[cite]Posted By: randy andy[/cite]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!
The purpose of the rule is to discourage players feigning injury in order to waste time or stop play when the opposition are attacking. In the old days the game was subjected to many more delays whilst a player was being treated than happens today. Today a player knows that if he stops the game in order to receive treatment for a fake injury he will put his team at a disadvantage until the ref allows him to come back on after play has resumed. I think often it isn't the case that the ref forgets to wave a player back on but rather he knows when a player has faked an injury in order to break up the play and so he deliberately makes the player wait a bit longer before letting him back on.
So, yes, that rule has definitely improved the game by reducing the number of fake injury interuptions in a match, especially towards the end when one team is hanging onto a result.
[cite]Posted By: randy andy[/cite]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!
Jeez how I wish they'd change that rule - then Mark Lawrenson would have nothing to complain about - every time, every bl00dy time! Give it a rest Mark.
[cite]Posted By: randy andy[/cite]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!
Years ago rules were introduced limiting the amount of time that a goalkeeper could hold on to the ball, or the number of steps he could take, before putiing it back into play. Again this led to a significant enhancement to the pace and flow of the game. The objective of the new rules was to get the ball back in play as quickly as possible. The obstruction rule that is applied when players attempt to delay the goalkeeper getting the ball back in play is all part of the same objective i.e. keep the game flowing.
I watched the game last night and every time stoke had a throw in, I was glued to the box as you know something is going to happen. It may take a bit of time, but no more than free kicks and corners do. His throw ins are pretty awesome and completely with in the laws of the game. Some people need to get a life if they are complaining about long throws...
I hate Stoke and the way they "play" Yes it is effective and it has kept them in the Prem for a few years now but no wonder the rest of the world comments on how we play, or don't play football properly.
[cite]Posted By: spiritof1947[/cite]Red_in_SE8, if whatever the heck you're going on about angries you up so much, don't watch Stoke. I'm happy to say I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about as I have never seen Stoke play as they are not in Charlton's division and I only watch Charlton (be it live or on TV) and no-one else. Maybe you would be better off doing the same. Just a thought.
I stopped watching the game after 30 minutes because of the way Stoke play.
Are you saying you have never seen the current Barcelona team play on TV? Or any of the other top teams? Are you going to take steps to avoid watching the second leg of the Barcelona v Arsenal match? This match does not interest you? Do you see yourself as a Charlton fan but not a football fan? You are entitled to hold that view. Just don't expect to be taken seriously.
This post is under the 'Other football' category, i.e. it has nothing to do with Charlton. So why are you reading it if you are not concerned about any football matters unless they concern Charlton? If the post angers you so much don't read it. Just a thought.
[cite]Posted By: Robert[/cite]I watched the game last night and every time stoke had a throw in, I was glued to the box as you know something is going to happen. It may take a bit of time, but no more than free kicks and corners do. His throw ins are pretty awesome and completely with in the laws of the game. Some people need to get a life if they are complaining about long throws...
You made perfectly valid points in your post except for the last sentence. Perhaps you could provide me with a list of what you have decided people can and cannot complain about on here. Get admin to make it a sticky so nobody starts a debate you think is pointless!
[cite]Posted By: Robert[/cite]I watched the game last night and every time stoke had a throw in, I was glued to the box as you know something is going to happen. It may take a bit of time, but no more than free kicks and corners do. His throw ins are pretty awesome and completely with in the laws of the game. Some people need to get a life if they are complaining about long throws...
You made perfectly valid points in your post except for the last sentence. Perhaps you could provide me with a list of what people can and cannot complain about on here. Get admin to make it a sticky so nobody starts a debate you think is pointless!
My point is, football can be played in a number of ways (whether that be like barcelona, stoke, blackpool, charlton etc etc). Blackpool play attacking, attractive football, but are worse off in the league than stoke (who tend to lump it up there). Just because they use the long ball and they have a player who delivers excellent throw in's int to the heart of the 6 yard box, dosnt make them wrong. They just approach the game differently (bolton did it under big sam to great effect for a number of seasons). Big sam and Tony pulis know that their players cant compete in terms of raw ability to that of a united or arsenal, so they employ a tactic that they are good at.
