The rules of football

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Which do you think should be changed? Do you have any fanciful ideas that might just work?

― Daniel (dancity), Monday, 29 September 2003 11:26 (twenty-two years ago)

I like the rugby one, where the ref waits to see if there's any advantage; if not then the team gets the free kick/penalty that was originally to be awarded.

― Daniel (dancity), Monday, 29 September 2003 11:28 (twenty-two years ago)

No defenders.

― Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Monday, 29 September 2003 11:31 (twenty-two years ago)

"The ball is round. The game last 90 minutes. Those are the facts. Everything else is just theory"

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Monday, 29 September 2003 11:33 (twenty-two years ago)

OK, so it's trivial, but footie could be more beautiful.

― Daniel (dancity), Monday, 29 September 2003 11:34 (twenty-two years ago)

No defenders.

― Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Monday, 29 September 2003 11:37 (twenty-two years ago)

I'd like to see the law on obstruction enforced properly to penalise what's called 'shepherding out' (i.e. defenders making no attempt to play the ball but preventing anyone else from reaching it).

I'd like to see more balls launched long from defence, especially into the corners or aimed vaguely at the head of The Big Lad.

― Tim (Tim), Monday, 29 September 2003 11:37 (twenty-two years ago)

I like the rugby one, where the ref waits to see if there's any advantage; if not then the team gets the free kick/penalty that was originally to be awarded.

What I don't understand is that every so often a referee seems to do this, and the commentators always say what fine refereeing it was. But if it's in the rules that you either decide to play the advantage or you blow the whistle then surely this is just rogue refeering? ALL WE WANT IS CONSISTENCY.

― N. (nickdastoor), Monday, 29 September 2003 11:39 (twenty-two years ago)

What Tim said. I don't what you do to secure this one, but I hate seeing defenders too scared to make a tackle in the box. This is wrong, as their job is to tackle.

Football is already beautiful, Daniel. Again, what Tim said. The beauty of long ball to big lad bish bosh nback of the net is magnificent. It does not look as good on telly, but in the ground, it is very good indeed.

― Dave B (daveb), Monday, 29 September 2003 11:46 (twenty-two years ago)

Extra time should be 20 minutes of Wembley doubles instead.

― kieran, Monday, 29 September 2003 11:50 (twenty-two years ago)

With the ref in goal obv.

― kieran, Monday, 29 September 2003 11:51 (twenty-two years ago)

If I was a linesman, I would execute defenders who applauded my offsides.

Fancy dans taking the ball into the corners should be designated fair game and should be kicked up in the air accordingly.

― chris (chris), Monday, 29 September 2003 11:51 (twenty-two years ago)

Fights and scraps should be settled in a ring on the centre circle with full Marquis of Queensbury rules.

Penalty goals should be given in the event of a professional foul, but the player should just be cautioned.

I agree that the obstruction rule should be stricter for shepherding.

Diving in the box should result in a penalty being awarded to the DEFENDING team.

― Mark C (Mark C), Monday, 29 September 2003 12:01 (twenty-two years ago)

If a player is caught on camera committing a cynical foul which none of the four officials manages to spot, the player should be hauled up in front of an FA Commission and given a special commendation (and possibly a financial reward). Skill like that is hard to come by in the modern game.

― Tim (Tim), Monday, 29 September 2003 12:02 (twenty-two years ago)

I agree about 'shepherding out'. Especially so, since I'm a weedy attacker myself. As for the advantage law, consistency is the key, I agree, but no ref in my experience ever takes a free kick back to where it was, a few seconds later, on the grounds that advantage never accrued. (the only context in which I use the verb to accrue). Cross post! Mark C has ambitious plans, but I like the current rule on professional fouls. [I like the way Mark calls it shepherding, anyway, as it conjures up real shepherds and loads of sheep holding up play... definitely a punishable offence]

― Daniel (dancity), Monday, 29 September 2003 12:04 (twenty-two years ago)

No defenders. No walls for free kicks. No goalies. Just 2 wingers, 5 strikes and 4 in-the-hole fancypants attacking midfielders per team.

― Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Monday, 29 September 2003 12:05 (twenty-two years ago)

Actually, make that 3 in-the-hole fancypants attackign midfielders per team, and Claude Makelele.

― Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Monday, 29 September 2003 12:05 (twenty-two years ago)

The only way the prof foul rule doesn't work is when one bloke accidentally clips the heels of the attacker, gets sent off and misses loads of games. Only send a player off for malice, please.

