exactly.

as long as I've got the ball under control, I'm allowed to use my body to shield it from the guy behind me. As I said, it's half the job of a striker. Would be a completely different game if you didn't allow players to shield the ball.

Posted By: Tricky Hawes on October 11th 2005 at 15:45:01

Message Thread

If you could add one rule to fooball and take one away (NCFC) - Butterworth, Oct 11, 15:34:44
- changed my mind now then add (NCFC) - pants, Oct 11, 15:58:51
  - how would you double check penalty decisions, (NCFC) - Ian Henderson, Oct 11, 16:01:08
    - Also, the simplicity of football means that the rules that apply to Premiership matches... (NCFC) - Arganth, Oct 11, 16:06:17
      - not all rules, (NCFC) - Ian Henderson, Oct 11, 16:07:34
    - How about punishing diving by (NCFC) - Butterworth, Oct 11, 16:03:23
      - lmao (n/m) (NCFC) - pants, Oct 11, 16:05:47
      - good call, (NCFC) - Ian Henderson, Oct 11, 16:05:17
- Add... (NCFC) - Fierce Panda, Oct 11, 15:58:15
  - The FA would lose half their ref's! (n/m) (NCFC) - DDiM, Oct 11, 15:59:21
- Add. (NCFC) - Arizona Bay, Oct 11, 15:45:06
  - can't see the ref wanting to send his assistants (NCFC) - Butterworth, Oct 11, 15:46:28
- Allow the back pass to the goalie to try and cut hoofing (NCFC) - oh arr, Oct 11, 15:43:47
  - But that's an easy get out of jail card for any defender under pressure then. (n/m) (NCFC) - Squiggles, Oct 11, 15:58:13
- Add (NCFC) - pants, Oct 11, 15:41:28
  - Would all free kicks be allowed a wall then? (n/m) (NCFC) - The Judge, Oct 11, 15:43:39
    - yeah (n/m) (NCFC) - pants, Oct 11, 15:44:38
      - that's the worst rule I've ever seen (n/m) (NCFC) - Brandonio, Oct 11, 15:47:08
        
        would remove a lot of controversy out of the game (NCFC) - pants, Oct 11, 15:49:59
        
        how about when players save the ball on the goal-line though? (n/m) (NCFC) - Brandonio, Oct 11, 15:50:57
        
        haha, alright then, that would mean you;d get a pen then (NCFC) - pants, Oct 11, 15:53:05
        
        yep, and also (NCFC) - Ian Henderson, Oct 11, 15:52:19
        
        yep was just about to add that...fouls galore...probably causing riots... (NCFC) - Brandonio, Oct 11, 15:53:13
        
        alright then it was shit (NCFC) - pants, Oct 11, 15:56:12
- Remove (NCFC) - DDiM, Oct 11, 15:41:01
- a free kick to be given (NCFC) - Ian Henderson, Oct 11, 15:36:56
  - I agree (NCFC) - Mitch mitchelson, Oct 11, 16:23:32
  - I must admit Hendo I would clatter anyone trying to shield the ball out of play (NCFC) - I love beating scum, Oct 11, 15:40:45
  - those would be bollocks changes. (NCFC) - Tricky Hawes, Oct 11, 15:40:06
    - But it's obstruction anywhere else on the field. So why not near a touchline / goalline ? (n/m) (NCFC) - Arganth, Oct 11, 15:41:37
      - oops. meant to add - (NCFC) - Tricky Hawes, Oct 11, 15:43:33
      - It's not obstruction (NCFC) - DDiM, Oct 11, 15:43:16
        
        But neither of them are in control of the ball... (NCFC) - Squiggles, Oct 11, 15:45:44
        
        The defender IS in control of the ball though (NCFC) - DDiM, Oct 11, 15:47:18
        
        But he doesn't intend to, does he! (NCFC) - Squiggles, Oct 11, 15:50:13
        
        lol! (NCFC) - DDiM, Oct 11, 15:53:22
        
        because the ball's at his feet. he could kick it if he wanted to. (NCFC) - Tricky Hawes, Oct 11, 15:47:01
        
        exactly. (NCFC) - Tricky Hawes, Oct 11, 15:45:01
        
        Read what he said... (NCFC) - Squiggles, Oct 11, 15:47:14
        
        You don't have to have touched the ball for it to be in your "control" though (NCFC) - DDiM, Oct 11, 15:50:48
        
        That's crap though. (NCFC) - Squiggles, Oct 11, 15:53:30
        
        That's football though (NCFC) - DDiM, Oct 11, 15:58:04
        
        I've already agreed with you on that issue. (NCFC) - Squiggles, Oct 11, 16:08:20
      - no it isn't. (n/m) (NCFC) - Tricky Hawes, Oct 11, 15:42:36
        
        there's a difference between shielding hte ball (NCFC) - Ian Henderson, Oct 11, 15:43:34
        
        Yes it is. (n/m) (NCFC) - Squiggles, Oct 11, 15:43:02
        
        He's behind you. (n/m) (NCFC) - Arizona Bay, Oct 11, 15:46:24
        
        no, it isn't. see above for explanation (NCFC) - Tricky Hawes, Oct 11, 15:46:03
        
        Well you didn't read his post properly did you. (n/m) (NCFC) - Squiggles, Oct 11, 15:48:00
        
        the rule needs changing (NCFC) - Ian Henderson, Oct 11, 15:46:49
        
        no, you can't change it. (NCFC) - Tricky Hawes, Oct 11, 15:49:51
        
        I think discretion would have to be used (NCFC) - Ian Henderson, Oct 11, 15:53:46
        
        Precisely. (n/m) (NCFC) - Squiggles, Oct 11, 15:55:37
  - Make it legal (NCFC) - Steve in Holland, Oct 11, 15:40:05
  - All goals against Norwich to be given offside, Penalty to Hucks every time he gets ball (n/m) (NCFC) - I love beating scum, Oct 11, 15:39:20
    - and double penalties to Hucks if we are playing the Binners ! LOL ! (n/m) (NCFC) - oh arr, Oct 11, 15:44:49
      - Oh arr, I kind of agree but we don't need double pens against the scum cause we win anyway (n/m) (NCFC) - I love beating scum, Oct 11, 15:47:06
        
        but the Binners deserve a thorough thrashing ! (n/m) (NCFC) - oh arr, Oct 11, 16:24:30

Reply to Message

In order to add a post to the WotB Message Board you must be a registered WotB user.

If you are not yet registered then please visit the registration page. You should ensure that their browser is setup to accept cookies.