Time to change the penalty rule....

[spudski]

.... anyone else agree?

For me, penalties being awarded for the slightest touch anywhere in the box, is far too much of a reward, and changes the outcomes of games unfairly imho.

I've mentioned it before...and again only yesterday it came to the fore during the Watford v Palace game...the slightest touch going for the ball, on the right hand edge of the box with no chance of scoring from it.... no way should that result in a free shot at goal imho. A direct free kick maybe....but not a penalty.

When the rules were invented....it stated... 'If any player shall deliberately trip or hold an opposing player or deliberately handle the ball within twelve yards of his own goal line, the referee shall, on appeal award the opposing side a penalty kick, to be taken any twelve yards from the goal-line.'

For me the outstanding word is 'Deliberate'....how often do you see a defender 'deliberately' foul an opponent inside the box? Very rarely. Players are now looking for the merest of touches and diving to get a penalty...it drives me nuts....no way should they be rewarded with a penalty, unless it was deemed deliberate by the ref, or deemed likely to have scored...

[Barrs Court Red]

It's too late. Football is now a virtually contact free sport, which I suspect is a concession to broadcasters and sponsors who lobby for the attacker to get the benefit of doubt.

Pretty much every change I can think of since the 90s benefits the side going forward. Just look at the pressure from the media for goal line technology; the case is never made for stopping goals given incorrectly will be a benefit (although I'm struggling to think when that has happened).

[Super]

.... anyone else agree?

For me, penalties being awarded for the slightest touch anywhere in the box, is far too much of a reward, and changes the outcomes of games unfairly imho.

I've mentioned it before...and again only yesterday it came to the fore during the Watford v Palace game...the slightest touch going for the ball, on the right hand edge of the box with no chance of scoring from it.... no way should that result in a free shot at goal imho. A direct free kick maybe....but not a penalty.

When the rules were invented....it stated... 'If any player shall deliberately trip or hold an opposing player or deliberately handle the ball within twelve yards of his own goal line, the referee shall, on appeal award the opposing side a penalty kick, to be taken any twelve yards from the goal-line.'

For me the outstanding word is 'Deliberate'....how often do you see a defender 'deliberately' foul an opponent inside the box? Very rarely. Players are now looking for the merest of touches and diving to get a penalty...it drives me nuts....no way should they be rewarded with a penalty, unless it was deemed deliberate by the ref, or deemed likely to have scored...

the slightest touch? it was dreadful defending by the Watford bloke.

[Frenchay Red]

It's odd than the slightest touch in open play inside the area inevitably leads to a player falling over, yet at corners it can resemble a rugby scrum, which usually the ref ignores.

[cityexile]

What I would like to see trailed is leave penalties simply for where a clear goal scoring opportunity has been denied, in or outside of the box. Remove the auto red card as well, unless the foul actually warrants it in itself. 

[BS13 Robin]

but you also had in the leeds v boro game a leeds player going through in the box between two defenders one with a high challenge,leeds player stayed on his feet but lost the ball anyway if he had gone down it would have been a deffo pen!

 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

.... anyone else agree?

For me, penalties being awarded for the slightest touch anywhere in the box, is far too much of a reward, and changes the outcomes of games unfairly imho.

I've mentioned it before...and again only yesterday it came to the fore during the Watford v Palace game...the slightest touch going for the ball, on the right hand edge of the box with no chance of scoring from it.... no way should that result in a free shot at goal imho. A direct free kick maybe....but not a penalty.

When the rules were invented....it stated... 'If any player shall deliberately trip or hold an opposing player or deliberately handle the ball within twelve yards of his own goal line, the referee shall, on appeal award the opposing side a penalty kick, to be taken any twelve yards from the goal-line.'

For me the outstanding word is 'Deliberate'....how often do you see a defender 'deliberately' foul an opponent inside the box? Very rarely. Players are now looking for the merest of touches and diving to get a penalty...it drives me nuts....no way should they be rewarded with a penalty, unless it was deemed deliberate by the ref, or deemed likely to have scored...

