Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

If i wanted to watch some twat throw a football 60 yards...

....I would watch American Grid Iron Football or whatever that shit sport is called!

Why are Stoke allowed to get away with their abuse of the throw in laws? Why are they allowed to waste time drying the ball with a towel every time they have a throw in near the opposition’s penalty area? Are the away team allowed to use that towel? If a team has a player who is a specialist corner kick taker but he has to wear special boots to take the corner should play be held up while he changes into those boots? If the modern ball allows certain freakish players to hurl the ball 50 or 60 yards is that not allowing a fundamental and unwanted change to the aesthetics of football? If Stoke continue to deploy the long throw in so effectively will more low quality football teams adopt the policy and pick and groom ‘quasi quaterback’ type outfield players who can throw the ball a prodigious distance ?

FIFA are always tinkering with the laws to make the game more free flowing and attractive. I hope that if this ugly long distance throwing style of attacking football becomes more widespread they quickly adapt the rules to stop it!
«1

Comments

  • Would you have the same stance if we had a long throw specialist?
  • To clear up one issue you mentioned, yes the away team are allowed to use the towl.
  • Absolutely.
  • I don't see the problem. They're using a player's attributes to their advantage. We used to do it with Greg Halford. It's within the laws of the game, I see no issue.
  • [cite]Posted By: AidenTheAddick[/cite]I don't see the problem. They're using a player's attributes to their advantage. We used to do it with Greg Halford. It's within the laws of the game, I see no issue.

    My thoughts exactly. They've got a weapon, they use it to good effect. Maybe Ashley Cole should take a leaf out of their book ;)
  • it would be nice to have someone who could kick or pass a ball let alone throw it
  • [cite]Posted By: redredrobin[/cite]
    [cite]Posted By: AidenTheAddick[/cite]I don't see the problem. They're using a player's attributes to their advantage. We used to do it with Greg Halford. It's within the laws of the game, I see no issue.

    My thoughts exactly. They've got a weapon, they use it to good effect. Maybe Ashley Cole should take a leaf out of their book ;)

    Ashley Cole is one the best full backs in the world and plays the game using his feet. I don't think he has anything to learn from the donkeys who play for this Stoke side.
  • [cite]Posted By: Red_in_SE8[/cite]
    [cite]Posted By: redredrobin[/cite]
    [cite]Posted By: AidenTheAddick[/cite]I don't see the problem. They're using a player's attributes to their advantage. We used to do it with Greg Halford. It's within the laws of the game, I see no issue.

    My thoughts exactly. They've got a weapon, they use it to good effect. Maybe Ashley Cole should take a leaf out of their book ;)

    Ashley Cole is one the best full backs in the world and plays the game using his feet. I don't think he has anything to learn from the donkeys who play for this Stoke side.

    Not exactly what I was referring to :)
  • [cite]Posted By: redredrobin[/cite]My thoughts exactly. They've got a weapon, they use it to good effect. Maybe Ashley Cole should take a leaf out of their book ;)

    Your joke wasn't completely wasted, I found it amusing!
  • Shit! I am so pissed off with Stoke at the moment that that reference went right over the top of my head (like a Stoke throw in!). I need to lie down!
  • Sponsored links:


  • Whether it's within the rules or not, it's still effing boring.
  • [cite]Posted By: Eddie Firmani[/cite]Whether it's within the rules or not, it's still effing boring.

    Well throw-ins have never been known for their excitement. I'd argue that a throw into the six-yard box actually makes it more exciting, as teams have to come up with a way to defend it, and it adds another dimension to the game.
  • [cite]Posted By: AidenTheAddick[/cite]
    [cite]Posted By: Eddie Firmani[/cite]Whether it's within the rules or not, it's still effing boring.

    Well throw-ins have never been known for their excitement. I'd argue that a throw into the six-yard box actually makes it more exciting, as teams have to come up with a way to defend it, and it adds another dimension to the game.

    Whatever floats your boat, as they say. We all get our excitement in different ways. In terms of "football", I'd argue it's effing boring.
  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsGb7wbMG4E

    Sign him up... 163 feet and 3.8 inches
  • [cite]Posted By: Eddie Firmani[/cite]Whatever floats your boat, as they say. We all get our excitement in different ways. In terms of "football", I'd argue it's effing boring.

    Well I definitely wouldn't say that throw-ins are the most exciting part of the game, or anything near it. But I do think it spices it up a little, as it leads to some terrible defending sometimes, and can be entertaining to watch.
  • [cite]Posted By: AidenTheAddick[/cite]I don't see the problem. They're using a player's attributes to their advantage. We used to do it with Greg Halford. It's within the laws of the game, I see no issue.

    I'm sure it was calculated that he takes 40 seconds to prepare and throw and at one game last year they had 23 throw ins - that's about 15 minutes of nothingness and wasted time

    If that's within the laws then something is wrong there
  • Okay, that IS ridiculous. There should be a limit on the time they can spend preparing for the throw, or add that time on at the end. But the actual throw itself there is no problem with in my opinion.
  • Ashley Cole is one the best full backs in the world and plays the game using his feet. I don't think he has anything to learn from the donkeys who play for this Stoke side.

