What was once a "man's game", is turning out to be a game for pansies if you ask me. Just 2 decades ago, you had elbows being thrown about and tackles from behind were legal if you won the ball. Yet, teams played with less players even though the risk of injury was higher. Back in the 1965 FA Cup Final, Gerry Bryne broke is collarbone in the 3rd minute of play but stayed on the field through the 90 minutes plus extra time. Despite constantly being sent into warzones, Phil Neal once played 365 consecutive matches for Liverpool. I just get the impression that players were built of sterner stuff back then and players these days are highly protected because clubs have an obligation to look after 'investments' made by sponsors.

On the issue of referees, I'd say that the FA is being overprotective. I do not condone physical contact of course, but what's wrong with telling the ref to F*** off? These days, you get booked for so much as sneezing in his direction. In a game where decisions are often disputed due to the absence of conclusive evidence, there will be arguments but what is wrong with that? I personally used to berate refs back in the day I was actively playing in Futsal and Basketball tournaments because I see it as part of the game. Is isn't as though all of them are getting death threaths in the manner Anders Frisk did, forcing him into retirement. If you ask me, the FA should focus on getting the refs as much assistance as possible to ensure that wrong decisions are minimised. More officials, goalline technology, video replays, whatever it takes. Do you see anyone shoving the refs about in the NBA or NFL? Sure it happens, but how often and how many times are the refs at the centre of controversy compared to football?

Just to sidetrack, I was really looking forward to Collina refereeing in the EPL. Too bad he chose to retire altogether instead.

The only difference between then and now is this, players get heavier punishment for say, breaking another's leg. In the end, the punishment is moot because no one goes into a tackle with the intent of breaking the other bloke's leg (well you have your exceptions, but very few). It's like the death penalty for drugs in Malaysia but yet you still have people consuming and dealing. I mean, what's worse than a death penalty? Seriously, fines that are dished out these days to players don't actually hurt him. If I earned $50,000 pounds a week, a $10,000 fine is only 5% of my montly salary. If someone earns RM$5,000, that's only RM250. Say you got it from speeding. You'd take notice but it isn't sufficient to stop you from speeding again.

Liverpool once won the league with only 14 players played the entire season, and team in general used less players than they do today. Fairplay, we play more games now but back then, players had very little protection but still managed to last the season. Were there more leg breaks then than now? I don't have the statistics but given what I said earlier about clubs not having to field 22 players, one can make an educated assumption. You use Reina and Torres to appeal to my sentimental side but I do have viewpoints that are completely unbiased believe it or not, with my thoughts in Gerrard's diving a good example. For the sake of argument, if someone had broken Reina's neck, I'd be pissed but it doesn't change the fact that Reina has broken his neck and no amount of money or red cards will change that.

I have no doubt that a player's well being is taken into consideration but one cannot at the same time deny that clubs, sponsors and agents put a lot of pressure on the FA to protect their investments. There always is a political agenda in the end. Don't get me wrong, I think that breaking a leg is a terrible and traumatic thing. I grimace at some of the pictures I see and I can only imagine what its like for another player to see it live. I can only imagine the guilt someone like Shawcross feels when breaking another's leg unintentionally. Instead of taking the obvious route of stating the players need more protection however, I'd first like to draw a comparison between then and now. Are players more reckless these days? Is it because they are more committed because of the high stakes? Are managers telling players to go in harder because they don't want to lose their jobs?

The question isn't about whether protection is necessary, it's about the extent it is implemented. By referring to players, I was a drawing a comparison to the degree to which referees will one day be deemed "untouchable".

Don't follow. The fouls in NBA are harsh? You mean the punishment?

There is a lot of contact in basketball, most often go unnoticed especially in the post but the penalties are the same. Just the other day Lamar Odom and Ron Artest were ejected along with Baron Davis and some other dude. When you raise your hands, you get ejected, just like in football.

The point I was trying to make about refs in the NBA is that they use video replays to review controversial moments, hence players don't see the need to badger him constantly. If someone punched someone else, the incident is replayed instantly to see who the offender was. In football, the refs decision stands and not until later is there a review of the incident. Players therefore bug the ref less knowing that even if he is wrong, the game won't be affected because they can fall back on television replays. In football, the game is affected and punishment meted out later does little to fix the damage that is done. This is why players harass referees in football, because his decision is final, no replay.

