It's time the A-League supported its referees

Spot on onlooker... I find it amazing that a majority (frightening isn't it) of commentators, journalists, players, coaches/managers and fans do not know the laws of the game. How can you play a game and not know the rules by which it is played? Anyone who plays chess knows the moves the king can make under the rules of the game. Yet everyone thinks just because the ball hits a hand/arm it must be hand-ball. Truly amazing... Quite simple, to make the referees job easier ALL stakeholders MUST understand the laws of the game.

Real - As promised here are the charting results done on the WSW v Roar game re, the use of the "slide tackle". It may or may not surprise you but there were only 10 such tackles in the whole 90 minutes. Out of those 10 attempts there was one that I would rate "copybook" out of the coaching manual It happened in the 59th minute when Elrich dispossessed Broich fairly & squarely. The other 9 were all what I will term "lunges", & 8 out of the 9 were punished by the referee agreeing & awarding fouls. Hersi's 2 cards were given for two such "lunges" & he will miss the grand final for his use of these two badly executed "skills".So with one good sliding tackle in 90 minutes would it be such an awful step to ban it altogether.? A debatable point is it not????? The rabbit jb

Dave- Now we are getting somewhere for there is little doubt such a rule change would lead to a new plethora of tactical ploys by the "chessmasters "in the game but that in itself would not be a bad thing.The "holding" of the back third as you put it was an essential part of "catenaccio" and there is no doubt the rule change would make that a much more difficult tactic to use,but as one who has seen it played that factor would not bother me in the slightest, Played well it was a study for the tactical students of the game but a pain in the butt to the fans spending their hard earned money. Let us look at your lone striker for a moment. He positions himself just out of the arc. How many players would it take to mark & give cover, would it be 2 or 3.???? The reason I say 2 or 3 could the goalkeeper be given a "new "role, that of "covering" the marking defender in such a tight space or would we still need the 1st-2nd-3rd- defender ploy to nullify that one man? The answer to that I will leave to your opinion. Thanks for the discussion it has been interesting to read & debate our views. jb

Real -Thanks for that info,I will look forward to charting the number of perfectly executed slide takles I will see in tonight's game.Do the same, I think you may get a surprise.You do know how to 'chart" I take it?.If not ,it's quite simple,,mark down every perfectly executed tackle "as shown in the video" & also mark down every illegal 'lunge" at a player in a desperate attempt to get the ball or worse, stop him in his tracks. Now to my original statement, I will change it, "it is not impossible to execute a sliding tackle provided that tackle is executed in the manner demontrated in coaching manuals". Does that absolve me of any mis-information?.As for my statement on "banning" the tackle what I did mean was that the only way to aid officials in making a decision on this contentious issue.was to ban the tackle. I was NOT advocating banning the tackle as per se. only in the context of helping officials in a contentious issue. I note you did not pass comment on the usefulness of the tackle if the ball was missed & the player was left on the ground ,stranded, while his opponent took off with the ball.Thoughts???? I will post my charting results tomorrow,Remember,the perfectly executed slide tackle with no stud showing should leave the opponent on his feet, progressing, WITHOUT the ball. The rabbit jb

J binnie - Thanks, good reply. 1. Yes I can agree that it would, probably, cut down on offside decisions. 2. Ok I will allow that the rule *might* lead to more time and space for creative players in the middle of the pitch. But I argue that it is this very problem which would lead to teams sprinting back in defence to the off side line at the edge of their own box to solve this problem. (i.e. they would just give up the middle of the pitch and retreat). How are those creative players dealt with by a defence? As you say the space is squeezed as much as possible and their time on the ball cut down. The only way to continue to use that tactic would be to defend deep on the edge of the box and use your proposed offside line to squeeze the play. And as we've seen even under the current law that can be a very effective tactic. I think you would see teams sitting on the edge of the box just sending 2 to 4 very quick attackers on a counter attack each time they got the ball, probably with one striker stationed permanently up on the offside line to ensure the opposing defenders couldn't 'leave home'.

