Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread
Shithousery 08:55 - Aug 18 with 5970 viewsdmm

We're only just into the new season and I've already had enough with the new 'time wasting' rules, and not only because the budgies scored in the 9th minute of extra time. This puts it perfectly...

Time-wasting in football is ugly, maddening – and absolutely vital: https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2023/aug/17/time-wasting-in-football-i
0
Shithousery on 09:23 - Aug 18 with 4876 viewsdaveB

If it puts an end to teams going 1-0 up and spending the rest of the match trying to stop the game from restarting I'm all for it. Nothing has really changed to be honest they are just actually implementing the laws now and making out it is something new
8
Shithousery on 09:45 - Aug 18 with 4799 viewseastside_r

Shithousery on 09:23 - Aug 18 by daveB

If it puts an end to teams going 1-0 up and spending the rest of the match trying to stop the game from restarting I'm all for it. Nothing has really changed to be honest they are just actually implementing the laws now and making out it is something new


Like in last year’s World Cup games, I think (and hope) that the time added on will diminish once the message gets through.

I have to say that I largely disagree with what Ronay is saying there.

I believe that he’s a Millwall fan.
[Post edited 18 Aug 2023 10:21]
3
Shithousery on 10:00 - Aug 18 with 4722 viewsMedwayR

Shithousery had gone too far, if it continues it’ll put people off watching football, who wants to pay to watch 75mins of football and 15mins of players wasting time, it’s an insult to the paying fan and needs to stop.

Poll: Who’s better?

4
Shithousery on 10:05 - Aug 18 with 4687 viewsslmrstid

Shithousery on 09:23 - Aug 18 by daveB

If it puts an end to teams going 1-0 up and spending the rest of the match trying to stop the game from restarting I'm all for it. Nothing has really changed to be honest they are just actually implementing the laws now and making out it is something new


I'm with you on this Dave, I'm fed up with watching the whole rigmarole every single game where a player goes down, the physio wanders over, the ref knows, the players know, the stadium knows, its all a load of timewasting twaddle, and we watch the whole pantomime play out repeatedly then see the 4th official put 3 minutes up at the end anyway.

All for it and if you concede in the 99th minute, well, tough I'm afraid.
9
Shithousery on 10:17 - Aug 18 with 4620 viewsWatford_Ranger

Doubt it will change anything. It’s still in a winning team’s interests to slow the game down even if more time is added than there used to be. Just clamp down on it happening rather than create a problem to fix a problem.
1
Shithousery on 10:19 - Aug 18 with 4611 viewsHoopsie

Shithousery on 10:00 - Aug 18 by MedwayR

Shithousery had gone too far, if it continues it’ll put people off watching football, who wants to pay to watch 75mins of football and 15mins of players wasting time, it’s an insult to the paying fan and needs to stop.


The actual playing time (when ball is in play) is no more than 60 minutes, so say with 15 minutes of shithousering, really it is only about 45 minutes of “real action”!

Poll: Who will follow Rotherham and Huddersfield to League One?

0
Shithousery on 10:24 - Aug 18 with 4568 viewsFredManRave

It must be maddening for Preston Nob End fans to not know the final score until 6pm on a Saturday evening.

I've got the Power.
Poll: MOM from todays Teasing at Teesside?

3
Shithousery on 10:29 - Aug 18 with 4524 viewsStanisgod

Shithousery on 10:17 - Aug 18 by Watford_Ranger

Doubt it will change anything. It’s still in a winning team’s interests to slow the game down even if more time is added than there used to be. Just clamp down on it happening rather than create a problem to fix a problem.


Spot on. I dont particularly still want to be in the stadium at 5.15 every game, some of us travel in, especially weeknights. Give a warning then book them.

It's being so happy that keeps me going.

0
Login to get fewer ads

Shithousery on 10:38 - Aug 18 with 4483 viewsWilly_WonkR

If there is a displayed clock that is in sync with the refs watch and stopped when there are injuries/time wasting we wouldn’t even be talking about the 99th minute. It would just be the 90th minute.
3
Shithousery on 10:45 - Aug 18 with 4428 viewsNorthernr

It had got ridiculous. We got a penalty against Sunderland last year. Luke O'Nien went and sat down between the ball and the goal and demanded treatment. Everybody knows what's going on. Delays the taking of the kick, which we miss, and he sprints back on. Rewarded for cheating.

As Dave says above, teams in the Championship were clock running from the 30th minute if they were 1-0 up, or even if it was 0-0 away from home.

You had Blackpool try and piss away an hour of a football game at Loftus Road last August - referee added 2 and 4.