To get back on track, I'll say this again. I think referees are given too much protection and authority.

True but the rules differ, and football allows more contact. In football you can body check another player, which you can't in basketball. Suffice to say, the more your rules allow contact, the higher the risk of injury.

Tell you what. If FIFA really wanted to put an end to a long list of problems, replays will solve them. Why don't you see players harass the ref during rugby games? Because they know that everything is on tape, so to speak. It will help determine if a player dived, if the ball actually crossed the line, if Vinnie Jones actually grabbed Paul Gascoigne's groin and so on. Refs also won't get stick from players and fans because their calls will be backed by 'evidence'.

I think one player telling the ref to piss off will influence him less than the whole stadium berating him. Unless I'm mistaken you mentioned earlier that you like the fact there are no replays, etc and there is the drama from contentious decisions. The thing is that when you allow for this, you almost welcome abuse from players or fans. This is why I feel that as humans who have emotions you cannot issue a card each time a player tells you to piss off.

Thing is, if the FA or FIFA want to 'protect' referees, they would introduce technology to help rather than issue a "hands off the ref" warning. Just as they 'protect' referees by saying that they do make mistakes occasionally and are infallible, they have to accept that players are the same. People speak about how subjective talking points make the game interesting, well I think players displaying emotion makes the game that much more interesting. There is a lot of money riding on games these days, from sponsors to bookies. The ref has arguable the biggest influence on the game and if they really wanted to 'protect' him, they would do all they can to ensure there is as little margin for error as possible i.e. introducing technology. If they don't intend to, the accept the consequences instead of building impositions to shield their reluctance.

True but why no address the root of the problem and not the symptom? I mentioned earlier why I think rugby refs receive less abuse. It's because they can fall back on replays, just like in the NBA and NFL. Are referees truly "protected"? They are fallible and technology addresses this. They received abuse when? When they make a controversial call so why not decrease the chance of error? The game is becoming faster and refs need to be well fit to keep up for the whole 90 mins. Their job is becoming tougher and thus errors are more common. Remember Mendes' disallowed goal against Man Utd? Quick counter attack resulted in Carrol dropping the ball and clawing it out from beyond the goalline. It was well in as well. Why wasn't it spotted? Because neither the linesman nor the ref was able to keep up with the game. So what? We protect them by issuing him with a license to flash a yellow whenever he feels threatened? Does this protect him off the field? What if it was a World Cup game and there was huge money riding on that decision? Does the FA care what happens to him after the game, outside the stadium? A simple google search will reveal how many death threats are made against referees despite FIFAs campaign to protect them. http://www.google.com.my/search?hl=en&sour...f&aqi=&aql=&oq=

My point is that if the FA is serious about protecting referees, there is a whole lot more they can do. Football is an emotional sport. The fans are hysterical and if we are against players displaying emotions, then maybe we should ban them from celebrating goals. You can't tell them not to lose it when the ref makes a bad call, but then say its ok to celebrate and rub it into your opponents when you score. I agree that if you show dissent or physically intimidate the ref, you should be cautioned but a yellow for a quick "F*** you" is stupid. Are there even clear guidelines here or is the ref allowed to card a player at his discretion?

This post has been edited by Duke Red: Jan 25 2011, 11:53 AM

I don't watch much rugby but I seldom see dodgy decisions being made. Certainly not to the extent where a dive is rewarded with a penalty, or a goal is wrongly disallowed. Maybe it happens but like I said, I don't watch much rugby. From what I can see, the rulebook for football is more complex and this complicates things for the refs. In rugby for example, your only real guideline when tackling is not to clothesline the bloke (forget about the obvious karate kick to the nuts or judo chop to the neck). In football, you can't tackle from behind, lift both feet off the ground, go through a player, blah blah. Maybe its that much tougher being a football referee? Well in my opinion anyway. When there's more margin for error, there is more chance of controversy, hence why I think it's the main reason for abuse. I mean when do players get pissed off and berate the ref? Why do refs get death threats from fans? Its because they made a wrong call. No one would question them if their decisions were backed by evidence i.e. technology.