You ask the queastion:
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?
Football isnt about aesthetics (hence wayne rooney, phil nevile, ian dowie etc etc), it is about scoring goals, and ultimatly winning. Who cares what their style is? It suits them ands thats all that matters. I guess you would be annoyed if a bouncer denied you entry to a club because your attire didnt fit in with the "aesthetics" of the club.
question for you...! if we were in a play off final and had a left back or whoever who could "hurl the ball" in the last minute and we scored to draw the game level?? wud you be against it??
[cite]Posted By: Robert[/cite]I watched the game last night and every time stoke had a throw in, I was glued to the box as you know something is going to happen. It may take a bit of time, but no more than free kicks and corners do. His throw ins are pretty awesome and completely with in the laws of the game. Some people need to get a life if they are complaining about long throws...
You made perfectly valid points in your post except for the last sentence. Perhaps you could provide me with a list of what people can and cannot complain about on here. Get admin to make it a sticky so nobody starts a debate you think is pointless!
My point is, football can be played in a number of ways (whether that be like barcelona, stoke, blackpool, charlton etc etc). Blackpool play attacking, attractive football, but are worse off in the league than stoke (who tend to lump it up there). Just because they use the long ball and they have a player who delivers excellent throw in's int to the heart of the 6 yard box, dosnt make them wrong. They just approach the game differently (bolton did it under big sam to great effect for a number of seasons). Big sam and Tony pulis know that their players cant compete in terms of raw ability to that of a united or arsenal, so they employ a tactic that they are good at.
You ask the queastion:
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?
Football isnt about aesthetics (hence wayne rooney, phil nevile, ian dowie etc etc), it is about scoring goals, and ultimatly winning. Who cares what their style is? It suits them ands thats all that matters. I guess you would be annoyed if a bouncer denied you entry to a club because your attire didnt fit in with the "aesthetics" of the club.
Like I said, get a life...
Somebody has already pointed out that last season Delap was timed as having wasted a total of 15 minutes whilst he dried the ball prior to each throw in the opposition's half and waited whilst the Stoke donkeys lumbered up into the opposition 6 yard box in order to foul and obstruct the goalkeeper. That is bad for football and is boring. It is my opinion.
Like I said, if you have been appointed the arbiter of what is allowed to be debated on here get admin to post your rules in a sticky.
[cite]Posted By: Robert[/cite]I watched the game last night and every time stoke had a throw in, I was glued to the box as you know something is going to happen. It may take a bit of time, but no more than free kicks and corners do. His throw ins are pretty awesome and completely with in the laws of the game. Some people need to get a life if they are complaining about long throws...
You made perfectly valid points in your post except for the last sentence. Perhaps you could provide me with a list of what people can and cannot complain about on here. Get admin to make it a sticky so nobody starts a debate you think is pointless!
My point is, football can be played in a number of ways (whether that be like barcelona, stoke, blackpool, charlton etc etc). Blackpool play attacking, attractive football, but are worse off in the league than stoke (who tend to lump it up there). Just because they use the long ball and they have a player who delivers excellent throw in's int to the heart of the 6 yard box, dosnt make them wrong. They just approach the game differently (bolton did it under big sam to great effect for a number of seasons). Big sam and Tony pulis know that their players cant compete in terms of raw ability to that of a united or arsenal, so they employ a tactic that they are good at.
You ask the queastion:
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?
Football isnt about aesthetics (hence wayne rooney, phil nevile, ian dowie etc etc), it is about scoring goals, and ultimatly winning. Who cares what their style is? It suits them ands thats all that matters. I guess you would be annoyed if a bouncer denied you entry to a club because your attire didnt fit in with the "aesthetics" of the club.
Like I said, get a life...
Somebody has already pointed out that last season Delap was timed as having wasted a total of 15 minutes whilst he dried the ball prior to each throw in the opposition's half and waited whilst the Stoke donkeys lumbered up into the opposition 6 yard box in order to foul and obstruct the goalkeeper. That is bad for football and is boring. It is my opinion.
