Jump to content
oneBoro Forum

Non-Boro Football


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 25.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Neverbefore

    1257

  • Borodane

    1198

  • Brunners

    992

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Their is a fascinating article about the Boro in today’s Athletic... Nine championship games in 29 days.  Following a team in their maddest run ever.    Neil Warnock was on the pit

Thanks for all your thoughts and prayers. I probably shouldn’t have made things public, but I was at as very low ebb. It’s been a difficult year, not made better by COVID. Lockdown bucket lists aren’t

Here's an even better question but it's quite a long one.  Why did we sign Bamford and Gestede for a manager that didn't want them at the time, then 6 months later, appoint a different manager wh

Posted Images

And how many late flags before an injury like this? 1/10000 of maybe even less. This is the first injury we’ve heard of after the late flag rule has been introduced for thousands of games across the world. It’s just a freak accident in a contact sport and has nothing to do with the rules. You will always have the risk when keepers come racing out into players. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, wilsoncgp said:

I don't really think the lack of an offside flag is to blame for an injury here, though? Or how a late offside flag is ever to blame for an injury? Because play continues when it shouldn't? But incidents like this can still happen with onside players, what relation does this have to the offside rule at all?

Replay that incident, put Salah onside, hell, put him 30 yards onside and dribbling through a ton of players to get to that position and surely Coady could just as easily injure Rui Patricio from playing on. So what has offside got to do with anything here?

Even taking this particular incident in isolation, the assistant putting his flag up earlier here doesn't 100% guarantee play slows down. Coady has to see the flag go up and/or hear the ref blow his whistle and then slow down/stop in the space of about 3 seconds. By the time the ref has blown from seeing the flag, Coady could have already injured Patricio.

The injury was obviously awful but bringing back the immediate offside flag to solve that problem feels about as useful as a chocolate fireguard. I just don't understand the connection between the two things.

As someone who has played contact sport since the age of about 6, freak accidents are a lot of the time unavoidable and do happen, I've seen plenty and actively been a part of a few.

But in my opinion the Patricio incident could and probably should have been avoided. As you say the assistant putting his flag up for offside doesn't 100% guarantee the collision doesn't take place (the same as the hypothetical situations you mention), but doing nothing at all (like in this case) has lead to a needless injury. Needless as Salah was offside in the first instance, and it isn't exactly like it is a marginal call or the linesman is miles away from it. 

For me that was a warning shot to amend the current rules surrounding the offside rule and specifically the linesman's actions in that situation. But then again the FA are notoriously slow to act when it comes to player welfare, they've only just introduced concussion subs this season, Cricket have had concussion subs around longer than the FA, and they are miles away from the protocols Rugby have. 

I'm sure they'll be of the opinion you and BD hold that it was just an accident, but there is enough scope in this incident to review the current rules. But the FA will probably be waiting for an incident that is as clear as day (and then for it to happen another 8 times) before they have any sort of discussion on the matter. Be proactive rather than reactive is what I am trying to get at.

Edited by DanFromDownSouth
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DanFromDownSouth said:

As you say the assistant putting his flag up for offside doesn't 100% guarantee the collision doesn't take place (the same as the hypothetical situations you mention), but doing nothing at all (like in this case) has lead to a needless injury.

This is the part I cannot possibly agree with. The actions of the assistant have literally nothing to do with the collision between Coady and Patricio.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, wilsoncgp said:

This is the part I cannot possibly agree with. The actions of the assistant have literally nothing to do with the collision between Coady and Patricio.

So if the assistant actually raises his flag for the offside there is zero chance the collision might be avoided?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DanFromDownSouth said:

So if the assistant actually raises his flag for the offside there is zero chance the collision might be avoided?

My opinion is that there's a minimal chance that it makes a difference because of how short the time-frame is and how footballers respond to any given situation, specifically defenders protecting their goal. But it's also really not the point at all, this discussion is trying to make a point for re-introducing the immediate offside flag because it will prevent injuries and is presenting this single case as its argument, focusing in on one factor of the scene that plays out; the linesman didn't raise his flag.