"Back to real life"? What on earth are your rabbiting on about, jb? There are times when you do run on, and this is one of them. To quote your own post: "To me that is a physical impossibility ie to slide tackle and NOT have your studs showing..." Jb, I think tis not I that has the issue with "real life", nor Towser.

Dave- ok lets stick to your first paragraph.As the original debate was about officials & the problems they encounter under the present rules let me say my suggestion would immediately cut down on the number of times they would have to give offside decisions,many of which are often debatable. Surely you agree with that fact? As you correctly say it would stretch the middle third into a larger ("maximum play area") if you can understand what I mean by that description (actually by about 4 metres at each end.).Tactically a striker could aid & abet in that "stretching" by staying higher up the field but does that not give a better chance for goals to be scored,that being the actual aim of the game. You ask how often I see a defensive line in front of the half way line & then tell me.- never ,------unless!!!!!'. Again you are right, but I don't want to see a "defensive line" over the half way line, so what????? You then give me your reason for saying never & that is exactly what I have been saying,such a new rule woud stretch a team's shape (as you rightly call it) thus leaving more time & space for the truly creative player to operate & not get caught time after time by some lesser standard of a player who .is "programmed" to get to him & dis-possess him thus stifling the creative play. ( an absolute necessity in successful "catenaccio") You don't see that as an improvement??? To finish let me say you are not the only one too young to have seen 'catenaccio" as played by the Italian masters, your Jose Mourinho was only 4 when it "died a death" so I suppose he has an excuse for coining the phrase "parking the bus".At the level he played it is doubtful he ever came across the tactic played well. Another tit-bit about OUR game that may interest you,in the last 3 seasons the HAL has experienced an average goals per game of --- 2.7. I think I'd like to see that improved would'nt you?. Goodnight & God bless . jb

J binnie, I think you're probably correct in that we wont agree, but it seems to me that is because you refuse to answer the actual question. That question being if there is a set offside line on the edge of the goal box as you suggest how would a team's defenders ever move far beyond that line without exposing themselves to strikers just standing behind them? For an example strictly sticking to Football (please forget for a moment I ever mentioned the basketball example) just think of the half way line. That is the line (for the purposes of the offside law) that you are suggesting be moved to the edge of the goal box. How often, currently, do you see a team's defensive line significantly forward of the half way line? I'll tell you my answer: Never, unless they need a goal in a knockout game in injury time when even the goal keeper is up for a corner or similar. And why is that? Because they would expose themselves to a striker standing on the halfway line and simply being passed a long ball with no one to stop him and no offside to worry about! To answer your other points: "What the hell has the term “parking the bus” got to do with a strategic plan that had been developed over some 30 years & reached its apex ,not with Chelsea, AC or Inter Milan in recent times. but with Inter ,under Herrera back in 1966." My answer: I don't know. I don't care. I never said it had anything to do with that. You did. As far as I was aware Jose Mourinho coined the term after Tottenham went to stamford bridge and played an extremely defensive game to come away with a nil all draw. (I have fond memories from that game of Atouba limping off across about two thirds of the pitch to soak up about 4 full minutes haha). Parking the bus as you well know refers to playing a very defensive game. If you want to say its the same as Catennacio then fine, I'll take your word for it. As you correctly assumed in your earlier post I am too young to remember Catennacio. And I certainly don't control the development of the English Language and its jargon. Basketball: You completely missed the point I was making, trying to take the comment entirely out of its context. I get the impression its deliberate, as you seem to have a habit of splitting hairs and going off on tangents to distract from the real debate, but if you really can't comprehend the point I was making I'm happy to drop it. Coachspeak: By high press I meant playing with a high defensive line. By defensive block I meant the organisation of a team in defense (call it 'two banks of four', 'defensive lines', whatever) but then I find it difficult to believe someone as 'football educated' as yourself cant work out what I mean from the context. It just seems like more splitting hairs and distraction from the main argument. Teams setting themselves up on the edge of the penalty box: Do you deny that teams organise themselves defensively, trying to keep in 'shape'? Do you deny that teams go out with a plan to defend higher or lower on the pitch? i.e. near their own penalty box or further up towards half way? You say that "pressing” should begin immediately,not by everyone chasing the ball back down the field, but a constructive marking of players no matter where the defender (it could be the striker) is on the pitch". Yes of course players generally mark their opposite numbers but there is a difference between containment and hard pressure to try and get the ball at risk of being dribbled past. Are you honestly saying there is no difference between the way Barca, for instance, defend when the lose the ball, and the way that Chelsea defended against them in the Champions League Semi last year? More distractions. More splitting hairs. Little Jonny standing in one spot till the ball comes to him???? What are you on about mate?????!!!!!!!!!!!! Anyway I hesitate to put these questions in the last couple of paragraphs as I don't really want those answers, and I'm more worried you'll answer these rather than the question in my first paragraph, about the ACTUAL POINT THAT WE ARE DEBATING!