Like I said, if you have been appointed the arbiter of what is allowed to be debated on here get admin to post your rules in a sticky.
But how much time is wasted from "normal" throw ins and from corners and from free kicks?
How do you know that the referee does not account for this time and stop his watch?
Red_in_SE8 Firstly you have far too much time on your hands if this all you have to worry about. Secondly this conversation you have created is far more boring than any stoke game i've ever withnessed. Thirdly if you are actually that offended by Stoke and the way they play, DONT WATCH THEM!! Fourthly listen to Robert, and take his advice!!!
[cite]Posted By: addickdanny[/cite]question for you...! if we were in a play off final and had a left back or whoever who could "hurl the ball" in the last minute and we scored to draw the game level?? wud you be against it??
No. But I would be annoyed if that player delayed taking the throw whilst he dried the ball and waited for his players to congregate in the 6 yard box and then the ref blew the whistle while the ball was in the air!
You are missing the point. A football match is only 90 minutes long. It cannot be a good thing that 15 minutes of that 90 is taken up whilst one player prepares to take a particular type of throw in. There is nothing wrong with the occasional long throw in but not when it is used persistently and results in 15 minutes taken from the playing time.
[cite]Posted By: addickdanny[/cite]question for you...! if we were in a play off final and had a left back or whoever who could "hurl the ball" in the last minute and we scored to draw the game level?? wud you be against it??
No. But I would be annoyed if that player delayed taking the throw whilst he dried the ball and waited for his players to congregate in the 6 yard box and then the ref blew the whistle while the ball was in the air!
You are missing the point. A football match is only 90 minutes long. It cannot be a good thing that 15 minutes of that 90 is taken up whilst one player prepares to take a particular type of throw in. There is nothing wrong with the occasional throw in but not when it is used persistently and results in 15 minutes taken from the playing time.
You have not answered the questions that I asked previously...
How much time is wasted from "normal" throw ins and from corners and from free kicks?
How do you know that the referee does not account for this time and stop his watch?
[cite]Posted By: kitchenchef[/cite]Red_in_SE8 Firstly you have far too much time on your hands if this all you have to worry about. Secondly this conversation you have created is far more boring than any stoke game i've ever withnessed. Thirdly if you are actually that offended by Stoke and the way they play, DONT WATCH THEM!!
Fourthly listen to Robert, and take his advice!!!
Firstly, if this conversation bores you , don't READ IT!
Secondly, have you paid to read this conversation? No, so move on. Did I pay to watch Stoke last night? Yes. So I feel entitled to voice my opinion about it. If you don't like it TOUGH SHIT!
[cite]Posted By: kitchenchef[/cite]Red_in_SE8 Firstly you have far too much time on your hands if this all you have to worry about. Secondly this conversation you have created is far more boring than any stoke game i've ever withnessed. Thirdly if you are actually that offended by Stoke and the way they play, DONT WATCH THEM!!
Fourthly listen to Robert, and take his advice!!!
Firstly, if this conversation bores you , dont READ IT!
Secondly, have you paid to read this conversation? No, so move on. Did I pay to watch Stoke last night? Yes. So I am feel entitled to voice my opinion about. If you don't like it TOUGH SHIT!
I'm guessing you paid to watch it as you pay for sky tv...by the same logic, he paid to read this (as he would have paid for the internet.....)
Hold on a second, it takes an average of 40 seconds to dry the ball and take the long throw-in? So, when we are seeing games out at 1-0 up in the dying minutes, this could be used as a tactical advantage. All you have to do is dry the ball for 30 seconds and this eats up time. Too many times have I seen the throw-in about to be taken then suddenly awarded to the opposition when a player hasn't taken it within say 10 seconds. Either that, or the player gets booked for time wasting. This must be wrong surely as it creates two rules for one event. I say there must be a rule to prevent a player from 1) cleaning the ball with a towel and 2) being allowed 30-40 seconds in which to do same. That's my opinion by the way.