Something desperately needed to be done. It was farcical and at times unwatchable. For all the players and managers moaning about it - perhaps you shouldn't have been so blatant with all the cheating in the first place, then it wouldn't have been needed. But needed it definitely was.
11
Shithousery on 10:52 - Aug 18 with 4379 viewsHayesender

Wouldn't have been needed if referees actually grew a pair of bollox and started booking players for time wasting from the off.

A goalkeeper sent off before the 50th minute for time wasting a few times would have put a stop to it

Poll: Shamima Beghum

11
Shithousery on 11:03 - Aug 18 with 4313 viewsterryb

Shithousery on 10:52 - Aug 18 by Hayesender

Wouldn't have been needed if referees actually grew a pair of bollox and started booking players for time wasting from the off.

A goalkeeper sent off before the 50th minute for time wasting a few times would have put a stop to it


This in a nutshell!

Of course it had gone much too far, but the fault was with the officials. Every 'keeper knew that after receiving their caution, they could waste twice as much time from then on as thery wouldn't be sent off!

Stopping the game for a player to tie up his boot laces etc. Lecturing players at every corner instead of restarting the game & giving a free kick/penalty. Especially as they ignored the pushing/ pulling/blocking when the corner was taken.

Action should have been taken as it happened, not having to issue "new directives". I'm going too be really pissed off if I miss the 6.00pm Saturday or 10.30pm midweek train from Liverpool Street!
1
Shithousery on 11:14 - Aug 18 with 4238 viewsstowmarketrange

Shithousery on 11:03 - Aug 18 by terryb

This in a nutshell!

Of course it had gone much too far, but the fault was with the officials. Every 'keeper knew that after receiving their caution, they could waste twice as much time from then on as thery wouldn't be sent off!

Stopping the game for a player to tie up his boot laces etc. Lecturing players at every corner instead of restarting the game & giving a free kick/penalty. Especially as they ignored the pushing/ pulling/blocking when the corner was taken.

Action should have been taken as it happened, not having to issue "new directives". I'm going too be really pissed off if I miss the 6.00pm Saturday or 10.30pm midweek train from Liverpool Street!


I easily made the 22.38 at Stratford on Wednesday even with 9 minutes added time.I was surprised to see so many Norwich fans at white city station though.Did they actually see the goal,or is it the same distance to walk from the school end as it is from the lower loft?
0
Shithousery on 11:19 - Aug 18 with 4201 viewsDorse

Shithousery on 10:52 - Aug 18 by Hayesender

Wouldn't have been needed if referees actually grew a pair of bollox and started booking players for time wasting from the off.

A goalkeeper sent off before the 50th minute for time wasting a few times would have put a stop to it


This.

If the refs have always had the authority to book a player for shithousing, and then not done so, the question has to be asked: why not? We all prefer the game to flow and not have it stopped every 20 seconds by some petty martinet exorcising the lingering ghosts of a thousand wedgies from the bigger boys by punishing every infraction instantly and with extreme prejudice. However, sometimes those that play in the shithouse should fall in. Or be helped on their way with the judicial application of a yellow card they didn't want.

If refs can book someone for a 'tactical foul' (and they do) then it follows that they can book someone for a 'tactical roll on the floor pretending to have a fractured barse'. Or a 'tactical replace the ball five yards further forward', a tactical 'find me a different towel for this throw in', or simply a 'tactical playing for Preston'.

As you say, this would certainly put certain players back in their box, with the added benefit of not making the refs seem like mugs.
[Post edited 18 Aug 2023 11:20]

'What do we want? We don't know! When do we want it? Now!'

3
Shithousery on 11:21 - Aug 18 with 4186 viewsNorthernr

Shithousery on 11:19 - Aug 18 by Dorse

This.

If the refs have always had the authority to book a player for shithousing, and then not done so, the question has to be asked: why not? We all prefer the game to flow and not have it stopped every 20 seconds by some petty martinet exorcising the lingering ghosts of a thousand wedgies from the bigger boys by punishing every infraction instantly and with extreme prejudice. However, sometimes those that play in the shithouse should fall in. Or be helped on their way with the judicial application of a yellow card they didn't want.

If refs can book someone for a 'tactical foul' (and they do) then it follows that they can book someone for a 'tactical roll on the floor pretending to have a fractured barse'. Or a 'tactical replace the ball five yards further forward', a tactical 'find me a different towel for this throw in', or simply a 'tactical playing for Preston'.

As you say, this would certainly put certain players back in their box, with the added benefit of not making the refs seem like mugs.
[Post edited 18 Aug 2023 11:20]


I could never understand, and said this after the farce of Gavin Ward at home to Huddersfield last season, why referees were so willing to torch their authority in a game by not applying the rules they already had.
1
Shithousery on 11:36 - Aug 18 with 4084 viewsPlanetHonneywood

The fact it has taken FIFA this long to address the issue, says everything you need to know about how useless they are! This should have been sorted years ago, and I'm not sure the current method is fit for purpose either; it seems a bit of guess work to me.