Footballers shout at refs to make themselves look hard? Maybe but is it only footballers who have an inferiority complex? I'm sure any male in general will puff his chest out and flex his muscles every once in awhile if just to feel good about themselves.

Maybe its because the rules in football have had to evolve over time. I mean rugby rules have been pretty much the same from before right? Football on the other hand is being hit with more injunctions and naturally, players don't like to feel like their being handcuffed.

This post has been edited by Duke Red: Jan 25 2011, 02:27 PM

Sorry to interject but if memory serves me, they were in the Premier League until the mid 90's when they got relegated. I remember seeing Tony Cotton in goal, Peter Reid towards the tail end of his career, and names like Gary Flitcroft, Terry Phelan, England international Keith Curle (whom I signed in Championship manager:)), Nicky Summerbee, Georgiou Kinkladze and German journeyman, Uwe Rosler all play in the Premiership. They were a pretty decent side but like you say, I doubt many of today's Man City supporters have been fans since back then.

Ah, "the goat!". Funny thing is it isn't just his name that resembles a goat.

In my time, I've met one true City fan and seen what I believe to be another. The former I met at a bar during a derby match against Man Utd and he was the lone blue in a sea of Red. They won that day and this guy was over the moon. Been a fan since he was a kid (think he was in his late 30's when I met him some 6-7 years back).

The latter, I saw only his vehicle. Came across a fully Man City pimped Isuzu Trooper I believe it was. Seen it three times in the Damansara Jaya - Atria area. I'm guessing he's a pretty serious fan.

Don't know much about cityblueprint but I think you mentioned he's 35 this year, a number fast approaching for me. If he's been watching football for as long as I have, maybe he's been a fan since back then? If it is 3 years as you or someone indicated, then... well... nuff said.

If you are indicating that one has to have played football to some degree to comment on the game, I do not agree. Having said that, I have played football and futsal in particular when I was younger. While I do agree that having played the game gives you an advantage in understanding tactics, formations, injuries and other on-the-pitch issues, I think that anyone with some degree of intelligence will eventually achieve a similar degree of understanding. Not all football managers, played football at a high level. There are brilliant football managers out there who have little playing experience, and then there are good players who make lousy managers that are tactically inept. Bottom line is that if you are a smart guy, you don't necessarily have to have played football to understand football.

My 2 cents.

I've strayed from the topic.

This post has been edited by Duke Red: Mar 10 2011, 02:10 PM

I've never thought much of the whole "Respect the Referees Campaign". I can see why it is necessary but it needs to be clearly stated where the line is drawn. I generally do not think that authorities should be given too much protection to the extent they do not need to be accountable for dodgy decisions. Sometimes, all someone wants to hear is the referee go, "I apologise, I got it wrong". I'm sure everyone will understand as the game happens in real time, and his decisions must be made without the benefit of video replays. They are bound to get it wrong sometimes. I think it's only fair that they can be questioned, because their calls can be worth millions of pounds.

Having said all that, statistics prove that the campaign has generated some positive results.

- Assault on referees are down 13%
- Referee numbers are up 7.4%
- Dissent cautions across the top four divisions are down 9%

(source : http://www.thefa.com/leagues/respect).

While I do feel that referee should not be untouchable, I do feel that any petition against them, or vocal disagreement undermining his authority should be kept behind closed doors and out of the media. You don't want to see fans taking their manager's lead, berrating the ref at each given opportunity. I've referees games before and I absolutely hate doing so because you're almost bound to have someone in your face at some point.

I for one don't give a flying f*** about players or manager using foul language. I myself churn out a swear word at a ratio of 1 cuss word per 10 words or so. Yes, I understand the social responsibility part of it but heck, why not give football matches a PG rating then? Aside from swearing, we have the occasional violent leg breaking tackle, bloodied head injury and so on.

Isn't there delay for all live airings? If there is, the most effective way of ensuring that no expletives end up on screen is to censor them, no?

The reason I don't engage much in this topic is simply because I think too many elements that make the game fun are being taken out of it by over-conservatism. Players cannot over celebrate lah, cannot swear, cannot shove another, etc. Might as well have a bunch of machines with zero emotion play the game.