[cite]Posted By: kitchenchef[/cite]Red_in_SE8 Firstly you have far too much time on your hands if this all you have to worry about. Secondly this conversation you have created is far more boring than any stoke game i've ever withnessed. Thirdly if you are actually that offended by Stoke and the way they play, DONT WATCH THEM!!
Fourthly listen to Robert, and take his advice!!!
Firstly, if this conversation bores you , dont READ IT!
Secondly,have you paid to read this conversation? No, so move on. Did I pay to watch Stoke last night? Yes. So I am feel entitled to voice my opinion about. If you don't like it TOUGH SHIT!
I'm guessing you paid to watch it as you pay for sky tv...by the same logic, he paid to read this (as he would have paid for the internet.....)
I specifically pay for the football sky package. I also pay for the internet. But I don't pay specifically for Charlton Life.
[cite]Posted By: Robert[/cite]
[cite]Posted By: Red_in_SE8[/cite]
[cite]Posted By: addickdanny[/cite]question for you...! if we were in a play off final and had a left back or whoever who could "hurl the ball" in the last minute and we scored to draw the game level?? wud you be against it??
No. But I would be annoyed if that player delayed taking the throw whilst he dried the ball and waited for his players to congregate in the 6 yard box and then the ref blew the whistle while the ball was in the air!
You are missing the point. A football match is only 90 minutes long. It cannot be a good thing that 15 minutes of that 90 is taken up whilst one player prepares to take a particular type of throw in. There is nothing wrong with the occasional throw in but not when it is used persistently and results in 15 minutes taken from the playing time.
You have not answered the questions that I asked previously...
How much time is wasted from "normal" throw ins and from corners and from free kicks?
How do you know that the referee does not account for this time and stop his watch?
Sorry. I missed this. I am trying to get back to my life.
If the Stoke matches finish 15 minutes after all the other matches every Saturday then yes, the ref is adding on the time. But I don't think that is the case.
Yes, time is wasted at freekicks and corners and normal throw ins. And referees are instructed to penalise players who deliberately waste time over these which is why I can't understand why Stoke are never penalised for the time wasting that results from their long throw in tactic.
In the thirties, in France I think, they experimented with using a kick in instead of a throw in. The motive being that football is about playing the ball with your feet not your hands. However, they abandoned the expriment after one season because it was wasting too much time as the player waited, as in a normal freekick, for his players to get in position before taking the kick. So having a free kick for every throw in had a significant impact. Stoke are now taking as much time over their throw ins as they do over free kicks and the problem is there is always more throw ins then free kicks in a match.
[cite]Posted By: Jayajosh[/cite]Hold on a second, it takes an average of 40 seconds to dry the ball and take the long throw-in? So, when we are seeing games out at 1-0 up in the dying minutes, this could be used as a tactical advantage. All you have to do is dry the ball for 30 seconds and this eats up time. Too many times have I seen the throw-in about to be taken then suddenly awarded to the opposition when a player hasn't taken it within say 10 seconds. Either that, or the player gets booked for time wasting. This must be wrong surely as it creates two rules for one event. I say there must be a rule to prevent a player from 1) cleaning the ball with a towel and 2) being allowed 30-40 seconds in which to do same. That's my opinion by the way.
It's the referee's job to add on that time. Or, more accurately, the time difference between a Delap throw and a 'normal' throw.
If referees were to do this, I couldn't see any problem with Stoke continuing with the tactic. It's using their players' attributes to their advantage and creates chances for them.
Throw-ins aren't the only thing that take up time. I think it was Brentford away when we spent at least a quarter of the second half watching their keeper shape up to take frees and goal kicks. Minimum 10-15 minutes spent/wasted in one half by one player there
[cite]Posted By: Jayajosh[/cite]Hold on a second, it takes an average of 40 seconds to dry the ball and take the long throw-in? So, when we are seeing games out at 1-0 up in the dying minutes, this could be used as a tactical advantage. All you have to do is dry the ball for 30 seconds and this eats up time. Too many times have I seen the throw-in about to be taken then suddenly awarded to the opposition when a player hasn't taken it within say 10 seconds. Either that, or the player gets booked for time wasting. This must be wrong surely as it creates two rules for one event. I say there must be a rule to prevent a player from 1) cleaning the ball with a towel and 2) being allowed 30-40 seconds in which to do same. That's my opinion by the way.