For me the outstanding word is embellishment, if a player goes down to embellish the minimal contact (i.e.;he could have stayed on his feet) that is cheating. So my acid test for referees is a simple one, if he was running for a bus and made that contact with another pedestrian, would it be enough to throw him to the pavement, if the answer is no then no penalty or free kick.

Also what about the ridiculous notion that if a player stands still and an opponent runs into him that is nowadays a free kick, just imagine if nobody applied the brakes whilst driving their cars and another car just happens to be in their way?.

[T R]

If the player is fouled in the box and is not in a goalscoring opportunity then i think the ref should give a direct free kick from that spot. with only 2 defenders inside the 5 yard box with the goalie. the rest of the defenders outside the penalty box. Maybe two attackers in the box too. 

[Roe]

I do agree about the penalty area being a strange concept really. Not sure what can be done about it though other than needing stronger referees which we could do with all over the pitch.

 

[Tinmans Love Child]

I hate it when a keeper goes down to try and save the ball, the player knocks it past them, leaves his foot trailing, hits the keeper and goes down, then gets a penalty and the keeper gets a red!!  What is the keeper supposed to do?  In this instance the keepers should be exempt from a red card and just get a booking, the penalty is enough.

[GrahamC]

Sad, but just a fact of modern football, when I played (up front) I always wanted to score but nowadays strikers deliberately regularly try for the foul rather than to shoot at goal.

Obviously it is being coached too, Bournemouth with 20 penalties last season (lots of them won by Callum Wilson) were notorious for it, as were Swansea when Brendan Rodgers was there. As yesterday Palace are another side with plenty of simulation.

Completely agree about the ridiculous situation with corners too, all sorts of grappling goes on there, this seems to me to have been instigated by Pulis when he was at Stoke where all of his defenders seemed to be fouling all the time when defending on the basis that the ref couldn't watch everyone and now everyone in the Prem is at it.

[Malago]

This is where a video ref would be really useful.  If the forward is on the way down before any contact, no pen.

If he trips himself up over an outstretched leg, no pen.

The ball to hand would also be much easy to judge.  With Blatter on is way out, and hopefully off to jail, the use technology should be a step closer.

[Lack of Action Man]

It's been in the laws of the game for longer than most of us have been alive. Certainly anyone who plays the professional game should realise that their actions within the confines of the penalty area carry a risk of greater punishment should they break the laws of the game.

 

[Red Army 87]

I hate it when a keeper goes down to try and save the ball, the player knocks it past them, leaves his foot trailing, hits the keeper and goes down, then gets a penalty and the keeper gets a red!!  What is the keeper supposed to do?  In this instance the keepers should be exempt from a red card and just get a booking, the penalty is enough.

i agree, you could argue that they haven't denied a goal scoring opportunity as well, if anything given the attacking team a better chance!

[downendcity]

On the flip side, how many times do you see players challenged in the penalty area where the ref waives play on, yet the same challenge in the centre circle not only results in a foul but a yellow card?

[spudski]

It's been in the laws of the game for longer than most of us have been alive. Certainly anyone who plays the professional game should realise that their actions within the confines of the penalty area carry a risk of greater punishment should they break the laws of the game.

 

Very true...but the point I was trying to make, was a penalty is given if the foul was intentional.

Most fouls aren't intentional....

[Davefevs]

As a centre half at a decent level I gave away very few penalties in all the years I played. I never understood why team mates dived in inside the box and I can't at the top level either.  Stay on your feet, most pens are given when defender goes to ground, and I think that if the striker gets touched he's within his rights to make the most of it.

Owen v Poccetino - perfect example.  Not just because he is English, but because Poccetino was rash.

to show a bit of unbias 

P.Neville v Romania - stupid challenge.

There will obviously be those scenarios where the defender needs to make a last ditch tackle, but you run the risk.

As a Liverpool supporter too, the sooner Skrtel gets a penalty (or two) given against him, the sooner we will rid the game of the WWF grappling that goes on from every corner.

[Welcome To The Jungle]

Because a penalty normally results in a goal it means defenders are much more cautious making a challenge giving the attacker more time on the ball. Football would be a much duller game if I could take someone out near the goal and it not be seriously punished.