― Daniel (dancity), Monday, 29 September 2003 12:06 (twenty-two years ago)

Send players off for more than four step-overs in any given 45 minute spell.

Every team should be forced to play two forwards. One of them should be above 6'4" ("The Big Lad") and the other should be able to do a sub-11 seconds 100m ("The Nippy Lad").

― Tim (Tim), Monday, 29 September 2003 12:08 (twenty-two years ago)

Hmmm, that would mean I would never last more than 45 minutes. My step overs have a moderate succes rate, too. I'm interested to see how the Brazilians would implement your Big Lad/Nippy Lad rule. The appealing part is that it would have no translation and everyone in the world would have to say Big Lad/Nippy Lad in their own accents, in the way they do with computer jargon etc.

― Daniel (dancity), Monday, 29 September 2003 12:12 (twenty-two years ago)

The players should stand in big pudding bowls and get flicked around by gods.

― Eyeball Kicks (Eyeball Kicks), Monday, 29 September 2003 12:13 (twenty-two years ago)

employ a fa sniper in the stands to mete out punishment to that day's poorest player

― prima fassy (bob), Monday, 29 September 2003 12:17 (twenty-two years ago)

Didn't they use to do that in Iraq?

― Daniel (dancity), Monday, 29 September 2003 12:18 (twenty-two years ago)

I would make it the law for every football game to feature a giant flaming cross with Martin Keown impaled upon it, with players punting balls up at him, with top points to be gained from hitting him in the nadgers.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Monday, 29 September 2003 12:19 (twenty-two years ago)

what matt dc said. except with ruud van nistelrooy

― prima fassy (bob), Monday, 29 September 2003 12:20 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.prophett.net/armoury/babymace.jpg

― mark s (mark s), Monday, 29 September 2003 12:21 (twenty-two years ago)

REPEAL THE OFFSIDE LAW.

― Tim (Tim), Monday, 29 September 2003 12:46 (twenty-two years ago)

Its sorta in the rules. Not in Law 12 but in Law 5 (The Ref) as

allows play to continue when the team
against which an offence has been committed
will benefit from such an advantage and
penalises the original offence if the anticipated
advantage does not ensue at that time

This doesn't really happen since its near impossible to get players to continue playing. The offended team when not on a clear break usually just throw up there hands/whine and you loose a bit of player control.

The rule I'd love to see is players screwed over royally like in rugby for talking to the ref.

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Monday, 29 September 2003 12:49 (twenty-two years ago)

pierluigi collina (sp?) lets the play go on for a few seconds to see if the advantage materialises,it usually works fairly well...
as for changing the rules,i'd like to see less calls for fouls by attackers on defenders in the box
not when there is clear foul,obviously,but a lot of the time a 50/50 tussle is going on in the box and a foul is called,almost always against the attacker,rarely the defender
since if this levelled out there would be loads of penalties which would be fairly crap,they should just allow the same type of challenges within the box as on the rest of the field,wheras now the ref seems to call a foul if there is the slightest bit of contact...

also i think something should be changed about the offside rule,but i'm not quite sure what

― robin (robin), Monday, 29 September 2003 13:50 (twenty-two years ago)

Robin, the offside law should be repealed. MORE GOAL HANGING!

― Tim (Tim), Monday, 29 September 2003 13:54 (twenty-two years ago)

= Arsenal's back line lynching Van Horselroy from the crossbar. Tim H in 17th Century mob shockah!

― Mark C (Mark C), Monday, 29 September 2003 14:11 (twenty-two years ago)

Er, HEIN?

Repeal of the offside law = defenses have to defend deeper = more room for your beloved white boot wearing twinkletoeses to forge their delicate passing movements, if you prefer.

― Tim (Tim), Monday, 29 September 2003 14:26 (twenty-two years ago)

Tim, it wasn't a very sophisticated (or good) joke. Hanging, you know, stringing people up, seemed apt to refer to Van N, etc.

― Mark C (Mark C), Monday, 29 September 2003 14:39 (twenty-two years ago)

Combine American football with the-rest-of-the-world football so that there's one less sport for me to ignore.

― NA (Nick A.), Monday, 29 September 2003 14:51 (twenty-two years ago)

Haha! Mark I get the denseness award. Too many big hoofs up to my head, it seems. Sorry.

