Sunday league kids football is brutal. I have been a ref, linesman and coach and I thank the lord I have four daughters who are not interested in football at all other than every weekend 'did Tottenham lose again daddy?'.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The 2023-2024 Football Thread
- Thread starter Scepticalscribe
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Quite candidly, I don't think that it is just a question of "four daughters", - as, after all, nowadays, (and this is something that I am delighted to see happen) increasing numbers of girls are developing an interest in soccer, - but, rather bringing up your own kids properly (irrespective of gender), teaching them the value of respect, and courtesy, and tolerance, accepting that defeat sometimes happens, and therefore, teaching them how to learn to lose with grace, and - as a part of that - modelling appropriate behaviour for them when watching them - or, indeed, anyone - play a game, or perform in a concert or a play, or a recital, or put on a display at an exhibition.
I concur really my point was amongst all of those good things they would see the brutal side of how parents act on Sunday's towards the officials, coaches and (young) players.
It can be horrific. It's not the sport, not the kids, its the parents. They do not see all the values you describe they are bat **** crazy acting like they were hooligans on the terraces in their 20's.
They undo and unravel everything that you see as good which I agree with whole heartedly.
It can be horrific. It's not the sport, not the kids, its the parents. They do not see all the values you describe they are bat **** crazy acting like they were hooligans on the terraces in their 20's.
They undo and unravel everything that you see as good which I agree with whole heartedly.
Oh, I agree completely.
And again, agreed.
Couldn't agree more.
And these are parents who - in some cases - have had every possible advantage - yet are allowing themselves to behave in this disgusting and disgraceful manner.
What an appalling example in every possible way.
Of course it has always been the same in every area of life. My wife told me about the dancing competition at the school my girls go to. The competition amongst the parents was insane. We just said to the girls go out and have fun, enjoy it. My wife was actually shocked and scared at the aggressive way some of the parents approached the competition.
So how were you all at football in your younger years? I lacked any kind of talent, played right back and my only advantage was that I was fast and could tackle. Unfortunately give me the ball to play out and I didn't have a clue!
Even playing in the same cub scouts team as the legendary Teddy Sheringham didn't improve my skills. Mostly because he knew I was rubbish, took the ball off me and went up the pitch to score.
Even playing in the same cub scouts team as the legendary Teddy Sheringham didn't improve my skills. Mostly because he knew I was rubbish, took the ball off me and went up the pitch to score.
I was never very skilful or fast. I was strong in a tackle.
As my dad taught me (he was quite a good footballer then manager in Sunday league football), sometimes the ball gets passed you. Sometimes the man gets past you. But never the man with the ball!
I agree. There is certainly a cultural unwillingness in football to have referees communicate decisions in real time. I am not sure I'd just blame referees themselves for that either. Every time I bring up the idea of adopting a more rugby union-style of reffing (refs and TMO officials are mic'd, replays are shown on the big screen, only captains can speak to the ref), I get a lot of push back from many football fans. It used to be that the idea was pooh-poo hed because people claimed it would delay games. Well, that's not a valid argument anymore -VAR decisions can take a long time to arrive. If we all knew what was going on I think it would help.
Mic'ing refs would also probably reduce ref abuse...if millions can hear what players say, they might be a little less nasty perhaps?
I'm not willing to let clubs off the hook. There have to be some rules of behavior and some consequences for misbehavior. Let them eat the fines. Make these infractions count towards fair play tiebreakers. It's hard to make it sting, yes, but I can't accept never punishing clubs for public statements that would get a player, manager, or official fined/suspended if they said something similar. That's a double standard.
In the interest of fairness, People in the UK are much more familiar with the game than the US population in general, and yet there are plenty of problems with abusive parents over there. I think that the abusive sports parent problem happens everywhere, in every sport. And yes, it is a big problem!
Oh that was me in a nutshell. Well said although I don't think VAR would have been terribly helpful to you and me in our playing days. I can see red....................
Lol I would last 1 or 2 takes at best before I was off for an early bath!
Don't mic the refs. That's treading far too close to American football for my tastes.
I only played organized soccer for a couple of years. They stuck me at fullback and didn't let me get up the pitch very much. I remember being a good tackler and a capable enough passer to get the ball to our more progressive midfielders.