For your argument's sake, let's say that in this scenario that it does make a difference. Patricio is safe because Coady slows down and stops before colliding with Patricio. Fantastic. How many other incidents would it have prevented though? Have injuries been occurring exponentially more often as a result of it? If so, then you have a case. If not, then you might as well be arguing the case to remove goal-line technology because Sheffield United didn't get a goal back in June 2020.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, wilsoncgp said:

My opinion is that there's a minimal chance that it makes a difference because of how short the time-frame is and how footballers respond to any given situation, specifically defenders protecting their goal. But it's also really not the point at all, this discussion is trying to make a point for re-introducing the immediate offside flag because it will prevent injuries and is presenting this single case as its argument, focusing in on one factor of the scene that plays out; the linesman didn't raise his flag.

For your argument's sake, let's say that in this scenario that it does make a difference. Patricio is safe because Coady slows down and stops before colliding with Patricio. Fantastic. How many other incidents would it have prevented though? Have injuries been occurring exponentially more often as a result of it? If so, then you have a case. If not, then you might as well be arguing the case to remove goal-line technology because Sheffield United didn't get a goal back in June 2020.

The problem is we are debating hypotheticals, the only thing that is guaranteed in this situation, is that play continued at full speed due to an offside not being called. I have my view on it and think one way, you have your view and think opposite to me. The discussion for me is about player safety, and part of that is the current offside rule, yes injuries haven't dramatically increased due to this rule, but can you not see how the risk of them happening will continue with this rule in place, surely we should try to minimise the risk as much as possible.

How on earth could I quantify an answer to your question?😂 Would you not be happy in the knowledge that needless injuries are not being caused by play wrongly continuing, or do we need to have multiple examples of it before the rule is questioned, because then we can at least give a number to the amount of injuries we could prevent.

Come on man you don't need the whataboutery, a head injury compared to a goal being awarded get real!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DanFromDownSouth said:

The problem is we are debating hypotheticals, the only thing that is guaranteed in this situation, is that play continued at full speed due to an offside not being called.

The problem is your guarantee is based on the idea that the players would ultimately stop in that short time-frame if the flag goes up. So it's not a guarantee, is it? Your point in this debate is to label the late offside flag as the cause and the collision as the effect but you cannot justifiably say the offside flag is the cause without involving your opinion of how the players would respond to it. If there is any doubt over how the players would respond in those few seconds, you cannot label that as a guarantee. The rest of what you've written is overshadowed by that, asking me if I would be happier if less injuries were caused for example. How can I even respond to that when we can't even agree if that would be the case?

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, wilsoncgp said:

The problem is your guarantee is based on the idea that the players would ultimately stop in that short time-frame if the flag goes up. So it's not a guarantee, is it? Your point in this debate is to label the late offside flag as the cause and the collision as the effect but you cannot justifiably say the offside flag is the cause without involving your opinion of how the players would respond to it. If there is any doubt over how the players would respond in those few seconds, you cannot label that as a guarantee. The rest of what you've written is overshadowed by that, asking me if I would be happier if less injuries were caused for example. How can I even respond to that when we can't even agree if that would be the case?

My guarantee is that play continued, no ifs or buts. My opinion is that if the flag had gone up, that play would have slowed down. That hasn't changed at any stage, I even said in a previous post, that wasn't guaranteed. But watching football and the amount of times play has slowed or stopped after the flag has gone up/whistle blown compared to the times it hasn't leads me to assume it probably would have slowed. But doing nothing at all ensures play continued as it did. 

My entire point from the start isn't that raising the late flag is the direct cause of the collision, but that the act of doing nothing ensures the collision. If raising the flag leads to a 1 in 50 chance of that collision not happening surely that is better than not doing anything at all?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DanFromDownSouth said:

My guarantee is that play continued, no ifs or buts. My opinion is that if the flag had gone up, that play would have slowed down. That hasn't changed at any stage, I even said in a previous post, that wasn't guaranteed. But watching football and the amount of times play has slowed or stopped after the flag has gone up/whistle blown compared to the times it hasn't leads me to assume it probably would have slowed. But doing nothing at all ensures play continued as it did. 

My entire point from the start isn't that raising the late flag is the direct cause of the collision, but that the act of doing nothing ensures the collision. If raising the flag leads to a 1 in 50 chance of that collision not happening surely that is better than not doing anything at all?