In my view, it's so bloody simple: the clock stops when the ball is not in play.

So, if a player wants to roll around and pretend s/he is on the cusp of death; take an inordinate amount of time to take a throw, corner, goal or free kick; and celebrate wildly, then please feel free to do so, because the clock has stopped ticking and will only resume when the ball is in play.

How effing difficult is that? That's what rugby union does for a lot of stoppages; why can't football?

When the game isn't run by crooks, its seemingly run by clowns.

'Always In Motion' by John Honney available on amazon.co.uk Nous sommes L’occitane Rs!
Poll: Who should do the Birmingham Frederick?

1
Shithousery on 12:04 - Aug 18 with 3984 viewsdaveB

Shithousery on 11:36 - Aug 18 by PlanetHonneywood

The fact it has taken FIFA this long to address the issue, says everything you need to know about how useless they are! This should have been sorted years ago, and I'm not sure the current method is fit for purpose either; it seems a bit of guess work to me.

In my view, it's so bloody simple: the clock stops when the ball is not in play.

So, if a player wants to roll around and pretend s/he is on the cusp of death; take an inordinate amount of time to take a throw, corner, goal or free kick; and celebrate wildly, then please feel free to do so, because the clock has stopped ticking and will only resume when the ball is in play.

How effing difficult is that? That's what rugby union does for a lot of stoppages; why can't football?

When the game isn't run by crooks, its seemingly run by clowns.


If you did that it would be 30 minutes added time.
What they are doing is fine imo, it will calm down in a few weeks
0
Shithousery on 12:21 - Aug 18 with 3890 viewsPlanetHonneywood

Shithousery on 12:04 - Aug 18 by daveB

If you did that it would be 30 minutes added time.
What they are doing is fine imo, it will calm down in a few weeks


Not sure where you get your figures from, stopping the clock would better ensure 90 minutes play.

I applaud your confidence, it certainly does not seem to have calmed down with VAR.

'Always In Motion' by John Honney available on amazon.co.uk Nous sommes L’occitane Rs!
Poll: Who should do the Birmingham Frederick?

0
Shithousery on 13:03 - Aug 18 with 3756 viewsderbyhoop

Shithousery on 10:52 - Aug 18 by Hayesender

Wouldn't have been needed if referees actually grew a pair of bollox and started booking players for time wasting from the off.

A goalkeeper sent off before the 50th minute for time wasting a few times would have put a stop to it


That happens Saturday. The ref is crucified by the media on Sunday. The FA rescinds the cards Monday. And the ref gets demoted 2/3 levels.

Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the Earth all one’s lifetime. (Mark Twain) Find me on twitter @derbyhoop

0
Shithousery on 07:57 - Sep 24 with 3047 viewsdmm

One of my favourite football writers, Jonathan Wilson, wrote this yesterday:

The additional added time is having an impact. Five rounds into the season (49 games given the postponement of Luton v Burnley) there had been 18 goals scored after the 90th minute; last season there were four in the first five rounds (50 games).

Only five of the 18 have been scored by away teams, and there is a skew to the stronger sides (obviously defining this is difficult: you can argue at the moment whether Arsenal are stronger than Manchester United or West Ham than Chelsea, but Manchester City are clearly stronger than Fulham or Spurs than Sheffield United). Which is what you would expect: the longer a game goes on, the likelier the “better” team are to win it. That is why the weaker side often waste time in the first place.


That's only an analysis of the Premier League and I'd like to see a similar look into the Championship, L1 and L2 and think we'd likely see a similar effect in those leagues. In the same article he also comments on the unfair advantage a 9 player bench gives to clubs with big squads, something we currently know is an issue at QPR. Wilson goes on the conclude...

This is the absurdity of the position in which football now finds itself. The disparity between rich and poor, even within the same division, is now so great that attempts to prevent time-wasting, which ensures more of the product, may end up damaging the product by making it more predictable and thus less of a spectacle.

It may still be early in the season but I think he's right.
1
Shithousery on 09:51 - Sep 24 with 2830 viewsHarbour

Shithousery on 09:23 - Aug 18 by daveB

If it puts an end to teams going 1-0 up and spending the rest of the match trying to stop the game from restarting I'm all for it. Nothing has really changed to be honest they are just actually implementing the laws now and making out it is something new


Enjoyed watching Sam Field throw/shove the Swans player off the pitch.
1
Shithousery on 09:56 - Sep 24 with 2813 viewsBrianMcCarthy

Shithousery on 07:57 - Sep 24 by dmm

One of my favourite football writers, Jonathan Wilson, wrote this yesterday:

The additional added time is having an impact. Five rounds into the season (49 games given the postponement of Luton v Burnley) there had been 18 goals scored after the 90th minute; last season there were four in the first five rounds (50 games).

