Referees and rugby vs football

First topic message reminder :

Looking at how footballers treat referees I thought we should discuss how rugby won't turn into the same kind of yob game football is.

So that means bringing in punitive measures designed to prevent it creeping into the game.

And it is.

So here's my proposal and, (penalty for offender)

1. High tackle - 10 mins in bin
2. Dangerous play other than high tackle - same
3. Back chat - 5mins in bin
4. Not back 10 - 5 mins in bin
5. Blocking player intentionally - 5 min in bin
6. Cheating on ground or bringing maul down - 5 mins or penalty try
7. Robot dancing - red card
8. Swallow dive. - insert unopened bottle of Heineken into anal bumhole. Twist accordingly.

There maybe more pls propose.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:Hmmm, I'm one of those fans who like pundits who are invariably correct and insightful, rather than simply controversial for the sake of publicity.

That said, Keane ought to be an expert in foul play. He did afterall deliberately crock and opponent during his playing days, by his own admission. You'd think he'd know intent to harm when he saw it? Clearly he doesn't. He probably just thinks all footballers think like he used to.

If he played the game at the level he played it at...with some legendary loose cannons (not just him) - the glorious Cantona too - the people who dragged Premiership football up to be the massively expensive and spectaclular circus that it is today - then I think he knows a good few things about what's in a player's heart and actions when they engage in 'war' as he put it. I'd say at a guess, more than you and I together.

The panelists on that show ..and thank God I don't watch a lot of it...were just stone wall grey and lifeless...not insightful, not necessarily correct...just guys earning easy money in a nice setting.

And Keane didn't say he was an angel, never claimed to be one, his own words tell of the hard-man exploits clinically enough. He doesn't try to disguise it and he mentioned his own 'reds' on the show. And he knows what's in a player's mind.

I hate that line of argument.

Hate what want to, Scot. I won't be losing sleep worrying about it.

My contention will remain.

He knows as much about football and how a player might pick up a red as the next cliche-drunk pundit. Is there a school they go to to prove they've passed an exam of knowing what they're talking about?
The two other geese looking at him didn't know what to say or what to agree or disagree with when he spoke. Mainly because they were sitting at Old Trafford, on British TV and didn't want to appear ungracious either in disagreeing with what the 'idiot' Keane said, or in agreeing with him against the large audience on TV and the one at the stadium. The guy on the extreme right...can't remember his name... both agreed and disagreed with Keane at the very same time. "Yeah, so it was a red, but it wasn't a red"

Magnificient clarity there from one of the trained intelligent pundits with the degree in it

Hate what you like Scot, there's a lot of 'hate' about in football over there. Keane knows more than You, Me, Chiles and the other two about how a player might avoid a red and how he might draw one onto himself...and admitted as much.

tigertattie wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:
having to administer stupid laws ie "tip tackles".

hold on a sec. Are you saying the "tip tackle" should not be carded???

Yes.

SecretFly - the rules are clear I'm afraid. There is no ambiguity.

FIFA law 12:

"A player is guilty of serious foul play if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play." It clarifies: "Excessive force means that the player has far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent."

How can Nani possibly be guilty of this offence, when he isn't even looking at the player?

Do you still think Keane's analysis of a law he wasn't aware of is correct?

I'm with you on the other pundits though. Gary Neville, Alan Hansen and Lee Dixon are the only decent pundits in football.

I like Lawro, although I miss his moustache.

funnyExiledScot wrote:SecretFly - the rules are clear I'm afraid. There is no ambiguity.

FIFA law 12:

"A player is guilty of serious foul play if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play." It clarifies: "Excessive force means that the player has far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent."

How can Nani possibly be guilty of this offence, when he isn't even looking at the player?
Do you still think Keane's analysis of a law he wasn't aware of is correct?

I'm with you on the other pundits though. Gary Neville, Alan Hansen and Lee Dixon are the only decent pundits in football.

Scot, did I say it was a red or a yellow? Did I make that call? Nope. Because it's not what I was discussing. I was discussing the idea that it's not a crime to be a pundit that goes against the flow and has a different opinion to everyone else in the studio. That was his right and he expessed it, and he expressed it coming from as educated a place about the game as anyone else in that studio, if not more.

Now, to get on to the red card...as to say it ain't one seems to be the real 'crime against humanity'. Two things:

Firstly............... have you ever been on a field with guys running around you? You're an adult who has been through a childhood so even if you haven't engaged in adult sport you have experienced it. But first thing you notice is that you hear them and you sense them.

Did Nani set out to hurt and knock the player? - Nope. Did he leave his foot there to do damage on the incoming player? Nope, not in my view.
Did he know the player was approaching? Yep, in my view. It was a tight game, you don't get much time on a ball to yourself at that level. He sensed the player was approaching. PLUS - he heard his arrival. Certain. You hear the dull thuds, the sound waves get to you, even through a crowd. You even hear their breath approach in doppler effect - meaning you know how close the guy is getting by how much the sound changes tone. He knew an opponent was approaching and he foolishly rose his foot higher than he should have in that scenario. Did he intend to injure the player? No. Was he negligent in raising his boot so high when he knew someone was rushing onto him? Yes, in my opinion...yes.

Now, second point. So you gave me the rules of engagement - FIFA Law 12. I guarantee you - I guarantee you - nobody in the studio could have recited that rule that night. None of them. Chiles did because he had written words helping him. The other three wouldn't have been able to...and neither of the other two 'pundits' recited the rules to Keane. I'll go further, Mourinhio wouldn't have been able to recite them. None of the players on the field would have recited them. Ferguson would have told you to 'f**k off' if you had asked him.

