Cowshed

In regards to football there are numerous colour that could provide marginal gain. The colour black indicates strength, and this in theory could make an individual feel marginally stronger. Stripes horizontally make individuals larger rather than vertical stripes. Black horizontal stripes are eye catching hence why the colour black is used in underlining. Red and black is particularly eye catching, red top newspapers originally used their red tops to catch the eye. Black is an excellent choice for catching peripheral vision, and remaining rememberable . Watching Arsenal in a kit of flecks, and logos can make their yellow less eye catching, and it has. The purpose of much of what goes on a kit does not aid vision, that is not its purpose, what is being done for kits are no more than marketing gimmicks.

Check laws on where the ball hits the arm and on natural position. Its in the laws. I thinks its amazing that a man who is in charge of a team worth hundreds of millions, has a supportive network of coaches and analysts to support his football, and training that includes defending and where players position their arms doesn't know whats in law 12. There is the qualified expert for you. And a panel of these ex Manager ex player experts has been formed to cast judgement on refereeing standards. The stats they create? Suspect.

There are serious problems being caused by players, spectators and parents. Mirroring behaviour they see at the the games peak. It is a known and logical consequence. The FA not the PGMOL should be far harder on Managers undermining referees, encouraging abuse of refs and damaging the game. No. That may be a joke but as many decisions like corners, goal kicks and throw in's are not subjective and clear refs will get an overwhelming number of decisions correct. Yesterday saw Sean Dyche stating publicly he doesn't know the laws of the game , a decision was bizarre, he didn't think the handball was deliberate. Sean Dyche a Manager, an ex player, does not know a significant law of the game, handball does not need to be deliberate. Do the experts on the key match incident panel also have as much knowledge of the laws of the game to come to their 15% of decisions are wrong?

It is not odd. The route to from seven to four is a couple of years of displaying competency and earning the award to ref at higher levels. The top refs ARE the best of the best, they have displayed this over years and improved their skills to gain increments at 2a/2b. At level three refs get £50 a game, then at three levels higher a PGMOL ref can be paid 150k a season depending on performance. Top level refs are very fit. The PGMOL standard box to box(it mirrors the game) interval test will not be competed without a high level of fitness. If a ref cannot complete the test, they cannot ref at the top level.

The individual started refffing prior to 2010. Taking fifteen years plus to ref in the EPL is not unusual, and well fifteen year is not fast.

He played for Bath City under Paul Bodin, he is from Melksham and related to Fitzroy Simpson who did play a few games for City. Rebecca Welches fast tracking has taken fifteen years. She was also an elite EUFA women's referee

I coach so I don't see City as much as most here. The little I see so far is a team attempting to play positionally. Teams will stuff one up, its part of the process, it has to be expected, and this would also be considered about what occurs when error happens when going direct quickly, people frequently don't look at those errors in the same manner. Depends on the team - There are lots of variables. A Charles Hughes once put forward arguments v possession football. Yes a high number of goals are scored from less than 3 passes and counters. Using his methodology that was called the Winning formula Wimbledon were right Brazil and the Netherlands and Spain and Germany would be wrong. Your use of intent there. All passes have sake, some sake/point than others. Liverpool 79 - 85 dominated football with sideways, lots of backwards to kill games, quieten crowds and that was the intent in much of keeping the ball, resting in and defending in possession, turned out all right! Whats in the opening post, isn't warped, or frequently new at all

It really is not Robbo. Transition does not yield more goals than possession football. A team that can keep the ball for more than eight passes and play positionally is as likely to score as a team transitioning in a counter attack. Barcelona at their peak did both. Slow methodical build up meant that the team could keep numerous players around the ball to counter press when they lost possession and they would have numerical superiority and opposition out of shape.

Nigel Pearson insulted a ref. That is what his fine was for. The very best do this the Klopps and Guardiola's. Arteta insults and overtly criticises refs monthly. I know you know what definitions of abuse are, overt criticism and insulting an individual is abuse. The answer to your questions are in the FA' s rule E. Yes we all see Managers, making excuses for their own failings, projecting their failure onto others, creating victim narratives, demonstrating their lack of control. Managers have freedoms, they do not have the freedom to abuse referees. they can still express themselves within the rules for the leagues their team play within. In your post you said seeing Managers losing it was entertaining (Yes it sort of is ), but what are the consequences for the game? There is a connection between behaviours seen at the game zenith demonstrated by highly paid and well protected Managers, and the abuse and assault of referees throughout the game, what we see is mirrored and more through football.

Terry Coopers Bristol City used that kick off with a slight difference, the ball was deliberately put out of play by the corner flag for a throw in, and City would press the throw in. This was to create a impression on the opposition of being under pressure from kick off and set a tempo to the game.

The figures referred to in the thread - 85% of key decisions are correct. A figure reached by looking at a sample of decisions and a panel which includes individuals who are not expert referees, then vote upon decisions including subjective decisions whether they deem them to be correct.