[Lack of Action Man]

Further to what I wrote earlier, whilst the penalty kick stacks the odds massively in the favour of the kick taker, we could've had a scenario when the laws of the game were devised similar to Rugby:

"In both rugby league and in rugby union, if the referee believes that a try has been prevented by the defending team's misconduct, he may award the attacking team a penalty try. In rugby union, the standard applied by the referee is that a try "probably" would have been scored. The referee does not have to be certain a try would have been scored. In rugby league, the referee "may award a penalty try if, in his opinion, a try would have been scored but for the unfair play of the defending team."

As it stands the penalty kick is a suitable sanction for misdemeanor within the box. Reason being that whilst it is unclear whether a goal would definitely have been scored, breaking the laws of the game in this area significantly reduces the chances of a goal potentially being scored. As others have alluded to, football would be a very dull game indeed if defenders were able to commit fouls within the area with the ensuing sanction not resulting in the opportunity for the attacking side to score a goal.

 

[marmite]

Just picked up this topic. The ref is the one man on the field that can make this right but he can only give what he sees as it happens, without the benefit of replay. We have all made a judgement during a game only to see later on highlights that we were wrong. If intent is the rule then what about the attacker intending to go down if he's touched in the penalty area. Refs need to be stronger and on the point of the scrum at corner kicks, the sooner a ref gives a penalty at every corner kick in a match, the sooner the shirt pulling and blocking will be eradicated. Some defenders don't even face the corner kick. Surely there is intent there to block a player and therefore commit a foul. Penalty!

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Further to what I wrote earlier, whilst the penalty kick stacks the odds massively in the favour of the kick taker, we could've had a scenario when the laws of the game were devised similar to Rugby:

As it stands the penalty kick is a suitable sanction for misdemeanor within the box. Reason being that whilst it is unclear whether a goal would definitely have been scored, breaking the laws of the game in this area significantly reduces the chances of a goal potentially being scored. As others have alluded to, football would be a very dull game indeed if defenders were able to commit fouls within the area with the ensuing sanction not resulting in the opportunity for the attacking side to score a goal.

 

You only talk about defenders as if they are the only problems here.

Going down unnecessarily is cheating, it's embellishment designed to fool a referee that the contact was more than it actually was (and football is still described as contact sport I believe) and don't forget the amount of times a forward breaks into the area and goes down claiming he was held by the defender only for the replay to show that they were both holding.

Wrestling at corners, free kicks and even contentious decisions and cheating are very easy to eradicate and quickly, ban players retrospectively and for a long time, it doesn't happen enough and ban pundits who utter the inane statement "he was entitled to go down".

Missing the odd offside like the Spurs 1st goal on Saturday happens, but winning points by cheating week in and week out has no place in football.

and here's another one for the mix, a player who protects the ball from 2 yards away to allow it to go out for a goal kick, corner or throw in to his side, how is this not obstruction????

 

[Welcome To The Jungle]

You only talk about defenders as if they are the only problems here.

Going down unnecessarily is cheating, it's embellishment designed to fool a referee that the contact was more than it actually was (and football is still described as contact sport I believe) and don't forget the amount of times a forward breaks into the area and goes down claiming he was held by the defender only for the replay to show that they were both holding.

Wrestling at corners, free kicks and even contentious decisions and cheating are very easy to eradicate and quickly, ban players retrospectively and for a long time, it doesn't happen enough and ban pundits who utter the inane statement "he was entitled to go down".

Missing the odd offside like the Spurs 1st goal on Saturday happens, but winning points by cheating week in and week out has no place in football.

and here's another one for the mix, a player who protects the ball from 2 yards away to allow it to go out for a goal kick, corner or throw in to his side, how is this not obstruction????

 

Using their body to protect a ball they are in control of. If it is a contact sport then this is just being bigger and stronger. 

[Ian M]

Using their body to protect a ball they are in control of. If it is a contact sport then this is just being bigger and stronger. 

I would like to see this changed to add the words "within playable distance of the ball" (or words that state the ball must be close enough for them to kick). when you see a defender step across an attacker's run when the ball is too far away from them to kick I feel the attacking team should benefit with an indirect free kick.