I throw my view out again that the better way to support refs in televised leagues is give them some tools to assist them making crucial decisions. Goal line technogy and video referral for penalty decisions and contentios goals ( whatever that is defined as). And jbinnie I was another proponent of the well executed slide tackle and agree the art of doing it is being replaced by moves that would make kung fu kevin proud with studs facing the player being tackled.....which needs stiffer enforcement.

Towser - You weren't playing the night I saw Leeds beat you 2-0 with Albert Quixall screaming at you for a decent pass,& J Charles nonchalantly nodding in the 2 goals that stole the points.Could you not have slide tackled that annoying Leeds winger who crossed the two balls for big J.???---???. Have a good night,your reminiscing pal. jb

Dave.Thanks for the reply.You & I are are at different ends of the tactical spectrum here I doubt we will ever agree but I too will try & explain. What the hell has the term "parking the bus" got to do with a strategic plan that had been developed over some 30 years & reached its apex ,not with Chelsea, AC or Inter Milan in recent times. but with Inter ,under Herrera back in 1966.A "bus",or "parking" was never mentioned it was called in Italian, "cattencio", so why not just call it that.????? I suspect the people who christened it "P the B" have never even seen it played for after 1967 it nearly disappeared until teams like Barca,Real etc. began to "take the mickey" again with their highly priced and talented teams. Baskeball is at root an American game played on a much smaller "pitch" with a much smaller number of players.The rules too have been developed in America & are aimed at the much vaunted American love of constant excitement & an end result.The result is they make it almost impossible for a team to gain possession from their opponent other than by "pass interception". All these factore take the game a million miles away from soccer (as the Yanks say), with football's much wider & deeper development of tactical innovation. IMO not a good comparison. You have certainly taken to "coachspeak" with the use of words like "high press" & "defensive block" & in my mind I am not sure I know what you mean."High press" to me is a description for what should happen when a team loses possession & is part of the coaching bible based on the premise that you cannot "attack" without the ball, so, as I said before, "pressing" should begin immediately,not by everyone chasing the ball back down the field, but a constructive marking of players no matter where the defender (it could be the striker) is on the pitch.Setting up a "defensive block" on a certain area of the pitch is reminiscent of our infamous junior coach telling little Johnny Smith to stand in the left back position & don't move until the ball comes to you,sometime mis-construed under the term "zonal defence", I have heard that description but never "defensive block",is it "coachspeak"?????. Finally your observation that a team would set itself up on the edge of the penalty box is really a bit "tongue in cheek". It could be done of course but I can re-iterate by asking why doesn't a team boot the ball up the field & then rush to the half way line & set their "defensive block" every time they get possession. The goalkeeper could then "sweep" half the field. Silly suggestion is it not?, would never happen.So let's leave it at that, you have your views,I have mine, & I'm afraid ne'er the twain shall meet. Your mate jb.

