Premier League match discussion thread | 2014/15

I wonder if Balotelli's reputation will just be totally obliterated by this Liverpool stint. Before this he managed to get included in the same breath as really good players mostly through his rep. I bet he got paid shit loads for advertising too, can't imagine that will stay if he keeps playing this poop.

Zzonked wrote:I wonder if Balotelli's reputation will just be totally obliterated by this Liverpool stint. Before this he managed to get included in the same breath as really good players mostly through his rep. I bet he got paid shit loads for advertising too, can't imagine that will stay if he keeps playing this poop.

He won't continue to be this bad, he'll score a few, have the odd flash of brilliance and have it replayed incessantly because he's wacky. With Balotelli everything is polemic, when he's decent he'll be a superstar again.

The fact he's even being spoken about so much now is a symptom of it. Liverpool have signed a £16m player who is playing crap, so what? That's their modus operandi, why is he getting all the attention? They signed Lallana for £20m and he can't get in the team, they bought Origi for about £10m and he can't even get into the fucking squad. That Lazar Markovic who was meant to be the next Ronaldo was another £20m and he never gets picked. None of these ever get spoken about because they aren't characters.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Zzonked wrote:I wonder if Balotelli's reputation will just be totally obliterated by this Liverpool stint. Before this he managed to get included in the same breath as really good players mostly through his rep. I bet he got paid shit loads for advertising too, can't imagine that will stay if he keeps playing this poop.

He won't continue to be this bad, he'll score a few, have the odd flash of brilliance and have it replayed incessantly because he's wacky.   With Balotelli everything is polemic, when he's decent he'll be a superstar again.

The fact he's even being spoken about so much now is a symptom of it.  Liverpool have signed a £16m player who is playing crap, so what?  That's their modus operandi,  why is he getting all the attention? They signed Lallana for £20m and he can't get in the team, they bought Origi for about £10m and he can't even get into the fucking squad.  That Lazar Markovic who was meant to be the next Ronaldo was another £20m and he never gets picked.  None of these ever get spoken about because they aren't characters.

Not sure if serious.

Scott_LFC wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

He won't continue to be this bad, he'll score a few, have the odd flash of brilliance and have it replayed incessantly because he's wacky.   With Balotelli everything is polemic, when he's decent he'll be a superstar again.

The fact he's even being spoken about so much now is a symptom of it.  Liverpool have signed a £16m player who is playing crap, so what?  That's their modus operandi,  why is he getting all the attention? They signed Lallana for £20m and he can't get in the team, they bought Origi for about £10m and he can't even get into the fucking squad.  That Lazar Markovic who was meant to be the next Ronaldo was another £20m and he never gets picked.  None of these ever get spoken about because they aren't characters.

Not sure if serious.

I am, but you might have to think about it for a minute or two.

Congratulations to Chelsea on their title win. Great achievement for the team.

Man, Tottenham are shit.

I mean who loses to Stoke at home really?

Arsenal throw away another 3 points.

Thoughts on Tim Howard's improvisation?



Looks blatantly illegal to me.

Looks blatantly ingenious to me. Lovely bit of misdirection.

Did the referee call anything for that?

No. What would you have done?

according to Law 12 that's a foul. Players are allowed to cover/shield the ball to stop opponents playing it, for example like when players shield the ball from opponents in an attempt let it go out for a goal kick, corner, throw in etc... but the ball has to be within playing distance. In the other cases mentioned the ball is within playing distance (since it's outside the box it should be classed as kicking distance), but in that clip with Howard he is nowhere near playing distance of the ball. Should have been a foul.

SBSP wrote:No. What would you have done?

It doesn't seem like he touches the ball with his hand, so it doesn't matter if the ball was in our out of the penalty area. But he goes to ground to shield the ball, which would be a dangerous play and an indirect free kick for Sunderland. But the referee probably thought Howard grabbed or at least attempted to grab the ball with his hands, which would have been legal if the ball is in the penalty area.

Keyser Söze wrote:according to Law 12 that's a foul. Players are allowed to cover/shield the ball to stop opponents playing it, for example like when players shield the ball from opponents in an attempt let it go out for a goal kick, corner, throw in etc... but the ball has to be within playing distance. In the other cases mentioned the ball is within playing distance (since it's outside the box it should be classed as kicking distance), but in that clip with Howard he is nowhere near playing distance of the ball. Should have been a foul.

How can you say he was nowhere playing distance? He touches the ball with his foot and he is literally on top of the ball.

No he doesn't. In the position when he's lying down on the floor and shielding the ball he makes no contact whatsoever with the ball and his feet. In that position it's impossible to play the ball hence he's shielding it without being in legitimate possession of the ball so it's a foul. Only way he can play the ball is by getting up and thus no longer being in that illegal shielding position or by using his hands which is also a foul. It's in Law 12.

I doubt any keeper other than Howard would be praised for that tbh. It just seems like he got himself out of his own mess by conning the ref.

