Consistent Fouling used by

comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by rosso is facking happy(U17054)
posted 18 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 11 minutes ago
Yeah, I think that's a good way to send football in the direction of being a non-contact sport. Fouls happen, if they stop a dangerous attack or are particularly bad, they will be punished with a card. I'd just leave it alone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it isn't.

Cutting out grappling and tugging shirts to drag players down away from the ball doesn't do anything to curb physicality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you get cards for every foul for tugging shirts? There will be no players left on the pitch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh dear, I am really struggling to explain this clearly enough, aren’t I?

There would not be a card for “every foul for tugging shirts”; there would be a card for every foul committed where the referee adjudges that the offender has not made winning the ball his primary objective, and instead is more concerned about stopping the opposition player.

I thought I’d made that quite clear from my comments above.

comment by rosso is facking happy (U17054)
comment by Klopptimus Prime - Die Unerträglichen (U1282)
posted 22 minutes ago
I’m still waiting for you to explain how every foul should be viewed absolutely equally...
====
Why?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You implied that there can be no “worst kind of foul”, and therefore no disequivalence between kinds of foul, as “a foul is a foul”.
=======
No I didn't. Learn to read.

comment by Klopptimus Prime - Die Unerträglichen (U1282)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by rosso is facking happy(U17054)
comment by Klopptimus Prime - Die Unerträglichen (U1282)
posted 22 minutes ago
I’m still waiting for you to explain how every foul should be viewed absolutely equally...
====
Why?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You implied that there can be no “worst kind of foul”, and therefore no disequivalence between kinds of foul, as “a foul is a foul”.
=======
No I didn't. Learn to read.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then please explain exactly what you did mean by:

“If a foul is a foul how can a tactical one be the worst kind of foul when a foul is a foul?”

comment by rosso is facking happy (U17054)
posted 52 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by rosso is facking happy(U17054)
posted 18 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 11 minutes ago
Yeah, I think that's a good way to send football in the direction of being a non-contact sport. Fouls happen, if they stop a dangerous attack or are particularly bad, they will be punished with a card. I'd just leave it alone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it isn't.

Cutting out grappling and tugging shirts to drag players down away from the ball doesn't do anything to curb physicality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you get cards for every foul for tugging shirts? There will be no players left on the pitch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh dear, I am really struggling to explain this clearly enough, aren’t I?

There would not be a card for “every foul for tugging shirts”; there would be a card for every foul committed where the referee adjudges that the offender has not made winning the ball his primary objective, and instead is more concerned about stopping the opposition player.

I thought I’d made that quite clear from my comments above.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Which ultimately exists already, it’s just not applied consistently, for a few reasons.

That’s what I’ve been saying from the start, melts.

My first comment on the thread was:

“The best way to stamp this out is to start enforcing the delivery of cautions for professional fouls.”

Do it every time. Like you said, we’d see a few games with a good number of names in the book. But players would adjust quickly and it’d help protect the spirit in which the game is supposed to be played imo.

Then please explain exactly what you did mean by:
“If a foul is a foul how can a tactical one be the worst kind of foul when a foul is a foul?”
=====
Was a reply to what Morespunk said just before I made that post.

comment by morespurs (U15748)
posted 6 hours, 1 minute ago
comment by Pâî§Lë¥'š _P䆆ê®ÑëÐ_ÐrÊåm§ (U1541)
posted 11 hours, 14 minutes ago
Liverpool conceded the least fouls in the league last season.

Morespurs' interpretation: What a bunch of dirtys

😂


----------------------------------------------------------------------


Did you even read the article?

I'll extract the bit that might be interesting:


======From BBC article, link in article here=======


A quick glance at the total number of fouls suggests City are not constant foulers. They committed 328 fouls last season, with only Liverpool (315) conceding fewer.


But, of course, City and Liverpool dominate possession, meaning they have less time to foul opponents and so should always be near the bottom of the foul list.

So we need to dig deeper. A measurement of every side's fouls-per-minute when out of possession would be ideal, but possession percentages are not measured by time spent on the ball so the result wouldn't be a fair representation.

How about the percentage of fouls committed in the opposition half? Now things fall a bit more into place.

Last season, 58.84% of City's 328 fouls were committed inside the opposition half, the third highest in the Premier League.

Who was highest? Liverpool, with 63.17% of their 315 fouls coming in the opponent's territory.
===========================

Highest is Liverpool

I think you outdid yourself here

What a plonker, Rodney
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The article early states Liverpool committed the fewest fouls last season, which makes us the cleanest team in the league.

Thanks for bringing it up spunky.

Clearly

European Champions, Super Cup Champions, Last Season with VAR Champions and now the Premier league Least Fouls Champions.

Let's heat it for LFC

comment by rosso is facking happy (U17054)
posted 2 hours, 16 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by rosso is facking happy(U17054)
posted 18 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 11 minutes ago
Yeah, I think that's a good way to send football in the direction of being a non-contact sport. Fouls happen, if they stop a dangerous attack or are particularly bad, they will be punished with a card. I'd just leave it alone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it isn't.

Cutting out grappling and tugging shirts to drag players down away from the ball doesn't do anything to curb physicality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you get cards for every foul for tugging shirts? There will be no players left on the pitch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh dear, I am really struggling to explain this clearly enough, aren’t I?

There would not be a card for “every foul for tugging shirts”; there would be a card for every foul committed where the referee adjudges that the offender has not made winning the ball his primary objective, and instead is more concerned about stopping the opposition player.

I thought I’d made that quite clear from my comments above.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you're tugging a player to win the ball?