|
Post by suedehead on Aug 16, 2024 13:27:43 GMT
No they’ll refer to it as that because most pundits are shit and engrained in what football was like when they played. Not necessarily in this instance. They'll be told to argue on those two case points (last man and covering defenders).
Going round just shouting "it's not/is a denial of a goalscoring opportunity" will score points for law quoting knowledge but is not a persuasive argument.
The game isn’t about persuasive arguments though. It’s the interpretation of the laws of the game by the ref. And nowhere in the laws of the game does it talk about the last man. It’s DOGSO.
|
|
|
Post by wnm on Aug 16, 2024 13:31:11 GMT
No they’ll refer to it as that because most pundits are shit and engrained in what football was like when they played. Not necessarily in this instance. They'll be told to argue on those two case points (last man and covering defenders).
Going round just shouting "it's not/is a denial of a goalscoring opportunity" will score points for law quoting knowledge but is not a persuasive argument.
I’m not persuaded by a lazy pundit quoting outdated laws personally and neither are other people watching with a half a brain.
|
|
|
Post by atmosphere on Aug 16, 2024 13:32:09 GMT
Not necessarily in this instance. They'll be told to argue on those two case points (last man and covering defenders).
Going round just shouting "it's not/is a denial of a goalscoring opportunity" will score points for law quoting knowledge but is not a persuasive argument.
The game isn’t about persuasive arguments though. It’s the interpretation of the laws of the game by the ref. And nowhere in the laws of the game does it talk about the last man. It’s DOGSO. You are correct on the law.
It is about persuasive arguments though. Just like it is in the law of the land.
Another example. Violent Conduct. That's the law as far as I'm still aware. Going round shouting to a referee "violent conduct, ref! violent conduct, ref!" means zilch to them.
On a potential violent conduct bad tackle for e.g, players are taught to state things like "high" "late" "using excessive force" to persuade in order to meet the violent conduct threshold.
That is why you'll hear ex player pundits discussing those three things and why they aren't great at quoting the law directly.
I'm just defending them as a general tbf, from a player/coach perspective. There are some idiot pundits who don't have a clue, agreed.
|
|
|
Post by mat1scfc on Aug 16, 2024 13:37:28 GMT
Agreed though without him we’re going to struggle to fill a bench. Any chance of a loan signing being announced this afternoon? Doesn't really matter, for me. He's not up to L1 so pointless having him on the bench. neither are any of our players u20 but weve got to fill a bench
|
|
|
Post by suedehead on Aug 16, 2024 13:39:49 GMT
The game isn’t about persuasive arguments though. It’s the interpretation of the laws of the game by the ref. And nowhere in the laws of the game does it talk about the last man. It’s DOGSO. You are correct on the law. It is about persuasive arguments though. Just like it is in the law of the land. Another example. Violent Conduct. That's the law as far as I'm still aware. Going round shouting to a referee "violent conduct, ref! violent conduct, ref!" means zilch to them. On a potential violent conduct bad tackle for e.g, players are taught to state things like "high" "late" "using excessive force" to persuade in order to meet the violent conduct threshold. That is why you'll hear ex player pundits discussing those three things and why they aren't great at quoting the law directly.
I'm just defending them as a general tbf, from a player/coach perspective. There are some idiot pundits who don't have a clue, agreed.
I really don't think it is. The game isn't officiated in a court with barristers representing arguments. There's almost no persuasion involved. The ref consults his assistants, that's it. There's noise from players on both sides but that's all it is, noise. Violent conduct doesn't really come into it with committing a foul though, that comes under serious foul play. They're two totally different things in the laws of the game. Serious foul play is Roy Keane clattering Alf Haaland, violent conduct can be a substitute punching a linesman. They're not the same offence (although both come under Law 12. You'll often get pundits confusing the matter and saying a late tackle is violent conduct, but it just isn't. But it gets picked up and accepted as fact. The Laws of the Game and what people on telly, on forums and in pubs say are almost two totally different things.
|
|
|
Post by atmosphere on Aug 16, 2024 13:48:21 GMT
You are correct on the law. It is about persuasive arguments though. Just like it is in the law of the land. Another example. Violent Conduct. That's the law as far as I'm still aware. Going round shouting to a referee "violent conduct, ref! violent conduct, ref!" means zilch to them. On a potential violent conduct bad tackle for e.g, players are taught to state things like "high" "late" "using excessive force" to persuade in order to meet the violent conduct threshold. That is why you'll hear ex player pundits discussing those three things and why they aren't great at quoting the law directly.