It literally cannot be the same thing, the bodies are separate. A Manager can criticise a referee, but they cannot insult referees and bring the game into disrepute which is what Nigel Pearson did. Personally I think the FA is far to lenient towards Managers. Its a shame Managers feel so free to abuse referees and undermine authority from their protected positions. Managers receive paltry punishments while their behaviour has far reaching serious repercussions throughout football.

It is not within the PGMOL's power to gag or fine Managers. Fined by? The FA. Could you explain how these figures are calculated? I could not. Subjective decisions cannot have a unequivocal right.

Were you cheating? Refs have been assessed as being correct 98% of the time. Referee myth-busting: How many decisions do officials get right? | Football News | Sky Sports

Refs do not get 15% of decisions wrong. What was studied here were key decisions, not all decisions. Amongst the study were subjective decisions because some laws of the game are subjective.

Could you highlight one game J?

Five years ago BCFC were sharing facilities at QEH, the academies base was portacabins at the WISE campus. City had some catching up to do. I have visited most of the pro clubs in the South and the West's training grounds due to coaching at development level and a son playing academy football. I have also visited Man City and Man Utds training grounds to watch my Son play. How does BCFC's training ground compare to Brighton's, or Southampton's, or Leicesters, or Wolves, or Man City, or Arsenal or Chelsea's or Spurs etc? The answer would be it is not on par with those facilities. It certainly not top tier like Man City or parallel to the Brighton's and Leicester's. Place Bristol City training facility in the third tier, modern, the highest standard of a club in the region of the South West and reflective of the clubs status, and its significant but not Premier league investment in training structure.

You have just used that we again. Supporters and their views are not one homogenised lump. There were numerous posts about spending, and how poor spending was during that time. I called the spending versus income a nonsense, no hindsight, and it was. Posters highlighted a concern about Palmers work rate in a team. He was a show pony, a showy flick every ten minutes isn't enough, five touches slows the game down, not getting into shape damages the teams intent. Yes, I and others labelled it a poor signing at the time that did not appear to have the dna to fit the identity and project that Lee Johnson was possibly(!!) pursuing at the time. I can go in to depth about clubs in the bag, another nonsense where signings costing millions were dumped in a hole called clubs in the bag at the training ground, and I was writing that at the time, clubs in the bag was millions of pounds wasted. I and many others posted for years about BCFC lack of model of play (identity) and scattergun recruitment applied to the morphing non existent model. We were not all clamouring for these signings at all.

Who is your we?

What dna would this be? There is no football gene. Football skill is learned and neural pathways are created by training (repetition). Yes all players are coached to receive the ball on the half turn. Players consistently go through training that has them opening out to receive the ball on the back foot - On the half turn. Passing patterns and formation in diamonds and triangles can increase players opening out. The unconscious competency of this is learned, players with intense training that is integrated to playing style can open out their body as a reflex to the pattern of the game before them. The answer to your question of how fast this can take to improve further is months and years depending on environment, playing approach, training and the individuals ability.

Which zones of the pitch and how often, but these are direction. Catapult easily will tell you if you if players are staying N if you want them to, and importantly it can demonstrate to a player they are, or not. There is frequently a benefit here to using person centred communication styles as we learn differently .. You know all that.

Nigel Pearson used data to tell which direction payers were heading in, how fast, and how often - The GPS system catapult one the club use did that.

I apologise for stating you started the thread. You have not unequivocally stated that 380 bans for attacking and threatening refs is a problem, it is. The assaults and threats are part of a moral decline in football. The dissent and abuse at the top contributes to what occurs throughout the game. The abuse directed at referees should be viewed as seriously as we view prejudice and racism. The behaviour at the top sends a ripple throughout the game where behaviour is mirrored towards referees, including children referees (abuse of a minor is criminal). Instead of focussing on refs (humans making errors) in a game that is chaotic, and full of errors, the game, the media should be focussing on the disgusting behaviour that is directed at referees, the behaviour we see on TV that is imitated away from the top of the game, but it does not happen, because that is bread and circuses, with a lot of money. Few months ago the Somerset FA sent out a heart felt message about behaviour at games. This Sunday at the U15 - 16 levels of the AYL there are 43 games, and at this point only 14 refs to cover those matches. That is a national picture. This weekend no doubt refs will be abused, attacked, threatened etc including children and on TV we will see the ritual of undermining authority, the casting of doubt about ref standards and competency, aspersions on character and the continuance of a cycle of the moral decline. Everything relates to whats at the top and on TV.

You started the thread with a ref being assaulted being absolutely disgraceful. 380 bans for attacking and threatening refs is a problem. That is a big picture.

If 380 bans for attacking, or threatening referees are maybe a problem, how many do you think there should be for this behaviour to be a problem?