It's the referee's job to add on that time. Or, more accurately, the time difference between a Delap throw and a 'normal' throw.
If referees were to do this, I couldn't see any problem with Stoke continuing with the tactic. It's using their players' attributes to their advantage and creates chances for them.
Throw-ins aren't the only thing that take up time. I think it was Brentford away when we spent at least a quarter of the second half watching their keeper shape up to take frees and goal kicks. Minimum 10-15 minutes spent/wasted in one half by one player there
It's not the time added that is of concern to me but the yellow cards handed out and decisions to award the throw in to the opposition if the throw is not taken quicky enough. That rule (taking it quickly) goes out of the window it appears when you have your towel and your long thrower at the ready. One rule for one...
[cite]Posted By: Jayajosh[/cite]Hold on a second, it takes an average of 40 seconds to dry the ball and take the long throw-in? So, when we are seeing games out at 1-0 up in the dying minutes, this could be used as a tactical advantage. All you have to do is dry the ball for 30 seconds and this eats up time. Too many times have I seen the throw-in about to be taken then suddenly awarded to the opposition when a player hasn't taken it within say 10 seconds. Either that, or the player gets booked for time wasting. This must be wrong surely as it creates two rules for one event. I say there must be a rule to prevent a player from 1) cleaning the ball with a towel and 2) being allowed 30-40 seconds in which to do same. That's my opinion by the way.
It's the referee's job to add on that time. Or, more accurately, the time difference between a Delap throw and a 'normal' throw.
If referees were to do this, I couldn't see any problem with Stoke continuing with the tactic. It's using their players' attributes to their advantage and creates chances for them.
Throw-ins aren't the only thing that take up time. I think it was Brentford away when we spent at least a quarter of the second half watching their keeper shape up to take frees and goal kicks. Minimum 10-15 minutes spent/wasted in one half by one player there
It's not the time added that is of concern to me but the yellow cards handed out and decisions to award the throw in to the opposition if the throw is not taken quicky enough. That rule (taking it quickly) goes out of the window it appears when you have your towel and your long thrower at the ready. One rule for one...
But any club can use a towel if they want to (Blackburn do the same when pederson takes the long throws)
[cite]Posted By: Jayajosh[/cite]Hold on a second, it takes an average of 40 seconds to dry the ball and take the long throw-in? So, when we are seeing games out at 1-0 up in the dying minutes, this could be used as a tactical advantage. All you have to do is dry the ball for 30 seconds and this eats up time. Too many times have I seen the throw-in about to be taken then suddenly awarded to the opposition when a player hasn't taken it within say 10 seconds. Either that, or the player gets booked for time wasting. This must be wrong surely as it creates two rules for one event. I say there must be a rule to prevent a player from 1) cleaning the ball with a towel and 2) being allowed 30-40 seconds in which to do same. That's my opinion by the way.
It's the referee's job to add on that time. Or, more accurately, the time difference between a Delap throw and a 'normal' throw.
If referees were to do this, I couldn't see any problem with Stoke continuing with the tactic. It's using their players' attributes to their advantage and creates chances for them.
Throw-ins aren't the only thing that take up time. I think it was Brentford away when we spent at least a quarter of the second half watching their keeper shape up to take frees and goal kicks. Minimum 10-15 minutes spent/wasted in one half by one player there
It's not the time added that is of concern to me but the yellow cards handed out and decisions to award the throw in to the opposition if the throw is not taken quicky enough. That rule (taking it quickly) goes out of the window it appears when you have your towel and your long thrower at the ready. One rule for one...
But any club can use a towel if they want to (Blackburn do the same when pederson takes the long throws)
So it would seem that there's nothing to stop any player from spending 30-40 seconds when taking a throw-in? This could be useful when defending a 1-0 lead with minutes to go. If the referee starts brandishing yellow cards for what is pereceived by most as time wasting then the referee is clearly wrong as this is within the rules. It can't be right and needs to be addressed.