I'd also like to see professional fouls outside the area punished with a penalty/yellow card rather than the current free kick/red card (unless the severity of the tackle warranted a red card of its own, in which case still punished with a penalty but also a red card).

[Welcome To The Jungle]

 

I would like to see this changed to add the words "within playable distance of the ball" (or words that state the ball must be close enough for them to kick). when you see a defender step across an attacker's run when the ball is too far away from them to kick I feel the attacking team should benefit with an indirect free kick.

I agree if the defender stops or backs into the attacker but if the player is moving towards the ball they are just better positioned imo. 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Using their body to protect a ball they are in control of. If it is a contact sport then this is just being bigger and stronger. 

But suddenly if the opponent is stronger and moves the player committing the obstruction it becomes a foul even in this contact sport, so the defending player is the only player allowed to be stronger.

 

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

Very true...but the point I was trying to make, was a penalty is given if the foul was intentional.

Most fouls aren't intentional....

How on earth is a referee meant to judge intent?  The fact is a foul is a foul: an attacking player could be accidentally tripped on the six yard line with the goal at his mercy - are you saying that that wouldn't be a penalty if the foul was not deliberate?  I don't think so.

The rules are what they are, and are clear.  Any foul or handball in the box results in a penalty.  What could be clearer than that?  The problem is not the rule, its the fact that these days football, sadly, seems to be an inherently dishonest sport, in that almost all players are prepared to cheat if it gives them an advantage.  I therefore agree that video technology should be used to weed out the cheats, rather than changing the rules.  A minimum automatic three-match ban for anyone found guilty of simulation in any form (including rolling over frantically clutching various part of their anatomy after coming within five yards of an opposing player) might sort it out. 

[Cowshed]

Ian M

"I would like to see this changed to add the words "within playable distance of the ball" (or words that state the ball must be close enough for them to kick)."

The rules already state this.

" when you see a defender step across an attacker's run when the ball is too far away from them to kick I feel the attacking team should benefit with an indirect free kick.2

Its unworkable. Players in various attacking and defending roles have to be able to hold positions - The above would rule out marking / holding the ball up / wall passes, 1 2's and on.

[Lack of Action Man]

You only talk about defenders as if they are the only problems here.

Going down unnecessarily is cheating, it's embellishment designed to fool a referee that the contact was more than it actually was (and football is still described as contact sport I believe) and don't forget the amount of times a forward breaks into the area and goes down claiming he was held by the defender only for the replay to show that they were both holding.

Wrestling at corners, free kicks and even contentious decisions and cheating are very easy to eradicate and quickly, ban players retrospectively and for a long time, it doesn't happen enough and ban pundits who utter the inane statement "he was entitled to go down".

Missing the odd offside like the Spurs 1st goal on Saturday happens, but winning points by cheating week in and week out has no place in football.

and here's another one for the mix, a player who protects the ball from 2 yards away to allow it to go out for a goal kick, corner or throw in to his side, how is this not obstruction????

 

I think obstruction has been gradually phased out of the laws of the game hence why you never see an indirect free kick in the box any more. 

Im not advocating diving or playing for the penalty, but that's all part of the game now like it or not. The responsibility lies with the defender to have the guile about him to stay on his feet and maintain composure within the area, because you can guarantee that him or his team mate would not hesitate to go down if they felt a tackle coming, were the roles reversed.

[MarcusX]

but you also had in the leeds v boro game a leeds player going through in the box between two defenders one with a high challenge,leeds player stayed on his feet but lost the ball anyway if he had gone down it would have been a deffo pen!

 

And that in a nutshell is why players DO go down so easily. There is no incentive for someone who tries to stay on their feet but gets fouled - if there was then players would probably try and stay up, knowing that if it ends up in an unbalanced shot or not gaining an advantage they will still get the free kick / penalty.

 

OP, poor example using Watford v Palace, that was a definite foul.

[Welcome To The Jungle]

But suddenly if the opponent is stronger and moves the player committing the obstruction it becomes a foul even in this contact sport, so the defending player is the only player allowed to be stronger.