    I don't think he's the best left back in Fulham, but each to their own.

    Anyway, I don't see a problem with it, but if it's more attractive football we are after, hopw about we shake up the rules a bit?

    Maybe we should have a ban on all things long, so lets have the pitch divided into sectors that the ball must be played into, like ice hockey, to stop teams lumping it 60 yards.

    Whilst we're at it, lets introduce a law that the ball must not go above shoulder height, and players can only go in certain sectors according to what position they are playing in, just like netball!

    Furthermore, players are no longer permitted to:
    Pass backwards
    Shoot within the penalty area, apart from when taking a penalty.
    Make contact with an opposition player.

    Committing an offence is punishable by sin bins of 5 or 10 minutes, or exclusion from the rest of the game.

    Throw in's must not go further than 10 yards, and can be either a bounce, underarm, chest or shoulder pass.

    Lastly, rolling subs will be allowed (but not literally rolling, unless Benni McCarthy actually joins us)

    Thoughts? ;)
  • [cite]Posted By: sam3110[/cite]
    Ashley Cole is one the best full backs in the world and plays the game using his feet. I don't think he has anything to learn from the donkeys who play for this Stoke side.

    I don't think he's the best left back in Fulham, but each to their own.

    Anyway, I don't see a problem with it, but if it's more attractive football we are after, hopw about we shake up the rules a bit?

    Maybe we should have a ban on all things long, so lets have the pitch divided into sectors that the ball must be played into, like ice hockey, to stop teams lumping it 60 yards.

    Whilst we're at it, lets introduce a law that the ball must not go above shoulder height, and players can only go in certain sectors according to what position they are playing in, just like netball!

    Furthermore, players are no longer permitted to:
    Pass backwards
    Shoot within the penalty area, apart from when taking a penalty.
    Make contact with an opposition player.

    Committing an offence is punishable by sin bins of 5 or 10 minutes, or exclusion from the rest of the game.

    Throw in's must not go further than 10 yards, and can be either a bounce, underarm, chest or shoulder pass.

    Lastly, rolling subs will be allowed (but not literally rolling, unless Benni McCarthy actually joins us)

    Thoughts? ;)

    I remember old duffers making similar comments to these when new laws were introduced to stop teams passing the ball back to their goalkeepers years ago. In fact, anytime the laws were tweaked to improve the game as a spectacle the old duffers would be up in arms. I personally cannot think of a single rule change over the last 30 years that has not significantly enhanced the sport.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Never mind the long throws. I counted five foul throws in the carling cup final - not one of which was given. That pisses me off.
  • Wolves moved their ad boards closer to the pitch when Stoke played there before. Think how he'll be at the Olympic Stadium when West Ham move in.
  • The opta stats revealed earlier in the season that Delap usually takes more throw-ins than completes passes. Almost unbelievable given he often plays central midfield.
  • It's very simple. If its the opposition using the throw its boring as hell. If its your team its damned exciting, and every throw gets you on the edge of your seat.
  • [cite]Posted By: Granpa[/cite]It's very simple. If its the opposition using the throw its boring as hell. If its your team its damned exciting, and every throw gets you on the edge of your seat.

    Yeah I agree with you there Granpa.

    It brings a different dimension to the game and really tests a teams defending and goalkeeper.
  • [cite]Posted By: Zinedine Bagheri[/cite]
    [cite]Posted By: Granpa[/cite]It's very simple. If its the opposition using the throw its boring as hell. If its your team its damned exciting, and every throw gets you on the edge of your seat.

    Yeah I agree with you there Granpa.

    It brings a different dimension to the game and really tests a teams defending and goalkeeper.

    But it wastes too much time!
  • I remember old duffers making similar comments to these when new laws were introduced to stop teams passing the ball back to their goalkeepers years ago. In fact, anytime the laws were tweaked to improve the game as a spectacle the old duffers would be up in arms. I personally cannot think of a single rule change over the last 30 years that has not significantly enhanced the sport. /qoute

    what about the rule change where if you take off your shirt you get punished more than wayne rooney would if he elbowed you in the back of the head....
  • What about the rule change that if you get injured you have to go off the pitch and put your side at a disadvantage until such time as the ref remembers to let you back on? Really improved the game that one!
  • Or the rule whereby you're obstructing the goal keeper, despite him having control of the ball and you being 2 yards away if you dare jump when he's trying to kick it. He has the ball, he can simply throw it over me, how the f$#k am I obstructing him!
  • [quote][cite]Posted By: Addicted[/cite]
    what about the rule change where if you take off your shirt you get punished more than wayne rooney would if he elbowed you in the back of the head....[/quote]

    This rule was put in place so the sponsors logo was seen on the scoring player!! Removing the shirt by the goal scorer infringes the contract with the sponsor. This has nothing to do with football but everything to do with marketing and that is what rules football and other sports nowadays.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!