SBSP wrote:I doubt any keeper other than Howard would be praised for that tbh. It just seems like he got himself out of his own mess by conning the ref.

Agreed, bloody Americans.

Keyser Söze wrote:No he doesn't. In the position when he's lying down on the floor and shielding the ball he makes no contact whatsoever with the ball and his feet. In that position it's impossible to play the ball hence he's shielding it without being in legitimate possession of the ball so it's a foul. Only way he can play the ball is by getting up and thus no longer being in that illegal shielding position or by using his hands which is also a foul. It's in Law 12.

I'm not arguing with you about whether it's a foul or not, it's your reasoning. He clearly touches the ball with his body and he is within playing distance. So the foul can't be for obstruction. If you're going to call a foul, it should be for dangerous play.

FCB wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:No he doesn't. In the position when he's lying down on the floor and shielding the ball he makes no contact whatsoever with the ball and his feet. In that position it's impossible to play the ball hence he's shielding it without being in legitimate possession of the ball so it's a foul. Only way he can play the ball is by getting up and thus no longer being in that illegal shielding position or by using his hands which is also a foul. It's in Law 12.

I'm not arguing with you about whether it's a foul or not, it's your reasoning. He clearly touches the ball with his body and he is within playing distance. So the foul can't be for obstruction. If you're going to call a foul, it should be for dangerous play.

I'm not arguing what type of foul it is. I'm just saying that it's a foul, whether that be dangerous play or obstruction or whatever, because he's not legitimately shielding the ball because it's not within playing distance. In a situation like that the ref has to make the call of whether he is legitimately using tactical shielding or not, if he's not, which in this case Howard isn't, then it's a foul and it's just a case of what type of foul it is.

How on earth is he within playing distance when he's in that position lying down ground? It's impossible for him to play the ball with his feet and he can't use his hands, so is he meant to play the ball with his chest/shoulders/face?

Keyser Söze wrote:

FCB wrote:

I'm not arguing with you about whether it's a foul or not, it's your reasoning. He clearly touches the ball with his body and he is within playing distance. So the foul can't be for obstruction. If you're going to call a foul, it should be for dangerous play.

I'm not arguing what type of foul it is. I'm just saying that it's a foul, whether that be dangerous play or obstruction or whatever, because he's not legitimately shielding the ball because it's not within playing distance. In a situation like that the ref has to make the call of whether he is legitimately using tactical shielding or not, if he's not, which in this case Howard isn't, then it's a foul and it's just a case of what type of foul it is.

How on earth is he within playing distance when he's in that position lying down ground? It's impossible for him to play the ball with his feet and he can't use his hands, so is he meant to play the ball with his chest/shoulders/face?

He can if he wants to. He's still within playing distance. The fact that he goes to ground doesn't make him not within playing distance. It just makes it dangerous.

The fact he goes to ground doesn't make it automatically dangerous. It makes it not within playing distance. You can't legitimately play the ball from that position/distance, you just can't, it's physically impossible and saying otherwise is flat out stupid.

Keyser Söze wrote:The fact he goes to ground doesn't make it automatically dangerous. It makes it not within playing distance. You can't legitimately play the ball from that position/distance, you just can't, it's physically impossible and saying otherwise is flat out stupid.

Howard must be some wizard then because he did play the ball in that position. He stopped the ball with his chest/side. That's not illegal on its own. If Howard was all alone and did the same exact thing, it would be perfectly legal. It's the fact that there was an opposing player attempting to play the ball that made it a dangerous play.

FCB wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:The fact he goes to ground doesn't make it automatically dangerous. It makes it not within playing distance. You can't legitimately play the ball from that position/distance, you just can't, it's physically impossible and saying otherwise is flat out stupid.

Howard must be some wizard then because he did play the ball in that position. He stopped the ball with his chest/side. That's not illegal on its own. If Howard was all alone and did the same exact thing, it would be perfectly legal. It's the fact that there was an opposing player attempting to play the ball that made it a dangerous play.

You've just contradicted yourself. Just because I can sleep on the ball and stop it with my side doesn't mean I can then play the ball with my side. The two are mutually exclusive actions. Please don't tell me you believe Howard could use his side to play the ball? It's fucking impossible. From that position he can't legitimately play the ball, and when I say legitimately I mean legitimately, not moving it half a nm using his beard. And in any case, he shields the ball with is hands so if by some out of this world contortionistic feat he does manage to play the ball he's only going to be playing it against his hands/arms which is a foul.

Your whole explanation of why it's dangerous play is nonsensical. So players can run to the corner flag and cuddle the ball like that and it's fine as long as no opposing players are around? Fucking hell.

Goalkeepers regularly take up those positions inside the box when they try to collect the ball, so what they can only do that if no opposing player is around otherwise it's dangerous play? No. The whole reason it's allowed in the box is because in a position like that the only legitimate way to be in possession of the ball and be within playing distance is to use your hands which they can do in the box.