Only five of the 18 have been scored by away teams, and there is a skew to the stronger sides (obviously defining this is difficult: you can argue at the moment whether Arsenal are stronger than Manchester United or West Ham than Chelsea, but Manchester City are clearly stronger than Fulham or Spurs than Sheffield United). Which is what you would expect: the longer a game goes on, the likelier the “better” team are to win it. That is why the weaker side often waste time in the first place.


That's only an analysis of the Premier League and I'd like to see a similar look into the Championship, L1 and L2 and think we'd likely see a similar effect in those leagues. In the same article he also comments on the unfair advantage a 9 player bench gives to clubs with big squads, something we currently know is an issue at QPR. Wilson goes on the conclude...

This is the absurdity of the position in which football now finds itself. The disparity between rich and poor, even within the same division, is now so great that attempts to prevent time-wasting, which ensures more of the product, may end up damaging the product by making it more predictable and thus less of a spectacle.

It may still be early in the season but I think he's right.


Good writing, as ever, from Wilson. Hard to disagree with it.

Thanks for posting.

"The opposite of love, after all, is not hate, but indifference."
Poll: Player of the Year (so far)

0
Shithousery on 10:13 - Sep 24 with 2723 viewshateley_legend

Shithousery on 07:57 - Sep 24 by dmm

One of my favourite football writers, Jonathan Wilson, wrote this yesterday:

The additional added time is having an impact. Five rounds into the season (49 games given the postponement of Luton v Burnley) there had been 18 goals scored after the 90th minute; last season there were four in the first five rounds (50 games).

Only five of the 18 have been scored by away teams, and there is a skew to the stronger sides (obviously defining this is difficult: you can argue at the moment whether Arsenal are stronger than Manchester United or West Ham than Chelsea, but Manchester City are clearly stronger than Fulham or Spurs than Sheffield United). Which is what you would expect: the longer a game goes on, the likelier the “better” team are to win it. That is why the weaker side often waste time in the first place.


That's only an analysis of the Premier League and I'd like to see a similar look into the Championship, L1 and L2 and think we'd likely see a similar effect in those leagues. In the same article he also comments on the unfair advantage a 9 player bench gives to clubs with big squads, something we currently know is an issue at QPR. Wilson goes on the conclude...

This is the absurdity of the position in which football now finds itself. The disparity between rich and poor, even within the same division, is now so great that attempts to prevent time-wasting, which ensures more of the product, may end up damaging the product by making it more predictable and thus less of a spectacle.

It may still be early in the season but I think he's right.


All fair enough, though I would counter that by saying it's not just David who shithouses when up against Goliath; we've had it done to us countless times over the past few seasons, and we've not been one of the genuine big boys (if we ever were) for thirty years.
0
Shithousery on 10:57 - Sep 24 with 2639 viewsRsinWales

Shithousery on 10:45 - Aug 18 by Northernr

It had got ridiculous. We got a penalty against Sunderland last year. Luke O'Nien went and sat down between the ball and the goal and demanded treatment. Everybody knows what's going on. Delays the taking of the kick, which we miss, and he sprints back on. Rewarded for cheating.

As Dave says above, teams in the Championship were clock running from the 30th minute if they were 1-0 up, or even if it was 0-0 away from home.

You had Blackpool try and piss away an hour of a football game at Loftus Road last August - referee added 2 and 4.

Something desperately needed to be done. It was farcical and at times unwatchable. For all the players and managers moaning about it - perhaps you shouldn't have been so blatant with all the cheating in the first place, then it wouldn't have been needed. But needed it definitely was.


This ^^^ absolutely.

It was farcical and frustrating. I hated it when others did it and I hated it when we did it. To be honest, I was beginning to get embarrassed at the whole charade.

I don't particularly want to spend an extra ten minutes in the ground, but I would much rather that than watch some bloke pull up with a leg injury and then begin holding his head (after no contact at all) so the referee is obliged to stop play. Can't remember which game it was last season, but that is exactly what happened.

When a player even abuses a rule that is there to protect his and his colleagues' health, you can be sure the cheating has gone waaaaaayyyy too far.
0
Shithousery on 11:02 - Sep 24 with 2618 viewsWatford_Ranger

An old gripe but two examples watching MOTD. Feigning injury to get a player sent off. Gibbs-White and Lockyer both acting like they’ve been hit by cannon. Fair enough if the rules mean that’s “violent” conduct but especially with VAR why not clamp down on what is obviously unsportsmanlike
conduct by rolling around on the floor because someone has briefly touched your neck.
1
About Us Contact Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Advertising
© FansNetwork 2024