Media thread 2022/23

[Mr Fraser]

You should be official forum consultant on that topic, you seem very experienced and knowledgeable for the role -:(

You are very generous seems bits of an arsehole to me

 

[VOOMER]

I know Oliver Holt also said that and he’s not been afraid to have a good laugh about it since to be fair.

To give them a bit of leeway, they’re asked to give an opinion and are encouraged to go big with it one way or the other. No one is interested in hearing them sitting on the fence and being indecisive on whether they think a signing is going to be hit or miss.

With DeBruyne, let’s be honest, how many City fans were bouncing up and down with excitement at the time? It was a very lot of money to pay for a player approaching his mid 20s who’d done nothing on a big stage by that point.

We still needed a left back

 

[Rochdale Blue]

Mate, I was obviously exaggerating when I said no one had heard of him. My only point was I wouldn’t hold it against someone questioning at the time whether a bloke with a couple of years at an average German team was value for money at what I think was a near British record at the time.

Bayern were obviously very keen on signing him and that alone would override the views of the morons in the English media and I don't recall any blue groaning about the fee we paid, while Bayern ducked out sulking because they don't like paying more than the bottom line. Anyone thinking he wasn't worth the price at the time should apply for the job of DOF at the swamp.

 

[jacko74]

I listened to this also, but i think i would mainly disagree - the prof explained that there is no evdience that asthma drugs give performance enhancement unless huge amounts are taken, and even then the evidence is mixed. Plus those amounts would be picked up on doping tests easily.

athletes have higher prevalence of asthma (25%, double national rate, admittedly not the 63% being claimed about Liverpool). However if there is any basis to the rumour of asthma rates at Liverpool being way way higher, this would be of interest, i agree.

where did the story about Liverpool even come from? it's entirely out of the ether. Why should Liverpool make an official statement about every rumour/story online? do City?

for a while I wanted to believe Liverpool's lack of injuries and relentless running could be explained in part by some sort of rule-bending, but let's face it, it isn't. They are fit, they have had their share of injuries the last 2 seasons and they dont even run the most in the Prem (7th most last year).

And who has ''fact checked'' the so called facts that their professor came up with?

I find his seemingly none-evidence based claims that athletes supposedly have a higher prevalence of asthma than the general population curious and counter intuitive.

And he said there is no conclusive evidence to show whether ordinary levels of asthma drugs do or don't give performance enhancement... he just chose to go with the ''don't'' option to fit with the narrative of the BBC programme that was paying him for his opinion.

 

[Rochdale Blue]

2 rules I'd immediately change in football are:

1. Scrap Offside completely. It gives needless advantages to a defending team for absolutely no sensible reason and the judging of it and the disallowing of great goals just cannot be justified any longer. This is an entertainment businesses and being caught offside or pmaying offside offers no entertainment whatsoever.

2. Scrap Penalty Kicks and introduce Penalty goals for when a foul or handball has stopped a certain goal. This would in an instant end players diving to win penalties and penalties being awarded for non goal preventing handballs. If it's an intentional handball then as in any other part of the field of play it's merely a free kick. If the hand ball was like Suarez in the World Cup and effectively a save then there is a goal awarded.

Just those 2 things would cut back on cheating and any bloody need for VAR anyway and I can guarantee it would be a better watch.

You're Arsene Wenger and I claim my £5 pounds.

 

[Vic]

In the same way Villa players stood 10 yds offside at free kicks on Saturday as they knew at second phase they become onside and are more difficult to mark. Making our very high defensive line less practical.

But it meant our defenders outnumbered the attackers who could play the ball so their job was easier.

 

[Vic]

I've highlighted this game before, as there were a number of incidents in it that illustrated the stupidity of the current law, and it's the game we played at West Ham, our first PL game in the 2019/20 season.

There was a goal disallowed because Sterling's shoulder blade (or something) was about 5mm offside. It took quite along time to decide if I recall but there was no way he could be described as gaining an advantage.

Then there was a similar incident involving Sterling, but this time he was deemed to be onside when the ball was played. He crossed it to Jesus, who had been stood a few yards offside when the move started, with the pass to Sterling. Jesus never moved but he was behind the ball when Sterling crossed so called onside, even though he'd clearly been gaining an advantage by standing where he did.

Then (and I think it was the same game) David Silva had been standing on the goal line, in an offside position when the ball was played but came back to pick up the ball, at which point he was well onside. Had he been clear of the last defender when he received the ball, then it would have been the right call, as he'd have gained an advantage. But he was deemed offside. In my opinion, where he stood conferred no advantage as he had to move back to receive the ball and had defenders between him and the goal when he did so.

All three calls were correct by the letter of the law but, in my view, wrong by the spirit.

"Gaining an advantage" (in the law) hasn't meant "gaining an advantage" (in common parlance) for donkey's years. It's a redundant phrase and could easily be dropped from the laws. It only now applies to a player when a shot rebounds from post, bar or opponent (eg a keeper saves it) and the law could be reworded to get rid of the phrase for good.

And basically, to be interfering with play (or with an opponent) you have to play the ball or put off an opponent by attempting to play it or by obstructing an opponent.

VAR's freeze-frames and drawing lines is not really good enough to be deciding offside on (eg) how long a sleeve is.

 

[asahartford1]

But it meant our defenders outnumbered the attackers who could play the ball so their job was easier.

It is unless the ball richochets to one of the second phase attackers who are not picked up or block the defender as they retreat into the area, which is part of the plan and often doesn't get picked up by the officials.

 

[LongsightM13]

But he wouldn’t be independent would he? You can see that with the lies and half truths he peddles about our main owner

The fact that he and Carragher put themselves forward as the ‘independent regulators’ shows it’s just another redshirt power grab

 

[Vic]

They need to go back to first principles, as the incremental changes to accommodate small differences in interpretation have completely deviated from the original intention. That intention was to penalise goal-hanging yet now, under the current interpretation, a player could stand on the edge of the opposition six-yard box for the whole game yet still be onside when the ball is passed from the byline.

You can't track back from there.