― Tim (Tim), Monday, 29 September 2003 15:00 (twenty-two years ago)

I read one I quite liked once somewhere else (i.e. I'm not taking credit for this) which is that in cup games you should get the teams to take the penalty shootout before the match. This should give the team that were crap at penalties the incentive to win the match outright sparing the fans the the dreadful ordeal of watching two teams "playing for the draw" to get to penalties. Obviously if one team wins outright, then they win, but it should encourage teams to make more of a game of it.

Oh, and add me to the haters of defenders shepherding the ball back. John Peel had a good rant about that on Room 101.

― ailsa (ailsa), Monday, 29 September 2003 16:42 (twenty-two years ago)

that penalty shoot out idea might be a good idea

― robin (robin), Monday, 29 September 2003 17:47 (twenty-two years ago)

In OT, the kickoff should be moved to at least the 30 yard line, keep sudden death intact.

― Sir Leee (Leee), Tuesday, 30 September 2003 05:27 (twenty-two years ago)

Commentary should be outlawed, and replaced with a phat beat that increases in intensity and pitch in keeping with the excitement level of the game. Or just white noise, like when you play an old C64 cassette on a stereo. That would be good.

― adaml (adaml), Tuesday, 30 September 2003 05:32 (twenty-two years ago)

Make the two-point conversion mandatory.

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Tuesday, 30 September 2003 05:38 (twenty-two years ago)

Point of order:

The whole "sheperding out" thing was explained by an FA ref on the telly about a year ago. The idea is that the defender, although not touching the ball, is in control of it. He is theerfor not obstructing the attacking player - in fact, the attacking player has no automatic right to teh bal at all.

― Johnney B (Johnney B), Tuesday, 30 September 2003 06:29 (twenty-two years ago)

I agree with Johnney, there is nothing much wrong with 'shepherding the ball out' - the skill is to get round the 'big man' and keep the 'ball' in 'play'. He then looks like a donkey = you win twice.

There should be more free-kicks inside the box for attacking teams.

― Ally C (Ally C), Tuesday, 30 September 2003 07:34 (twenty-two years ago)

Blokes like Campbell have this down to a fine art. To say they have it under control is stretching the point - he tends to give the ball a very wide berth and sort of run around it. You have expect him to get out a curling brush and sweep it on its way. Maddening for the opposition, rapturously received by the defending team. What bugs me is the stiff arm stuff - taking 'shielding' into new territory. Nowhere else on the pitch is the remotely allowed.

― Daniel (dancity), Tuesday, 30 September 2003 07:44 (twenty-two years ago)

'You half expect...' of course

― Daniel (dancity), Tuesday, 30 September 2003 07:45 (twenty-two years ago)

Yes as Daniel says sometimes this "control of the ball" takes place five or six feet from the ball. That's obstruction and it should be treated as such.

Obviously I consider this of less importance than FIFA's responsibility to foster and encourage the long ball game.

― Tim (Tim), Tuesday, 30 September 2003 07:47 (twenty-two years ago)

Oooh yes - free kicks inside the box are wicked fun.

I used to ask people how long the offside rule had been in place and they'd look at me like I was a fool and mutter something about 'a very long time'. I am glad that Tim agrees it's time for a review. I used to be an ace goalhanger.

― N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 30 September 2003 07:47 (twenty-two years ago)

I always thought it would be cool to bin penalties altogether, and instead play for blocks of ten minutes - if its still a draw after the first 10 minutes, keep having them until its resolved. The onyl catch is, have two players sent off from each team after each period. Eventually, it'll turn into a five-a-side match, and you'll have skillfull players comign into their own. It'll be a fast and exciting goalfest, instead of the half an hour of tedium that is most extra time.

― Johnney B (Johnney B), Tuesday, 30 September 2003 07:56 (twenty-two years ago)

Penalties before the game - do not agree; the team who won the shoot out would become boring and negative. Ditto all other ways of separating teams. Whilst I despise penatlies, it is a basic skill that professional footballers should be able to do and therefore is a means of deciding a tie which is internal to the game.

The shepherding explanation - I do not agree. You are allowed to shield if the ball is under control; if the ball is not under control by any player, then it is in play and both players are allowed to tussle for it - the shepherding is obstruction as one player is deliberately using his body to prevent another player form getting at the ball over which he isn't in control. That's obstruction.