Real - I think both you and Towser are looking for an argument. I did not say the slide tackle was wrong,for your video shot would prove that wrong for the player is obviously coming in with his foot sweeping towards the ball & if he misses he will only trip the player,a foul awarded but no damage done. I agree.Now back to real life. I think there are more lunging tackles,usually made from somewhere behind the player,that constitute a "sole first,studs showing",attempt to take the ball away from the man in possession. That tackle was the point I was making. Again,if it connects with the ball no problem.However I feel you must have noticed the pundits immediately explaining the awarded foul as being caused by "studs showing" That was behind my saying that if this is to remain a problem then "the slide tackle" should be banned.for I would hazard a guess that very few "slide tackles" as we all know can be done properly (see video) are actually executed very often on the field.No????jb

When I've been to Melbourne I've always wondered why there was so many slides in kids playgrounds out of order. Kev watch the video lad you'll save on boots.

Damm it, I have been using the Kevin Muscat guide to slide tackling, no wonder I don't see the end of many games

If commentators, coaches, players etc. knew the Laws of the Game better they wouldn't think there were so many bad decisions. And, yes, Iangou, I agree that refs generally make far fewer mistakes than players. Does a player get pilloried for being caught offside umpteen times in one match? No, but a ref can cop heaps for getting one very close call wrong. Double standards are rife.

The idea of making referee's full time professionals is laughable. What are they meant to do all week, study the rules and do laps to make them fitter. Its a tough job so people need to get off their back. But to suggest making them full time is just laughable. hahahahahahahahaha. Absolutely laughable.

Realfootball To emphasise your point(not necessarily studs up) I was taught the first & "legal method" of slide tackling in the following video,using the instep. http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=fvwp&v=7oKyI1mDRsc

Jb, I'm with Towser on this one. A slide tackle is not necessarily studs up towards the player. Certainly the studs will always leave the ground on the leading foot, but they certainly don't have to be - and shouldn't be - directed towards the opposing player, which surely is what constitutes dangerous play.

J binnie - Thanks. That came across as rather condescending but I'll give it a shot anyway old man! ;) Despite what you think of the phrase 'parking the bus' you seem to have understood what I meant. Can you really not understand what I meant with the basketball comparison? In basketball generally when possession is given up through a basket or turnover, the whole team will sprint back to their end of the court to set up in defence (park the bus? ;)) Yes at present in football when your side loses the ball you will try to get goal side. However where you set up your defensive block is quite up to you. You could pressure high up the field (as for instance Barca usually does) or you could immediately drop deep to the edge of your box (as for instance Chelsea did vs Barca in the Champions League last year). Or you can set up somewhere in between. If you take another read you might notice I didn't actually say in my comment that I'm an admirer of the high press. I'm not necessarily for or against it, its just one option amongst others. With your suggested rule change the defensive block could not set up any higher up the field than the edge of the goal box. Your options are gone. Otherwise a striker would just go and stand behind the defence and get lobbed the ball. And if the defence is on the edge of the box there is hardly any room between the defence and keeper for through balls to be aimed at. Even Barca struggles to break down opponents who setup on the very edge of their own box. Would you really like to see less skilled teams just pass back and forth side to side in front of the defense before taking a pot shot from distance all the time? This is not really what I would refer to as 'more goals and goalmouth action' even if it is technically in the final third of the pitch. Even though I have a deep dislike for Chelsea (Spurs fan haha) I can admire their supreme defensive effort in the way they won the Champs League last year, and Inter before them. But do I want to see that kind of game all the time? Nope.

There was a nice one out of the basketball at Perth Arena this year, Perth point guard Kevin Lisch got accidentally bodychecked by one of his own players whilst taking a rebound, I think it was Damien Martin, and some poor Wollongong player who just happened to be nearby, back to the contest, picked up the personal foul for it.