 

If I am better positioned than my opponent and get myself between the ball and the attacker then I should be rewarded. Side to side is fine but in the back your going to be penalised. 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

I think obstruction has been gradually phased out of the laws of the game hence why you never see an indirect free kick in the box any more. 

Im not advocating diving or playing for the penalty, but that's all part of the game now like it or not. The responsibility lies with the defender to have the guile about him to stay on his feet and maintain composure within the area, because you can guarantee that him or his team mate would not hesitate to go down if they felt a tackle coming, were the roles reversed.

Cheating is all part of the game because the authorities allow it and every 4 years we have a competition that celebrates it and brings together the best cheats on the planet in a tournament that is 'organised' by criminals and aided and abetted by gravy train pundits, who will never de-rail that gravy train.

 

[Super]

Real shocker of a dive last night from McCarthy of Everton trying to win a Pen. Not sure a yellow card is severe enough.

[spudski]

How on earth is a referee meant to judge intent?  The fact is a foul is a foul: an attacking player could be accidentally tripped on the six yard line with the goal at his mercy - are you saying that that wouldn't be a penalty if the foul was not deliberate?  I don't think so.

The rules are what they are, and are clear.  Any foul or handball in the box results in a penalty.  What could be clearer than that?  The problem is not the rule, its the fact that these days football, sadly, seems to be an inherently dishonest sport, in that almost all players are prepared to cheat if it gives them an advantage.  I therefore agree that video technology should be used to weed out the cheats, rather than changing the rules.  A minimum automatic three-match ban for anyone found guilty of simulation in any form (including rolling over frantically clutching various part of their anatomy after coming within five yards of an opposing player) might sort it out. 

If you pull a players shirt or kick his legs from under him, without going for the ball....then you can see it's intentional.

If it's a trip in front of goal...as you say...in all likely hood of scoring....of course it's a penalty.

As for hand balls...not all hand balls in the area are given....they have to be intentional or stop an impending goal.

The reason players are dishonest, is because the rule is so easy to manipulate. The rule is at fault. More direct freekicks or indirect freekicks should be given for certain infringements...that way, players wouldn't be so inclined to be so dishonest.

[TETBURY MASSIVE]

If you pull a players shirt or kick his legs from under him, without going for the ball....then you can see it's intentional.

If it's a trip in front of goal...as you say...in all likely hood of scoring....of course it's a penalty.

As for hand balls...not all hand balls in the area are given....they have to be intentional or stop an impending goal.

The reason players are dishonest, is because the rule is so easy to manipulate. The rule is at fault. More direct freekicks or indirect freekicks should be given for certain infringements...that way, players wouldn't be so inclined to be so dishonest.

The thing is players will always be dishonest when there is so much money at stake....... £300k a week, win bonus, goal bonus etc all adds to it.

I don't care what anyone says but if its your team doing it... 'its ok' but another team and its an outrage!!

Who would honestly care if it was the last minute away to QPR and Big Jimmy took the biggest dive of all dives....... Penalty... Goal, Game Won, We stay up.... would people really care or would they just celebrate staying up?!

[spudski]

The thing is players will always be dishonest when there is so much money at stake....... £300k a week, win bonus, goal bonus etc all adds to it.

I don't care what anyone says but if its your team doing it... 'its ok' but another team and its an outrage!!

Who would honestly care if it was the last minute away to QPR and Big Jimmy took the biggest dive of all dives....... Penalty... Goal, Game Won, We stay up.... would people really care or would they just celebrate staying up?!

The point I was trying to make, is a player would stay on his feet and try to continue play or try to score, rather than go down, if penalties weren't so easy to get.

If you are on the edge of the 18 yard box running away from goal....and a player clips you...you are less likely to go down if an indirect free kick were given instead of a penalty. Can you see my point?

[TETBURY MASSIVE]

The point I was trying to make, is a player would stay on his feet and try to continue play or try to score, rather than go down, if penalties weren't so easy to get.

If you are on the edge of the 18 yard box running away from goal....and a player clips you...you are less likely to go down if an indirect free kick were given instead of a penalty. Can you see my point?