― Dave B (daveb), Tuesday, 30 September 2003 08:26 (twenty-two years ago)

I remember City's Kevin Horlock getting sent off for 'walking in an aggressive way' back in the division 2 days. Very surreal and Not The Nine O Cock News police bigots sketch. Nicolas Anelka got a yellow at Fulham recently for celebrating with our fans. OK, so hugging fat square-necked nutters on the front row is not cool, but bookable offence?

Any other trumped up charges you can think of?

― Daniel (dancity), Tuesday, 30 September 2003 08:36 (twenty-two years ago)

Exactly, the shepherding generally happens when the defender is running the ball out for a goal kick, essentially then he hasn't touched it, if he hasn't touched it he can't have it under control - therefore it must be obstruction, leading to an infringement restart.

― chris (chris), Tuesday, 30 September 2003 08:37 (twenty-two years ago)

Skipping 28 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

A bloke tried that in a Brazilian championship play-off a year or so ago and it led to a massive punch (and kick) up among players and everyone else. Apparently the opposing teams players had objected to - in Brazil remember - was showboating.

― Daniel (dancity), Wednesday, 1 October 2003 13:48 (twenty-two years ago)

In an extension of the Big Hump, perhaps dock teams one-hundredth of a goal for each time the ball bounces in the opposition half while they're in nominal possession. Passing sides on a bobbly pitch would be knackered.

Goalies on the other hand are only allowed to control a back pass within their own 6-yard box by executing a Cruyff turn.

All childhood Evertonians only allowed to play for Everton.

― Michael Jones (MichaelJ), Wednesday, 1 October 2003 13:52 (twenty-two years ago)

Does anyone remember the old steps rule for keepers? As I recall, a goalie was only allowed six steps in the penalty area with ball in hands, which is why they used to drop it and tease it around the area a bit before getting rid. My dad used to pride himself on being aware of the rule and would religiously shout 'STEPS!' as soon as the goalie put his foot down for the seventh time in the area with the ball in his hands. The current rule - six seconds - is rather more realistic and enforceable I guess.

― Daniel (dancity), Wednesday, 1 October 2003 14:02 (twenty-two years ago)

It was 4 steps, changed to 6 seconds. When it was introduced, The Guardian reported a piece of terrace wit (you never get wit in seats; seomthing to do with constricted diaphragms or not being cheeky working class types) whereby a fan said that 'if that was six seconds I'm better in bed than my wife says I am.'

We don't need a rule making people who get kicked for retaining possession near corner flags get kicked in the air - we need to legalise the kicking act, which happens anyway (see Macedonia vs England a few weeks back. Naturally, however much this frustrates me, it was nice to see England get the hang of it at last).

Thye big scrap was between Corinthians and Palmieras; it was felot to be a sign of a lack of respec hence big punch-up, which I can attest to as one of the finest onfield punch-ups I've ever seen. Top quality handbags.

― Dave B (daveb), Wednesday, 1 October 2003 14:42 (twenty-two years ago)

http://fractionprice.com/images/handbags/LAS-00062_large.jpg

Dave, your wish is my command.

― Mark C (Mark C), Wednesday, 1 October 2003 14:47 (twenty-two years ago)

Baggy, but nice.

― Michael Jones (MichaelJ), Wednesday, 1 October 2003 15:15 (twenty-two years ago)

Has the Guardian's neologisms expert John Mullan had a go at the word handbags yet? The term seems to have taken on a life of its own of late: 'It was real handbags stuff' 'It's just handbags' and of course Dave B's all-new 'Top quality handbags'.

― Daniel (dancity), Wednesday, 1 October 2003 16:54 (twenty-two years ago)

"Send players off for more than four step-overs in any given 45 minute spell"

Ronaldo (the younger one from Man. U.) would never play again. He puts in about four step overs every time he touches the ball.

― David Beckhouse (David Beckhouse), Wednesday, 1 October 2003 22:26 (twenty-two years ago)

What a great player, but that penalty last night??!! Almost as bad as the Lazio one.

― Daniel (dancity), Thursday, 2 October 2003 09:42 (twenty-two years ago)

Didn't see it, the Champions League games (what few they show) are on in the daytime here. But that kid has mad skilz.

― David Beckhouse (David Beckhouse), Thursday, 2 October 2003 10:35 (twenty-two years ago)

five years pass...

How about clarifying the rules on stoppage time?

― Daniel Giraffe, Tuesday, 22 September 2009 13:29 (sixteen years ago)

Ronaldo (the younger one from Man. U.)

jesus great days indeed, eh?

