But he doesn't intend to, does he!

There's a definite difference between getting your body in between opposition player and ball with the intention of kicking it, and with the intention solely of impeding his path to the ball in order to gain posession from it.

Posted By: Squiggles on October 11th 2005 at 15:50:13

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.