Yes I can see your point, and I agree with you.

But as things stand and with the price of winning at all costs element within the game things wont be changing anytime soon.

 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

I would

Me too.

[marmite]

The thing is players will always be dishonest when there is so much money at stake....... £300k a week, win bonus, goal bonus etc all adds to it.

I don't care what anyone says but if its your team doing it... 'its ok' but another team and its an outrage!!

Who would honestly care if it was the last minute away to QPR and Big Jimmy took the biggest dive of all dives....... Penalty... Goal, Game Won, We stay up.... would people really care or would they just celebrate staying up?!

Lets be honest and admit that we would just celebrate staying up. No one is going to admit to cheating so if the boot was on the other foot..etc. Now us against Coventry in the old Ist division when Jimmy Hill was around......Now that  was suspicious!!

[Aizoon]

Cheating is all part of the game because the authorities allow it and every 4 years we have a competition that celebrates it and brings together the best cheats on the planet in a tournament that is 'organised' by criminals and aided and abetted by gravy train pundits, who will never de-rail that gravy train.

 

[Lanterne Rouge]

Have you ever found  yourself saying `he should have gone down` when someone like Joe rides a couple of challenges but stays on his feet and the shot comes to nothing? If you can say you have then we`re all as bad as the players. I know I`ve said it many times.

[Lack of Action Man]

Cheating is all part of the game because the authorities allow it and every 4 years we have a competition that celebrates it and brings together the best cheats on the planet in a tournament that is 'organised' by criminals and aided and abetted by gravy train pundits, who will never de-rail that gravy train.

 

Crikey. Bad day at the office?

[Ian M]

Have you ever found  yourself saying `he should have gone down` when someone like Joe rides a couple of challenges but stays on his feet and the shot comes to nothing? If you can say you have then we`re all as bad as the players. I know I`ve said it many times.

I started the season proud that our players are pretty honest and don't go to ground easily. However, witnessing the games I have so far at this level it's clear our opponents are cheating. I now find myself unwillingly wishing our players didn't try to stay on their feet as I'd like a few more decisions from refs. 

It would help if refs were strong enough to still give a foul when the player has clearly tried staying on their feet.

[Rob k]

How on earth is a referee meant to judge intent?  The fact is a foul is a foul: an attacking player could be accidentally tripped on the six yard line with the goal at his mercy - are you saying that that wouldn't be a penalty if the foul was not deliberate?  I don't think so.

The rules are what they are, and are clear.  Any foul or handball in the box results in a penalty.  What could be clearer than that?  The problem is not the rule, its the fact that these days football, sadly, seems to be an inherently dishonest sport, in that almost all players are prepared to cheat if it gives them an advantage.  I therefore agree that video technology should be used to weed out the cheats, rather than changing the rules.  A minimum automatic three-match ban for anyone found guilty of simulation in any form (including rolling over frantically clutching various part of their anatomy after coming within five yards of an opposing player) might sort it out. 

no wonder players cheat, the standard of refereeing is abysmal.

i watched the last part of the Chelsea game and how the ref, the assistant and the bloke by the goal missed such an obvious handball is beyond me.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Crikey. Bad day at the office?

Not at all, it's what I and many people believe to be true, football these days is overseen by criminals, has no morals whatsoever, driven by money, played by mainly pussies, cheats and egotists.

i'm sorry I find it very sad that a professional will deliberately by his cheating actions set out to either win a game or even more dispicable set out get a fellow professional sent off and hordes of the BSkyB/prawn sandwich generation who in general know very little about the game or the history of the game believe that it's ok.

and worse still it dishonours people like our own legend John Atyeo, who was hard but fair, never booked and most importantly a sportsman.

[cider-manc]

The point I was trying to make, is a player would stay on his feet and try to continue play or try to score, rather than go down, if penalties weren't so easy to get.

If you are on the edge of the 18 yard box running away from goal....and a player clips you...you are less likely to go down if an indirect free kick were given instead of a penalty. Can you see my point?

Whilst understanding your point, I can't see how this would ever work.

