. Sprinting 1%. The source there is Richard Bate former FA technical director, and Sport Dimensions development.. 

Beautiful. RIP the greatest and first.

2 hours ago, Jacki said:

Ok, if you’re comparing HPC to most of those clubs then your point about it not being ‘top class’ is a fair one.

Which was the point made. Bristol City's training facilities are of a standard I would expect to see.

A point I posted years ago on this forum was that BCFC could have invested far earlier. David James wages for a season would finance a network of coaches at regional youth development centres for seasons. Bristol City have had a lot of these wages not achieving a lot, but creating significant financial losses. The money Mr Lansdown spent on restructuring repeatedly debts of tens of millions could have been invested in going down a path of a state of the art, excellent, top-class facility and a regional network of development coaching across the South West. 

5 hours ago, Jacki said:

I’m reading a lot of stuff about facilities, the academy, Lansdown’s intentions etc. I understand that people are frustrated at the moment but some of it is no accurate imo.

I’m fortunate enough to be at the HPC often, and have visited training grounds all over the midlands, south and south west over the last couple of years. HPC is an absolutely top class facility and is right up there with any I have been to….. the only one that is in a completely different league is Chelsea, which is exactly what you would expect. The ones you mention are also excellent, but ours is right up there with them. Those facilities will stand us in good stead when we’re trying to attract players, for many years to come. 

The post from @kmpowell is one of the most interesting I’ve seen for a long time. I suspect that one is spot on…. The lack of diversity of thought and the fact that SL has taken too much responsibility is most likely one of the key parts of the problem. 

Sorry top class would mean Bristol City's training ground would be amongst Arsenal, Villas, Brightons Chelseas, Leicesters, Man City's, Southampton, Spurs. With respect it absolutely is not.  I have been fortuntate to have seen my Son play at and taken youth teams to those facilities to play against academies and development sides. There are worlds apart there,

5 hours ago, Bat Fastard said:

Apart from the beautiful stadium, the state of the art training ground, the excellent academy and the fact that we have lasted in the Championship- what have the Lansdowns ever done for us??

Beauty is a perception, but we can measure excellence. Excellence would be category 1/player development efficiency. Bristol Citys academy is not cat 1 and not ranked in the top 15 academies in England for developing players = It is perfoming well, but not excellent. 

Your use of state of the art would indicate you feel BCFC have a training facility of the highest level. Versus the South West yes, but versus facilities at Villa, or Leicester or Southampton or many Championship sides and virtually all Premiership clubs its a big big no. 

1 minute ago, Harry said:

I wasn’t weeing myself about it. 
Just thinking of how we can influence. 
I don’t think refs are out to get us. I just think we need to get some awareness of our predicament and get into their heads. 

If we make referees aware of this massive anomaly, they might be influenced when making a tight call on the pitch. 
 

That one on Wells yesterday. I wonder if a ref who’d been subtly reminded that we’ve only had 2 penalties in nearly 3 seasons, might have that extra 1 or 2 percent favourable influence in his head and award it. Could be all it takes. Refs are human too, and can be subject to influence. 
 

I don’t think we’re victims of a conspiracy, and I’m not crying about it, but you have to admit, it’s a massive anomaly and I think we’d be right to get this highlighted to the world and particularly the world of officialdom. 

Are you sure about that? Or might they not?  

No I wouldnt. Focusing on what you control versus negative noise, solutions versus excuses, is a superior path.  

17 hours ago, Harry said:

I think we’re never going to get a penalty again. 
We need to start influencing these referees. They’re probably not aware that we haven’t had one since 1947. 
We need to laminate this photo and stick it on all 4 walls of the officials changing room. We should also have Jason Euell have a laminated copy and show it to the 4th official every time we have a shout turned down. 
They need to know. 
This pic was based on stats in August. I’m sure our line is off the chart now…..

 

 

Focus on behaviours that make success more likely. Don’t wee yourself about it (penalties)  Back to focus on behaviours that make success more likely those controllables of possession, chance creation versus the uncontrollables e.g. refs who are not out to get Bristol City. 

11 hours ago, Rob k said:

Anyone watching MOTD? How on earth have they asked the ref to look at the Brentford penalty and not the Forest incident which could easily have been a penalty? 
 

VAR - worst thing to ever happen to football 

It is beyond rubbish.

The VAR intervention would be contentious and be around law 12 then 14. The two are not the same.

The incident was then shown on screens in the stadium. Players are surrounding the ref, Crowd is? Henderson acts like a big baby and should have been have been booked for dissent then off for the second yellow.

It’s all pressure on the ref. Respect is arse wiped again.

The cycle of abuse towards officials is furthered, people see all of that and the refs at every level are fair game, abuse will be refs mobbed in cars from parents, punches thrown at refs, child refs leaving pitches in tears again and again at grass roots level ...What is seen at the top is repeated.

3 minutes ago, Countryfile said:

Which is why we need VAR as intended, to correct human error.

Expecting the officials to get every decision right is asking the impossible,  expecting clear errors to be corrected by referral when peoples livelihood’s are at stake is blindingly obvious.

Two things would improve the football experience for everyone immediately, VAR and taking the timekeeping away from the referee.

Thats not say that VAR is perfect, yes it will need refinement, but it’s got to be better than clear injustices benefiting those who have broken the rules.

Timekeeping isnt the responsibilty of the ref in pro football, fourth official there

The game exists without VAR. We dont need it. VAR does not improve the experience for everbody.

VAR undermines refs because instead of focussing on the ref being the official in charge, and that role being respected focus is on error. Refs still get criticised and abused and so does VAR .. A prediction I made becaause that a is a nature of humans.

VAR does not break the cancerous cycle of abuse of refs in the game. VAR wont recruit or improve the crisis in ref recruitment at grass roots level feeding into the games pyramid . Linesman are being reduced to individuals carrying a flag. The refs role gets dumbed down. 

Development? Progression? Impact on game? Respect? 

The game is being damaged. Each seaason football loses thousands more refs than it recruits. VAR could be adding to the haemorrhage.

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

But Sharp was involved in play.

I agree, but the experts with a whistle and flag did not. Even experts and that is what they are will make errors, or see the game differently in a fleeting moment.