I agree- I have no problem with watching a player throwing a ball a long distance but the build up/prep for the throw does take too long. I agree that this could be addressed through the time wasting rules - warning then card etc... It is unusual for a player to have as long a throw so one of those that is so rare that the game doesn't feel the need to legislate for but Refs should discuss. They can't outlaw the long throw but certainly every throw taking such an age to complete goes against the spirit of the game.
[cite]Posted By: spiritof1947[/cite]
I haven't owned a television since 1997 as I'm not a moron (no offense to TV owners..
[cite]Posted By: spiritof1947[/cite]
I hate television football. Sport doesnt work on TV. Full stop. Except maybe wrestling.
[cite]Posted By: spiritof1947[/cite]
If I didn't follow a football team I wouldnt watch *ANY* TV. Before you ask, yes I download and watch films (mostly pornos) online...
You make some excellent points but your argument is rather undermined by the contradiction in the first two points quoted above.
Also, next time you are waiting while your latest porn film is downloading, and after you have cleaned your keyboard, come on here and learn to quote properly. It would make your posts much easier to read!
Comments
The purpose of the rule is to discourage players feigning injury in order to waste time or stop play when the opposition are attacking. In the old days the game was subjected to many more delays whilst a player was being treated than happens today. Today a player knows that if he stops the game in order to receive treatment for a fake injury he will put his team at a disadvantage until the ref allows him to come back on after play has resumed. I think often it isn't the case that the ref forgets to wave a player back on but rather he knows when a player has faked an injury in order to break up the play and so he deliberately makes the player wait a bit longer before letting him back on.
So, yes, that rule has definitely improved the game by reducing the number of fake injury interuptions in a match, especially towards the end when one team is hanging onto a result.
Jeez how I wish they'd change that rule - then Mark Lawrenson would have nothing to complain about - every time, every bl00dy time! Give it a rest Mark.
Years ago rules were introduced limiting the amount of time that a goalkeeper could hold on to the ball, or the number of steps he could take, before putiing it back into play. Again this led to a significant enhancement to the pace and flow of the game. The objective of the new rules was to get the ball back in play as quickly as possible. The obstruction rule that is applied when players attempt to delay the goalkeeper getting the ball back in play is all part of the same objective i.e. keep the game flowing.
So, yes, that rule has also improved the game.
Yes it is effective and it has kept them in the Prem for a few years now but no wonder the rest of the world comments on how we play, or don't play football properly.
I stopped watching the game after 30 minutes because of the way Stoke play.
Are you saying you have never seen the current Barcelona team play on TV? Or any of the other top teams? Are you going to take steps to avoid watching the second leg of the Barcelona v Arsenal match? This match does not interest you? Do you see yourself as a Charlton fan but not a football fan? You are entitled to hold that view. Just don't expect to be taken seriously.
This post is under the 'Other football' category, i.e. it has nothing to do with Charlton. So why are you reading it if you are not concerned about any football matters unless they concern Charlton? If the post angers you so much don't read it. Just a thought.
You made perfectly valid points in your post except for the last sentence. Perhaps you could provide me with a list of what you have decided people can and cannot complain about on here. Get admin to make it a sticky so nobody starts a debate you think is pointless!
My point is, football can be played in a number of ways (whether that be like barcelona, stoke, blackpool, charlton etc etc). Blackpool play attacking, attractive football, but are worse off in the league than stoke (who tend to lump it up there). Just because they use the long ball and they have a player who delivers excellent throw in's int to the heart of the 6 yard box, dosnt make them wrong. They just approach the game differently (bolton did it under big sam to great effect for a number of seasons). Big sam and Tony pulis know that their players cant compete in terms of raw ability to that of a united or arsenal, so they employ a tactic that they are good at.
You ask the queastion:
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?
Football isnt about aesthetics (hence wayne rooney, phil nevile, ian dowie etc etc), it is about scoring goals, and ultimatly winning. Who cares what their style is? It suits them ands thats all that matters. I guess you would be annoyed if a bouncer denied you entry to a club because your attire didnt fit in with the "aesthetics" of the club.