Yes I am. I'm not condoning misconduct, I'm accepting that it's part of the game. Is it every day that players swear at the camera man? If we at home can swear at the TV screen being thousands of miles away, I can only imagine how it must feel like being on the pitch. I accept that emotional outbursts will occur simply because it is a human response. This isn't tennis, and it certainly isn't played by "gentlemen". I do however agree that since they've implemented rules governing such incidences that it should be consistent.

I simply think the FA should focus on other aspects of the game, that affect the outcome of the match and not the traumatic effect a swear word will have on a minor at home, who is likely to have learned to cuss anyway. The English FA is arguably the most "popular" of all the big leagues and if they felt strongly enough about measures that can prevent disrespute of any game, they can take the appropriate measures. I know it seems like I'm moving the goalpost here but I feel that measures like these provide a smokescreen for the fact that not enough is being done to ensure that decisions made by refs during games are spot on. I don't care if it's the introduction of video replays or the addition of another ref but I get the feeling the FA is too protective of the individuals they govern, referees in particular.

I firmly believe that some of the rules are absurd. Let's take a look.

What qualifies as "dissent"? Players get booked for shoving another out of the way. Really? Draw the line at punching, headbutting or no-shadow-kicks, but shoving and grabbing?

Seriously, what's wrong with taking your shirt off unless you have another shirt on with a political message? Entering the crowd? Stadiums are seated so what is the reason? That they're afraid of a stampede? Time wasting? Players just have to be careful they don't jump into the wrong crowd. Geeze, you sign for the club you've supported all your life, you score the winning goal in a cup final against your biggest rivals. You're over the moon and you get booked for taking your shirt off?

A red card for saying, "f*** you"? Fine, maybe mouthing it in front of a camera is a little over the top but it isn't like microphones pick up swear words on the pitch.

---

Added on April 21, 2011, 11:35 amTo be fair, as much as he take every opportunity to take a swipe at you guys, he does have a point. If he were using another club as an example, we'd all be having a better discussion.

Forget that he's talking about Rooney or Ferguson for a moment. I personally have an issue with the FA being so pedantic when it comes to what players "should" or "should not" do.

This post has been edited by Duke Red: Apr 21 2011, 11:35 AM

I think it falls under the "abusive language" category, probably because it can incite a reaction.

The thing is, if they want to impose such rules, they need to be more specific. What if I said, "sod off" instead? Means the same thing. So what? We leave it to the refs discretion again? They are already under enough pressure to get their decisions right on the pitch as it is.

We all know about persistent fouling. If you commit a number of fouls, you get booked. I think it should be the same with swearing. Sometimes, you lose your composure, but you realise it later and cool down. If you're launching a tirade of abuse, then you get warned and booked but to get booked over one outburst? Not taking the piss but does Tim Howard get an exemption?

Call me thick but I don't follow.

In any case, I think we've drifted off topic. Back to referees then.

Now players are being fined for what they say off the pitch on social media. A day will come where their phones will be bugged and houses put under surveillance? It's simple really. Players react because of contentious refereeing decisions. It is the result of something else. If efforts were channeled instead into making calls as clean and accurate as possible, you minimise unruly conduct aimed at referees. Why don't rugby players get into it with referees? They certainly are not Oxford grads who attend afternoon tea parties when they aren't kicking ass on the rugby pitch. They use video replays so that if a referee isn't sure, he can fall back on conclusive evidence. The problem with football is that the referee has to rely on making real time calls in a high paced game with his own eyes (and his assistants) while the rest of the world can benefit from replays. Why do you think refs get death threats? Stakes are high and everyone can spot their mistakes. This is if you ask me, the bigger issue. I don't care if it's video replays or a second referee on the pitch but solving this issue will address a lot of problems, including players getting in the faces of refs.

Fecking CSI shit dude. If ever I want to track down a long lost gf, or find out about hot chick, I'll PM you.

There may be further discussion on this topic after this weekend. Howard Webb has been appointed referee of this weekend's top of the table clash

OT but since the subject of bad English was brought up, "methinks" isn't exactly broken English - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?word=methinks

I use it myself sometimes

This post has been edited by Duke Red: May 14 2011, 08:50 AM

lol and they say cartoons can't be educational