― What are the benefits of dating a younger guy, better erections? (darraghmac), Tuesday, 22 September 2009 13:35 (sixteen years ago)

Shepherding still incredibly annoying.

― Number None, Tuesday, 22 September 2009 15:10 (sixteen years ago)

This should be allowed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27tUc7w6RkU

― Goethe*s Elective Affinities, Thursday, 24 September 2009 07:06 (sixteen years ago)

Yeah, even the Hitler salute.

― James Mitchell, Thursday, 24 September 2009 07:56 (sixteen years ago)

one month passes...

video replays anyone? could it actually work?

― Daniel Giraffe, Thursday, 19 November 2009 13:18 (sixteen years ago)

dunno - what about occasions where the ref allows the offended team to just play the advantage? no time to stop and check.. i think implementing it fairly would slow the game wayyyyy down to basketball-level proportions. and you'd wind up with 10 minutes of stoppage time.

― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 19 November 2009 13:27 (sixteen years ago)

i think implementing it fairly would slow the game wayyyyy down to basketball-level proportions

Various South American football administrators, esp. Brazilians, have been trying to turn football into basketball for years, so I'm sure they'd be delighted

― I Poxy the Fule (Tom D.), Thursday, 19 November 2009 13:40 (sixteen years ago)

if it works for rugby it can work for football. simple as that imo.

― mdskltr (blueski), Thursday, 19 November 2009 13:41 (sixteen years ago)

make halves only 40 minutes each if the fear of too much added time is really an issue

― mdskltr (blueski), Thursday, 19 November 2009 13:43 (sixteen years ago)

Rugby and Football are totally different though

― I Poxy the Fule (Tom D.), Thursday, 19 November 2009 13:45 (sixteen years ago)

video replays, stopped clock for ball going out, bookings, goals.

― Louis Cll (darraghmac), Thursday, 19 November 2009 13:46 (sixteen years ago)

Rugby is based around set pieces, it's not a free flowing game (esp. when England play it)

― I Poxy the Fule (Tom D.), Thursday, 19 November 2009 13:46 (sixteen years ago)

Various South American football administrators, esp. Brazilians, have been trying to turn football into basketball for years

I'm not sure what you mean. Could you elaborate?

― Daniel Giraffe, Thursday, 19 November 2009 13:47 (sixteen years ago)

Black guys. Lots of black guys. That's what he means, okay? There.

― fields of salmon, Thursday, 19 November 2009 13:48 (sixteen years ago)

"free flow" is some over-rated virtue against the amount of times people complain about cheating in the game. choose one or the other.

― mdskltr (blueski), Thursday, 19 November 2009 13:48 (sixteen years ago)

advantage would be no problem as a team would have committed a foul against the attacking team and it is comparable to getting a free kick in that the attacking team still just retain the ball for a chance. video technology would only be used in cases of real dispute (handballs in the area, someone throwing a punch when the ref aint looking, whether the ball crosses the goalline...) would most probably only add on 1 or 2 minutes to the average game unless there was special circumstances (that holland-portugal match for example).

― a hoy hoy, Thursday, 19 November 2009 13:50 (sixteen years ago)

The game doesn't flow that freely anyway. When a team wants to bring on a sub and have to wait more than about a minute because the ball stays in play, everyone acts all amazed.

― Ismael Klata, Thursday, 19 November 2009 13:50 (sixteen years ago)

I'm not sure what you mean. Could you elaborate?

Splitting the game into four quarters, allowing players to come and go during games, plus various ideas to increasing the chances of goals being scored - I've heard all of these from Brazilian football administrators, and I thought they were supposed to love football in Brazil? Oh, and reducing contact between players to a bare minimum.

― I Poxy the Fule (Tom D.), Thursday, 19 November 2009 13:51 (sixteen years ago)

Lots of scoring + circus tricks

― I Poxy the Fule (Tom D.), Thursday, 19 November 2009 13:53 (sixteen years ago)

Wow. I'm curious to know who's said this stuff now.

― Daniel Giraffe, Thursday, 19 November 2009 13:55 (sixteen years ago)

You've got to be really, really careful with any changes that could potentially open the door for in-game advertisement breaks. Broadcasters would surely love instant replays, cameras, and all the rest of it. ("While we get the replay, let's just cut to commercial.") To me all the grotesque in-game injustice in the world is far more tolerable than constant American-style advertising during the game.

