Lucas

[Neil Young]

You're right Neil. Me and Dhavlos had this convo earlier. If it bounces off the ground and hits a player on the hand by accident on the line that should be a penalty. A deliberate handball like Neville's should be a goal without the penalty

I don't think accidental handball should be an offence. It leads to questionable decisions at times but at least you don't currently get players aiming the ball deliberately at an opponent's hands which I reckon you would if the law was changed to remove intention.

[Morph]

It can if you change the rules.

change a fundamental rule of football? not having that at all

[Neil Young]

change a fundamental rule of football? not having that at all

It happens all the time. It's called 'change' - it comes as a shock I know but hopefully you'll learn to accept it.

[Morph]

It happens all the time. It's called 'change' - it comes as a shock I know but hopefully you'll learn to accept it.

come on mate a ball crossing a line is about as fundamental as it gets

[Neil Young]

come on mate a ball crossing a line is about as fundamental as it gets

Yes, true, but change happens. Substitutions, no cup replays, golden goal (crap I admit), silver goal (almost equally as bad), the f*cking offside interference law, fourth officials, four steps, six seconds, no back passes, 3 points for a win, goal difference (we would have won the League in '89 if we'd still had goal average as the decider)...

These might not be quite as fundamental as awarding penalty goals but really there's no reason why even that shouldn't change just because "it wasn't like that when I was a kid". I mean, initially there was no such thing as penalty kicks I think and all players had to sport moustaches.

[dww]

These might not be quite as fundamental as awarding penalty goals but really there's no reason why even that shouldn't change just because "it wasn't like that when I was a kid". I mean, initially there was no such thing as penalty kicks I think and all players had to sport moustaches.

Reliving the horrors of your youth?

[Neil Young]

Reliving the horrors of your youth?

OK, I made that bit up. All supporters had to wear hats or caps though.

When I was a youth we all had to wear scarves round our wrists and every two years Scotsmen had to have good-natured riots in London.

[mick the click]

.........I think and all players had to sport moustaches.

Reliving the horrors of your youth?

Indeed not - this rule still applies in may cultures. S Africans I used to work with just had to have a tache - no matter how stupid it made them look. However, now they can travel, and are adapting to the real world, many are shaving with consideration for others.

IMHO the eastern block is currently providing the most pratworthy facial hair configurations - at least here in London - specifically the small tacky hitler caterpillar type.

I continue to observe...

[Morph]

Yes, true, but change happens. Substitutions, no cup replays, golden goal (crap I admit), silver goal (almost equally as bad), the f*cking offside interference law, fourth officials, four steps, six seconds, no back passes, 3 points for a win, goal difference (we would have won the League in '89 if we'd still had goal average as the decider)...

These might not be quite as fundamental as awarding penalty goals but really there's no reason why even that shouldn't change just because "it wasn't like that when I was a kid". I mean, initially there was no such thing as penalty kicks I think and all players had to sport moustaches.

I welcome change in certain things, for instance, changing offside back to the way it was, allowing more subs on a bench, 0 points for nil-nil draws, goal line technology, retroactively looking at incidents and awarding red cards/bans, but I couldn't go along with awarding goals, it just wouldn't be right

[memzey]

You don't have a goal unless the ball crosses the line.



Simple as.

[tomasjj]

Reliving the horrors of your youth?

I think this calls for a photo.

[Pablo]

I understand where you are coming from Morphorino, I really do...but you are wrong.

In rare instances like that (and they are rare) a player can directly and with foresight illegally influence the result of the match. This is just plain wrong.

The psychology of P Neville was that is was worth him being sent off if it meant that there was a chance the penalty would be missed and they would get a result. He got damn close to achieving it too. If Howard had saved it you can bet you life Neville would have been paraded around Woodison with a statue erected in his name!

It's particularly tempting in a cup final scenario. Imagine: Man Utd are a goal up against us in the FA Cup Final when in the final minute Gerrard lashes a shot towards the top corner, its clearly going in. G Neville dives full length and palms it away to safety. The prick even smiles as he walks off before even waiting for the ref to brandish the red. Van Der Saar saves the penalty and the final whistle blows. We lose. Where would the justice be in that situation? A three match ban next year for Neville? You think that would be enough to stop him or anyone else doing exactly the same thing again in future? I doubt it.

The positives of cheating in a situation like that far exceed the negatives and that is a fundamental flaw in the rules. It needs to be changed.

The "penalty try" in rugby is the obvious solution imo. It should be implemented for rare cases like we saw the other day to eliminate the temptation for this to happen again.

[AFII]

In Icehockey the puck don't need to cross the line if the team has taken off the goalie and a player gets slashed or something like that with an open net to score in, in the last two minutes.

Maybe they should count it as a scored goal if it's inside the last two, three minutes.

[Morph]

I understand where you are coming from Morphorino, I really do...but you are wrong.

In rare instances like that (and they are rare) a player can directly and with foresight illegally influence the result of the match. This is just plain wrong.

The psychology of P Neville was that is was worth him being sent off if it meant that there was a chance the penalty would be missed and they would get a result. He got damn close to achieving it too. If Howard had saved it you can bet you life Neville would have been paraded around Woodison with a statue erected in his name!

It's particularly tempting in a cup final scenario. Imagine: Man Utd are a goal up against us in the FA Cup Final when in the final minute Gerrard lashes a shot towards the top corner, its clearly going in. G Neville dives full length and palms it away to safety. The prick even smiles as he walks off before even waiting for the ref to brandish the red. Van Der Saar saves the penalty and the final whistle blows. We lose. Where would the justice be in that situation? A three match ban next year for Neville? You think that would be enough to stop him or anyone else doing exactly the same thing again in future? I doubt it.

The positives of cheating in a situation like that far exceed the negatives and that is a fundamental flaw in the rules. It needs to be changed.

The "penalty try" in rugby is the obvious solution imo. It should be implemented for rare cases like we saw the other day to eliminate the temptation for this to happen again.

I disagree, but i'm not really going to argue the toss anymore, I can see that he directly stopped going the ball in the net, but that at the end of the day was his choice, I think a penno and his 3 match ban is more than enough punishment

[ronanm]

I think a penno and his 3 match ban is more than enough punishment

I don't. If anything, his family should be dragged into it.