Change in disciplinary punishments

[Romanis]

Didn’t understand a word you just spoke about, could you repeat all that for better clarification.

No surprises there. You again proved my point for me. Thanks once again.

[DerbyDaDream]

No surprises there. You again proved my point for me. Thanks once again.

Guess you don’t understand sarcasm.... looks like you stabbed yourself in the back as usual.

[MadAmster]

Referees. Why do we do it? For me it's giving something back to the game I played competitively (11 a side) from age 7 to 53 and to 59 indoors (what is called Futsal these days). Without refs I would not have been able to have all thosevery enjoyable seasons. Damaged my left knee ligaments in my last Futsal game or I might have still been playing today, 3 weeks shy of 64.

There are a couple of things said on here that I would like to address.

1. The age of refs. Used to be that they had to retire at 45. Then it was 47 and then 48. In about 2013 the upper age limit was scrapped as that is against EU Law. It was ratified by FIFA and there is no longer a worldwide age limit on refs. However, referring to them as pensioners is way off the mark. Once they reach they old retirement they have to take very stringent, annual physical and medical tests including eye tests. They fail to meet the mark they are out. Very few of them pass the tests. In 2013 there were only 3 aged 50 or over in the English professinal game. Last season saw 2 aged 50 or over and 2 aged 49. Even at 3 weeks shy of 64 I can still keep up with teams aged 20 something for the full 90 minutes. I disagree with the original poster of the "pensioners" remark.

2. Drastic. Means "likely to have a strong or far-reaching effect; radical and extreme." I would hope that referees don't make a string of drastic decisions in a game. I would hope that they read the game and penalise everything that is against the Laws of the game. That they are fair and even-handed and consistent in what they do. It is certainly what I try to do.

3. The Jerome subject was brought up, yet again. First, the incident where he was wrestled to the ground should have been a penalty. Then, a few minutes later, He was tackled and was going down, he then embellished it during his fall. Probably due to thinking "I have to make this look good or I won't get this one either". The embellishment was the reason he didn't get it and why he got a yellow card. The referee should have awarded the penalty AND given Jerome yellow.

[Romanis]

Guess you don’t understand sarcasm.... looks like you stabbed yourself in the back as usual.

You wish. You're the one making a fool of yourself with illogical points, using wrong words and can't get basic spelling right that completely alters the gist of what you're trying to see.

Sarcasm by you? Nope. Just plain stupidity.

Case in point: stab in the back. You obviously don't undestand what it means because its use here is illogical as usual.

[Romanis]

* say not see.

[DerbyDaDream]

You wish. You're the one making a fool of yourself with illogical points, using wrong words and can't get basic spelling right that completely alters the gist of what you're trying to see.

Sarcasm by you? Nope. Just plain stupidity.

Case in point: stab in the back. You obviously don't undestand what it means because its use here is illogical as usual.

No! Romanis the only fool around here is the one who is constantly looking for a bash on a certain individual 24/7, so why don’t you shut up for once and just write about football instead ok!.

[ramAnag]

No! Romanis the only fool around here is the one who is constantly looking for a bash on a certain individual 24/7, so why don’t you shut up for once and just write about football instead ok!.

I bloody wish you would.
Three or four months now since this site was ruined and now it’s happening again. I’ll give you one wild guess as to who’s reappearance is the common denominator and it’s neither Romanis nor Roger.

[DerbyDaDream]

I bloody wish you would.
Three or four months now since this site was ruined and now it’s happening again. I’ll give you one wild guess as to who’s reappearance is the common denominator and it’s neither Romanis nor Roger.

Prove my point..... same old crap.

[ramAnag]

Prove my point..... same old crap.

Indisputably true though...isn’t it?

Anyway back to the topic in hand. Have to disagree Rom...about the sin binning. Yes, it can make a huge difference in Rugby, depending on the position that gets sin binned, but it would make a difference in football too. Understand what you’re saying about teams just reverting to ‘parking the bus’ but couldn’t you say the same about all sendings off?
Invariably when a team has to play with ten men (even fewer in Sheff. Wed’s case) it is viewed as advantageous to the opposition. That’s what happened today...until the sending off Brentford actually looked the better side. For me the point about sinbinning is that at least the team who are sinned against get the benefit.
As regards Roger’s goalkeeping point...personally I don’t see the need for any exceptions.

[DerbyDaDream]

[QUOTE=ramAnag;38787130]Indisputably true though...isn’t it?

Soon as I return the usual culprits come out and try and force a fight exactly why my point is valid and you are exactly right, it’s happening again.