― fields of salmon, Thursday, 19 November 2009 13:55 (sixteen years ago)

they don't go to commercials during the rugby replays, that i've seen - they're too quick :)

― mdskltr (blueski), Thursday, 19 November 2009 13:56 (sixteen years ago)

handballs in the area, someone throwing a punch when the ref aint looking, whether the ball crosses the goalline...)

throw in offsides and appeals for/against red cards (maybe) then you have it. That's not too much or too complicated to ask, and I can't understand why it's being misrepresented as such.

― Louis Cll (darraghmac), Thursday, 19 November 2009 13:57 (sixteen years ago)

people fear change

― mdskltr (blueski), Thursday, 19 November 2009 13:57 (sixteen years ago)

You've got to be really, really careful with any changes that could potentially open the door for in-game advertisement breaks.

I'm sure that's the main reason for the four quarters idea too

― I Poxy the Fule (Tom D.), Thursday, 19 November 2009 13:58 (sixteen years ago)

~~people~~platini fear ~~change~~ of a world cup without france

― mdskltr (blueski), Thursday, 19 November 2009 13:57 (29 seconds ago) Bookmark

― a hoy hoy, Thursday, 19 November 2009 13:59 (sixteen years ago)

if you allow challenges on things the refs HAVEN'T called, you would have to limit it somehow, otherwise you'd have challenges on every shirt pull. especially late in games.

― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 19 November 2009 14:02 (sixteen years ago)

I think it was Joao Havelange who floated the quarters idea, best part of 20 years ago, and iirc (which I probly don't) he admitted that there were advertising considerations

― 19349 things paedophiles like to complain about (DJ Mencap), Thursday, 19 November 2009 14:02 (sixteen years ago)

i'd make EVERY goal subject to replay even when its obviously legit

― mdskltr (blueski), Thursday, 19 November 2009 14:04 (sixteen years ago)

isn't brazilian football in the shit as it is in terms of no-one turning up to watch matchs? if a team goes through a patch where they dont make good enough youngsters to sell to europe they are boned. some more ad revenue not really gonna change it all.

― a hoy hoy, Thursday, 19 November 2009 14:04 (sixteen years ago)

also if you stop the clock for challenges you could v quickly get into the losing team challenging just to keep the game alive

― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 19 November 2009 14:05 (sixteen years ago)

From what I've seen of it, Brazilian football isn't particularly entertaining

― I Poxy the Fule (Tom D.), Thursday, 19 November 2009 14:06 (sixteen years ago)

i'd make EVERY goal subject to replay even when its obviously legit

Why not use Hawkeye to show if a free kick that hits the wall would have gone in

― I Poxy the Fule (Tom D.), Thursday, 19 November 2009 14:07 (sixteen years ago)

I loved the world club championship that year when Man Utd were supposed to walk it, and BBC had committed to coverage and ended up basically showing a Brazilian domestic 0-0 as their prime-time Friday evening entertainment.

― Ismael Klata, Thursday, 19 November 2009 14:13 (sixteen years ago)

if you allow challenges on things the refs HAVEN'T called, you would have to limit it somehow, otherwise you'd have challenges on every shirt pull. especially late in games.

― Tracer Hand, 19 November 2009 14:02 (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

yeah, i think the idea of 2 challenges per game works- and if a challenge is justified you get another etc

― Louis Cll (darraghmac), Thursday, 19 November 2009 14:17 (sixteen years ago)

From what I've seen of it, Brazilian football isn't particularly entertaining

Briefly...

I lived out there for a couple of years and watched plenty of football. On the downside, the game over there is hamstrung by ridiculous regional championships, which take up half the year. Nonsense.

The national championship, on the other hand, is better than it's given credit for, and the spread of teams capable of winning the title is much bigger than most European leagues. The football itself is slower (the climate being an obvious factor) but there really is a lot of good football played. I could go on...

― Daniel Giraffe, Thursday, 19 November 2009 14:36 (sixteen years ago)

Slowness was something I noted

― I Poxy the Fule (Tom D.), Thursday, 19 November 2009 14:38 (sixteen years ago)

eight years pass...

Watching MOTD tonight and the unspoken one whereby if you get your shot off its ok to foul you afterwards

― Simpson L. (darraghmac), Sunday, 25 February 2018 00:17 (seven years ago)

otm

― Number None, Sunday, 25 February 2018 10:04 (seven years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.