I'm just defending them as a general tbf, from a player/coach perspective. There are some idiot pundits who don't have a clue, agreed.
I really don't think it is. The game isn't officiated in a court with barristers representing arguments. There's almost no persuasion involved. The ref consults his assistants, that's it. There's noise from players on both sides but that's all it is, noise. Violent conduct doesn't really come into it with committing a foul though, that comes under serious foul play. They're two totally different things in the laws of the game. Serious foul play is Roy Keane clattering Alf Haaland, violent conduct can be a substitute punching a linesman. They're not the same offence (although both come under Law 12. You'll often get pundits confusing the matter and saying a late tackle is violent conduct, but it just isn't. But it gets picked up and accepted as fact. The Laws of the Game and what people on telly, on forums and in pubs say are almost two totally different things. I do agree with a lot of what you're saying, on quoting the law you are right and will know far more than me on that. I find myself falling behind on the tweaks to laws etc. I think if I was involved in football full time I would endeavour to stay on top of it though.
There is persuasion though. 100%. Having a good team who can communicate to referee's effectively, showing good knowledge of the factors that bring about something like a DOCGO is vital. And those factors do include last man in this instance. Referee's will refer to it to their assistants. "Was there someone on the cover?" etc.
|
|
|
Post by County Blue on Aug 16, 2024 14:03:00 GMT
Agreed though without him we’re going to struggle to fill a bench. Any chance of a loan signing being announced this afternoon? My first thought was, surely that means we have someone lined up. Me too. Don’t think we’ve ever had such a clear message before that’s what’s likely to happen. Still might be wrong though!
|
|
|
Post by Philcounty on Aug 16, 2024 14:19:25 GMT
Do we know when Jid Okeke is contracted until? I can't find anything.
|
|
|
Post by countyblueforever on Aug 16, 2024 16:27:22 GMT
Do we know when Jid Okeke is contracted until? I can't find anything. l believe until next June 2025
|
|
Andy
Contributor
Posts: 716
|
Post by Andy on Aug 16, 2024 16:58:23 GMT
Do we know when Jid Okeke is contracted until? I can't find anything. l believe until next June 2025 I hope we don't see him again tbh. He's not been anything more than a body to fill a gap through pre-season and on Tuesday and on all occasions has been pretty terrible.
|
|
|
Post by Barmy Blue Army on Aug 16, 2024 17:07:05 GMT
l believe until next June 2025 I hope we don't see him again tbh. He's not been anything more than a body to fill a gap through pre-season and on Tuesday and on all occasions has been pretty terrible. I doubt we will this season if things go to plan. I wouldn't write him off just yet though. Was well liked by Chester fans in the NLN. He's got 19 and the physical attributes to play higher. Whether he can "catch up' with us is a different question though. Pye managed it though.
|
|
|
Post by Barmy Blue Army on Aug 16, 2024 17:19:32 GMT
Put it on the match thread but some interesting talk from DC about potentially opportunities opening up later in the window. We're looking.
Bate and Tanto back (but bench only and behind on fitness). Hughes, maybe for Saturday but not serious. Powell then Rydel hopefully in next couple of weeks.
|
|
|
Post by gatleyhatter on Aug 16, 2024 17:24:28 GMT
Any news on Fiorini? I’d kind of forgotten about him.
|
|
|
Post by desmond on Aug 16, 2024 17:34:43 GMT
l believe until next June 2025 I hope we don't see him again tbh. He's not been anything more than a body to fill a gap through pre-season and on Tuesday and on all occasions has been pretty terrible. I’d hope we do see him again, would almost certainly mean he’s improved his game. If he does that and finds a deserved spa e in the squad then great.
|
|
|
Post by Barmy Blue Army on Aug 16, 2024 17:36:32 GMT
Any news on Fiorini? I’d kind of forgotten about him. Someone, HH?, said he asked him in the Courtyard Saturday and Fiorini said a couple of weeks, I think. But he wasn't mentioned by DC today or in the "players back in August group" pre-Cambridge. Maybe it's a couple of weeks / now a week? for him to be back in training then back soon after? Sounds like we're being very cautious with easing returning players back in.
|
|