Keyser Söze wrote:

FCB wrote:

Howard must be some wizard then because he did play the ball in that position. He stopped the ball with his chest/side. That's not illegal on its own. If Howard was all alone and did the same exact thing, it would be perfectly legal. It's the fact that there was an opposing player attempting to play the ball that made it a dangerous play.

You've just contradicted yourself. Just because I can sleep on the ball and stop it with my side doesn't mean I can then play the ball with my side. The two are mutually exclusive actions. Please don't tell me you believe Howard could use his side to play the ball? It's fucking impossible. From that position he can't legitimately play the ball, and when I say legitimately I mean legitimately, not moving it half a nm using his beard. And in any case, he shields the ball with is hands so if by some out of this world contortionistic feat he does manage to play the ball he's only going to be playing it against his hands/arms which is a foul.

Your whole explanation of why it's dangerous play is nonsensical. So players can run to the corner flag and cuddle the ball like that and it's fine as long as no opposing players are around? Fucking hell.

Goalkeepers regularly take up those positions inside the box when they try to collect the ball, so what they can only do that if no opposing player is around otherwise it's dangerous play? No. The whole reason it's allowed in the box is because in a position like that the only legitimate way to be in possession of the ball and be within playing distance is to use your hands which they can do in the box.

You clearly don't know what you're talking about then.

"Playing the ball" in soccer can be as simple as touching the ball/moving it forward a centimeter (such as at kickoff or an indirect free kick).

You're damn right a player can run to the corner flag, cuddle the ball like that (assuming he doesn't touch it with his arms/hands), and it's fine as long as no opposing players are around. Why in the world would that be a foul or offense?

Oh my God.

Yeah, you guys should be more like Scott who doesn't have a history of petty arguments at all.

SBSP wrote:Yeah, you guys should be more like Scott who doesn't have a history of petty arguments at all.

Knocked that one out of the park.

SBSP wrote:Yeah, you guys should be more like Scott who doesn't have a history of petty arguments at all.

Brilliant, SBSP.

I wasn't being sarcastic, tbh honest.  It is a fair point.

I wasn't even implying that it was a petty argument. It was just boring the shit out of me.

FCB wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:

You've just contradicted yourself. Just because I can sleep on the ball and stop it with my side doesn't mean I can then play the ball with my side. The two are mutually exclusive actions. Please don't tell me you believe Howard could use his side to play the ball? It's fucking impossible. From that position he can't legitimately play the ball, and when I say legitimately I mean legitimately, not moving it half a nm using his beard. And in any case, he shields the ball with is hands so if by some out of this world contortionistic feat he does manage to play the ball he's only going to be playing it against his hands/arms which is a foul.

Your whole explanation of why it's dangerous play is nonsensical. So players can run to the corner flag and cuddle the ball like that and it's fine as long as no opposing players are around? Fucking hell.

Goalkeepers regularly take up those positions inside the box when they try to collect the ball, so what they can only do that if no opposing player is around otherwise it's dangerous play? No. The whole reason it's allowed in the box is because in a position like that the only legitimate way to be in possession of the ball and be within playing distance is to use your hands which they can do in the box.

You clearly don't know what you're talking about then.

"Playing the ball" in soccer can be as simple as touching the ball/moving it forward a centimeter (such as at kickoff or an indirect free kick).

You're damn right a player can run to the corner flag, cuddle the ball like that (assuming he doesn't touch it with his arms/hands), and it's fine as long as no opposing players are around. Why in the world would that be a foul or offense?

Fucking hell. You think Howard from that position can move the ball as far as a kickoff or a layoff from an indirect free kick?

You're acting like this level of pedanticism is how refs make calls, they don't. No ref would class moving the ball something like half a nm as legitimately "playing the ball", stop kidding yourself. Playing the ball it as the discretion of the referees eye and no ref in world football would allow that fraction of a distance to entail playing the ball.

I don't know why you've dragged this argument to such petty levels, seems like you know you're wrong and you're just being argumentative for the sake of it.

In that position Howard can't play the ball and even if by miracle he could he'd only be playing against his hands/arms so he's not legitimately playing the ball.

You're a moron. There's a reason players don't ever do that, because it's a foul, they are impeding the progress of an opponent.

Law 12-FOULS AND MISCONDUCT wrote:
Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the path of the opponent to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction by an opponent when the ball is not within playing distance.

It's says "or" meaning any one of those could constitute impending but Howard did all 4. Laid down on the ground in between the opponent and the ball hence obstructing, curled his arms around the ball and tucked in his legs so he's blocking access to the ball, went to ground thus forcing Fletcher to slow down and change direction. And all whilst not being within playing distance of the ball.

What does playing distance mean?

12.15 PLAYING DISTANCE wrote:The referee’s judgment of “playing distance” should be based on the player’s ability to play the ball, not upon any arbitrary standard.

In that position Howard does not have the ability to play the ball.