With the ability and speed of some players in todays game even being on the edge of the area with their back to goal, the slightest bit of space can be exploited for a goal scoring opportunity. Also it would lead to far more controversy with decisions as more emphasis will be on the refs interpretation of events than ever before.

Concentrated efforts should be on punishing those that cheat by diving etc. Remove that from the game and (Imo) there would be less players leaving trailing legs and playing for penalties anyway.

 

 

 

 

[Pezo]

It's too late. Football is now a virtually contact free sport, which I suspect is a concession to broadcasters and sponsors who lobby for the attacker to get the benefit of doubt.

Pretty much every change I can think of since the 90s benefits the side going forward. Just look at the pressure from the media for goal line technology; the case is never made for stopping goals given incorrectly will be a benefit (although I'm struggling to think when that has happened).

So this raises another question in my mind: obviously broadcasters want more goals - goals are the most exciting thing about football right? But are they - IMO the effort a player puts in and their attitude is more enjoyable over a full 90 minutes.

IMO football used to be a lot more about mental strength - you were trying to score while getting lumps kicked out of you, imagine the passion you must have to go through that. I think this is all portrayed in goal celebration now where players simply look happy to score rather than ecstatic - they just don't have to go through the same grueling test and the game is less about heart and passion and more about athleticism and finesse. its certainly gained some stuff but lost a lot of what was loved.

A change isn't always better but for something to be better there must always be change.

[spudski]

Whilst understanding your point, I can't see how this would ever work.

With the ability and speed of some players in todays game even being on the edge of the area with their back to goal, the slightest bit of space can be exploited for a goal scoring opportunity. Also it would lead to far more controversy with decisions as more emphasis will be on the refs interpretation of events than ever before.

Concentrated efforts should be on punishing those that cheat by diving etc. Remove that from the game and (Imo) there would be less players leaving trailing legs and playing for penalties anyway.

 

 

 

 

The only way I could see it being more fair, is if more free kicks inside the box were given...a penalty is way too much reward for most indiscretions in the box imho.

[Lack of Action Man]

Not at all, it's what I and many people believe to be true, football these days is overseen by criminals, has no morals whatsoever, driven by money, played by mainly pussies, cheats and egotists.

i'm sorry I find it very sad that a professional will deliberately by his cheating actions set out to either win a game or even more dispicable set out get a fellow professional sent off and hordes of the BSkyB/prawn sandwich generation who in general know very little about the game or the history of the game believe that it's ok.

and worse still it dishonours people like our own legend John Atyeo, who was hard but fair, never booked and most importantly a sportsman.

Not that I Disagree with anything in there, but what exactly attracts you to watching the modern game then?

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Not that I Disagree with anything in there, but what exactly attracts you to watching the modern game then?

What a strange question and one i'd expect from somebody probably brought up purely on a diet of modern day football.

But here goes, do you really believe that a game that I have loved from a young kid growing up in 50's Bedminster walking distance from AG that i'm suddenly going to switch off because Murdoch decided to corrupt/ruin it in the nineties?, I am just far more discerning I go to live games and watch MOTD (usually about all I can take) and the odd live game on the laptop, my joy is that Murdoch and the pussy players aren't getting any richer from a sky subscription from me.

There is a correlation in the timeline of Murdoch - stupid money - Blatter - corruption - cheating and so on and so forth.

 

[Lack of Action Man]

What a strange question and one i'd expect from somebody probably brought up purely on a diet of modern day football.

But here goes, do you really believe that a game that I have loved from a young kid growing up in 50's Bedminster walking distance from AG that i'm suddenly going to switch off because Murdoch decided to corrupt/ruin it in the nineties?, I am just far more discerning I go to live games and watch MOTD (usually about all I can take) and the odd live game on the laptop, my joy is that Murdoch and the pussy players aren't getting any richer from a sky subscription from me.

There is a correlation in the timeline of Murdoch - stupid money - Blatter - corruption - cheating and so on and so forth.

 

I don't know why you start the post with a dig at me, I believe my question is not at all weird regardless of what personal presumptions you want to make about me. 

At no point have i disagreed with your opinion, I just sought to understand your thinking a little better, since your posts came across very passionately against what modern football is.