The referee and his assistants don't get involved in a lot of the match, how much do you actually want them to get involved for the sake of avoiding injuries? This is what I just don't understand, your argument appears to be that the act of playing football has lead to an injury and because the officials could have intercepted continued play, they could have avoided the situation where a player was injured... so they should?

How often should the referee stop play to avoid injuries? This is what I just cannot understand about your point here. Like, do you actually just not want contact to occur anywhere on the pitch and want the rules to stop play more frequently to prevent potential collisions? Surely if your problem with this incident is that play continues and can lead to injuries, your problem isn't with the late flags as such, it's what the late flag allows, which is football to be played where contact can occur.

Why are you even in favour of letting the players on the pitch to begin with? I just don't get it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, wilsoncgp said:

The referee and his assistants don't get involved in a lot of the match, how much do you actually want them to get involved for the sake of avoiding injuries? This is what I just don't understand, your argument appears to be that the act of playing football has lead to an injury and because the officials could have intercepted continued play, they could have avoided the situation where a player was injured... so they should?

How often should the referee stop play to avoid injuries? This is what I just cannot understand about your point here. Like, do you actually just not want contact to occur anywhere on the pitch and want the rules to stop play more frequently to prevent potential collisions? Surely if your problem with this incident is that play continues and can lead to injuries, your problem isn't with the late flags as such, it's what the late flag allows, which is football to be played where contact can occur.

Why are you even in favour of letting the players on the pitch to begin with? I just don't get it.

Pop Tv Bb21 GIF by Big Brother After Dark

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 minutes ago, wilsoncgp said:

The referee and his assistants don't get involved in a lot of the match, how much do you actually want them to get involved for the sake of avoiding injuries? This is what I just don't understand, your argument appears to be that the act of playing football has lead to an injury and because the officials could have intercepted continued play, they could have avoided the situation where a player was injured... so they should?

How often should the referee stop play to avoid injuries? This is what I just cannot understand about your point here. Like, do you actually just not want contact to occur anywhere on the pitch and want the rules to stop play more frequently to prevent potential collisions? Surely if your problem with this incident is that play continues and can lead to injuries, your problem isn't with the late flags as such, it's what the late flag allows, which is football to be played where contact can occur.

Why are you even in favour of letting the players on the pitch to begin with? I just don't get it.

You’re absolutely right, you really don’t get it. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DanFromDownSouth said:

Pop Tv Bb21 GIF by Big Brother After Dark

Mate, you're literally saying play amounts to an injury. I don't know what else you want me to take from that. It's not the offside flag, it's that it doesn't go up and play continues so an injury can happen. So play causes an injury. By all means, you can actually respond to that or you could be a child, it's up to you, I guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BillyWoofs_shinpad said:

 

You’re absolutely right, you really don’t get it. 

So you could be a *** about it or you could explain your point. You've added precisely zero to this discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Latest Posts

    • Be a good signing defo better than what  we have , he’s only not been playing because they’ve switched to playing wing backs 
    • The last winger we signed after playing with Warnock at Cardiff turned out so well...  Another 31 year old looking a last pay day who hasn't performed in the last couple of years. Couldn't get into an average Cardiff team this season.  So utterly unimaginative, like everything else this club does.  (If it goes through of course)
    • Dan no doubt Gatland has decided if you cannot match the physicality of the South Africans there's no point in going. It seems to me that there is not a lot of time going to be spent playing "pretty" rugby.  He's learnt from the England defeat ( and others) that these guys are efficient, strong and prepared to do what is necessary to dominate.  He has also spotted what he thinks is a weakness he can exploit. He might also think he can exploit them around the fringes late in the game hence Curry and Simmons not to mention Itoje, Byrne and Lawes who can be a nuisance from minute 0ne.   Billy Vinipola may be a big lump that can move a bit but he will get massacred by the Boks and he has not been that good for a couple of years now.  The Boks had his measure in the W.C. final and he has not improved.  Why people thought he should be in the squad was beyond me.  I was far from sure he was worth a place in the 6 nations squad Ah well it is all opinions - remember the Matt Dawson try for the Lions - that was special.  they are going to have to be that special to win this
    • Junior hoilett expected to join us on a free 
    • You have to feel for Rotherham. Derby will get punished next season for cheating this season and Rotherham go down instead of them. Unbelievably unfair on them

×
×
  • Create New...