Like I said, get a life...
Somebody has already pointed out that last season Delap was timed as having wasted a total of 15 minutes whilst he dried the ball prior to each throw in the opposition's half and waited whilst the Stoke donkeys lumbered up into the opposition 6 yard box in order to foul and obstruct the goalkeeper. That is bad for football and is boring. It is my opinion.
Like I said, if you have been appointed the arbiter of what is allowed to be debated on here get admin to post your rules in a sticky.
But how much time is wasted from "normal" throw ins and from corners and from free kicks?
How do you know that the referee does not account for this time and stop his watch?
Fourthly listen to Robert, and take his advice!!!
No. But I would be annoyed if that player delayed taking the throw whilst he dried the ball and waited for his players to congregate in the 6 yard box and then the ref blew the whistle while the ball was in the air!
You are missing the point. A football match is only 90 minutes long. It cannot be a good thing that 15 minutes of that 90 is taken up whilst one player prepares to take a particular type of throw in. There is nothing wrong with the occasional long throw in but not when it is used persistently and results in 15 minutes taken from the playing time.
You have not answered the questions that I asked previously...
How much time is wasted from "normal" throw ins and from corners and from free kicks?
How do you know that the referee does not account for this time and stop his watch?
Firstly, if this conversation bores you , don't READ IT!
Secondly, have you paid to read this conversation? No, so move on. Did I pay to watch Stoke last night? Yes. So I feel entitled to voice my opinion about it. If you don't like it TOUGH SHIT!
Leeks being your favourite veg.
I'm guessing you paid to watch it as you pay for sky tv...by the same logic, he paid to read this (as he would have paid for the internet.....)
I specifically pay for the football sky package. I also pay for the internet. But I don't pay specifically for Charlton Life.
Sorry. I missed this. I am trying to get back to my life.
If the Stoke matches finish 15 minutes after all the other matches every Saturday then yes, the ref is adding on the time. But I don't think that is the case.
Yes, time is wasted at freekicks and corners and normal throw ins. And referees are instructed to penalise players who deliberately waste time over these which is why I can't understand why Stoke are never penalised for the time wasting that results from their long throw in tactic.
In the thirties, in France I think, they experimented with using a kick in instead of a throw in. The motive being that football is about playing the ball with your feet not your hands. However, they abandoned the expriment after one season because it was wasting too much time as the player waited, as in a normal freekick, for his players to get in position before taking the kick. So having a free kick for every throw in had a significant impact. Stoke are now taking as much time over their throw ins as they do over free kicks and the problem is there is always more throw ins then free kicks in a match.
It's the referee's job to add on that time. Or, more accurately, the time difference between a Delap throw and a 'normal' throw.
If referees were to do this, I couldn't see any problem with Stoke continuing with the tactic. It's using their players' attributes to their advantage and creates chances for them.
Throw-ins aren't the only thing that take up time. I think it was Brentford away when we spent at least a quarter of the second half watching their keeper shape up to take frees and goal kicks. Minimum 10-15 minutes spent/wasted in one half by one player there
It's not the time added that is of concern to me but the yellow cards handed out and decisions to award the throw in to the opposition if the throw is not taken quicky enough. That rule (taking it quickly) goes out of the window it appears when you have your towel and your long thrower at the ready. One rule for one...
But any club can use a towel if they want to (Blackburn do the same when pederson takes the long throws)
So it would seem that there's nothing to stop any player from spending 30-40 seconds when taking a throw-in? This could be useful when defending a 1-0 lead with minutes to go. If the referee starts brandishing yellow cards for what is pereceived by most as time wasting then the referee is clearly wrong as this is within the rules. It can't be right and needs to be addressed.
You make some excellent points but your argument is rather undermined by the contradiction in the first two points quoted above.
Also, next time you are waiting while your latest porn film is downloading, and after you have cleaned your keyboard, come on here and learn to quote properly. It would make your posts much easier to read!