The ref interprets the law bible, that's why he's human. Sometimes he makes judgements, wrong ones, that help Man U...sometimes he makes judgements, wrong ones, that assist the opposition. That's a human ref. But don't quote me rules when virtually nobody in that stadium cared about the specific rule. They cared about being knocked out of the Championship. Had it been Real Madrid who got knocked out by a similar red, you wouldn't be here talking to me and this thread wouldn't exist.

Ok, so you agree with me that the ref was wrong, yet you think Roy Keane was correct in saying that the ref was right??

Of course a pundit has every right to go against the flow, particularly when the subject matter includes a degree of objectivity. That's precisely why I rate Hansen, Dixon and Neville, because they don't just go with the flow, and the do have their own voice. But in this matter there was right and wrong, and Keane was wrong. He was saying that in his view it was a red card. He's wrong. Plain and simple.

Keane just went against the flow.

Your rignt Neville (especially) says what he thinks-Flow is immaterial

funnyExiledScot wrote:Ok, so you agree with me that the ref was wrong, yet you think Roy Keane was correct in saying that the ref was right??

Of course a pundit has every right to go against the flow, particularly when the subject matter includes a degree of objectivity. That's precisely why I rate Hansen, Dixon and Neville, because they don't just go with the flow, and the do have their own voice. But in this matter there was right and wrong, and Keane was wrong. He was saying that in his view it was a red card. He's wrong. Plain and simple.

He thought he was right................... He thought he was right. Probably still feels it. His right to feel what he feels about an event that can be either black or white depending on which side you support (like happens a lot in football and other sports - admit that much)

Again, I put it to you...nobody in that studio would have been quoting a law only Chiles, who knows nothing and quotes it. Hanson has always been right??? Always been 'correct', 'factual' and 'right'? Always? Dixon, has always been 'right'? Neville? Always right in anything he says?

You kidding me? No, what they all have is the 'right' to have an opinion and to express it. The anger is not that Keane was wrong or he was right, the anger is that he was an ex Man U player expressing an opinion that wasn't liked. And the knives are out for him because of it. So we pretend we give pundits the right to have an opinion, but we're selective about which ones we give that right to.

Anyway, I've done my time on this one. Like I said earlier, my next football game viewing should be sometime in em....2014 maybe

I think what makes a good pundit is good judgement. Clearly no pundit is perfect.

If the discussion is based on a subjective question - in your opinion is X a better player than Y - then there's scope for opinion and a range of views.

If the question is based on a factual matter - was that a red card according to the laws or not - then it's a factual question with a right or wrong answer. Keane, in saying that it wasn't, showed two things: bad judgement and an inability to understand and know the rules. As you say, I suspect the other pundits didn't know the rules either, but they showed better judgement than Keane.

It's his lack of good judgement which makes him a bad pundit. Turning up and being wrong (whether you think you're right or not) is not a commendable attribute for a pundit.

Keane always seeks to be controversial on TV, and I'm not always sure he believes his own voice half the time. I find it tedious.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Keane always seeks to be controversial on TV, and I'm not always sure he believes his own voice half the time. I find it tedious.

You find it and him tedious because you don't like him Scot. There's not a blessed thing he could say that you'd have the stomach to agree with. It's proabaly his history as a player that either gets him tolerated or not now as a pundit.

He said what he believed to be the case. You don't agree... so be it. Next wrong red card that's given against a side playing Man U and we'll see how 'objective' all rule quoters are then. Next wrong red card that's dished out to a player on the opposing side to the ones you support and we'll see how open you are to the idea of rule interpretation.

Nobody is perfect. Not me, not you. We all see what we see...when we see it.

SecretFly wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Keane always seeks to be controversial on TV, and I'm not always sure he believes his own voice half the time. I find it tedious.

You find it and him tedious because you don't like him Scot. There's not a blessed thing he could say that you'd have the stomach to agree with. It's proabaly his history as a player that either gets him tolerated or not now as a pundit.

He said what he believed to be the case. You don't agree... so be it. Next wrong red card that's given against a side playing Man U and we'll see how 'objective' all rule quoters are then. Next wrong red card that's dished out to a player on the opposing side to the ones you support and we'll see how open you are to the idea of rule interpretation.

Nobody is perfect. Not me, not you. We all see what we see...when we see it.

A few things:

1. I would have agreed with him had he said it's a red card, as he would have been correct.

2. I don't support Man Utd, far from it. The decision was wrong though, thus my view.

3. I am perfect.

Keane is the football equivalent of Guscott as a pundit.

So be it. Guscott the grey man of contrary bland-speak in rugby, Keane the grey-man of contrary bland-speak in football.

My punditry hat would say I saw three bland-speak operators at work in the studio..Keane wasn't one of them. But so be it, some of us like Bovril, some of us don't. Oh and by the way, just to show it isn't his nationality that has me in his camp...I think Keith Wood is an abysmal pundit - now there's bland with a capital B. Nice guy, bland as magnolia.

Your point 2 there - you'll find I didn't say you were a Man U supporter.

Rangers?

We'll leave it there then, Scot? From one perfect specimen to another, I think our respective views are clear enough at this stage

Excellent - I'm glad we put that one to rest!

I support Rangers and Everton - there has never been a correct referee decision given against either side, I can assure you!

Who cares -

Man Utd out - good - less wendyball drivel about them on sports stations and written press. Thanks referee whoever you were
Celtic out - good - see above in Scotland and less Ginger Orc on telly