Eventually they stuck me in goal because I could kick really long, and I was bored out of my skull 99.5% of the time. I remember making a few routine saves, don't recall conceding. OTOH, it was nice to be the goalkeeper because they gave you a nice, warm, long-sleeved jersey to wear, and the pitch we played on was on a hilltop that got absolutely battered by cold winds all year round.
I was a much better baseball and basketball player.
I only played organized soccer for a couple of years. They stuck me at fullback and didn't let me get up the pitch very much. I remember being a good tackler and a capable enough passer to get the ball to our more progressive midfielders.
Eventually they stuck me in goal because I could kick really long, and I was bored out of my skull 99.5% of the time. I remember making a few routine saves, don't recall conceding. OTOH, it was nice to be the goalkeeper because they gave you a nice, warm, long-sleeved jersey to wear, and the pitch we played on was on a hilltop that got absolutely battered by cold winds all year round.
I was a much better baseball and basketball player.
I was terrible, but had fun when I wasn't losing my temper. Definitely a defender of the Roy Keane school. I was fast in a sprint but had poor stamina, and am left-footed, so I spent most of my youth soccer career at left back, with a few stints in goal.
I don't think we need to either. But I fear that VAR is going to force it. The pressure to find out what the refs are talking about is going to be come overwhelming.
Looking at the sports pages over the weekend I get the feeling Everton are going to appeal their points reduction because everything I read on the issue, everyone that was spoken to from ex-managers, ex-owners and ex-players are all saying the same thing, the punishment was too harsh because they are saying a loss over 3 consecutive years whilst a breach of the PL rules, is only a minor breach. But as a football fan I can see why the rule is there because it is to stop club owners from being reckless with the finances and being reckless with the club which ultimately results in the club going into administration or worse, closing down completely. This has happened to a number of clubs over the years and thus there needs to be an effective deterrent against club owners from being financially reckless and with more and more money being pumped into the game, it because ever more so important to hold clubs accountable for their wrong doings.
I do think the level of points reduction is correct because far to many times we have seen clubs try to punch above their weight. They pay too much for players they cannot afford and pay too much in wages they cannot afford all in the hope that what the club is doing will win them trophies, get them promoted higher up the divisions and if in the PL, try to get into the champions league.
As for the link to Man City. I can see where people are coming from because if one minor infraction of the rules causes a 10 point reduction, what will 115 infractions of the rules do? (City are facing 115 charges). If City were to be found guilty of all 115 charges against them, they would have racked up so many points against them that in essence they should be demoted to the lowest football league, league 2, have their premier league and European trophies taken away from them, be faced with a transfer embargo and a ban from European competition for x amount of years. That is what being guilty of 115 charges should do in my opinion but I highly doubt City will be found guilty of all the charges against them and what ever ones they are found guilty of, they will appeal and if the appeal fails they will just go to the court of arbitration, just like they did last time when they were facing expulsion from the champions league but the CAB found them not guilty of the charge(s) they faced.
I do think the level of points reduction is correct because far to many times we have seen clubs try to punch above their weight. They pay too much for players they cannot afford and pay too much in wages they cannot afford all in the hope that what the club is doing will win them trophies, get them promoted higher up the divisions and if in the PL, try to get into the champions league.
As for the link to Man City. I can see where people are coming from because if one minor infraction of the rules causes a 10 point reduction, what will 115 infractions of the rules do? (City are facing 115 charges). If City were to be found guilty of all 115 charges against them, they would have racked up so many points against them that in essence they should be demoted to the lowest football league, league 2, have their premier league and European trophies taken away from them, be faced with a transfer embargo and a ban from European competition for x amount of years. That is what being guilty of 115 charges should do in my opinion but I highly doubt City will be found guilty of all the charges against them and what ever ones they are found guilty of, they will appeal and if the appeal fails they will just go to the court of arbitration, just like they did last time when they were facing expulsion from the champions league but the CAB found them not guilty of the charge(s) they faced.
Truth is with a 10 point reduction I think they will stay up. That’s all they were going to achieve this year anyway.
I’m other years that would have sent them down. But this year there are four poor teams.
I think any less of a punishment is not really a punishment at all. Yes other teams have committed far worse and should be punished accordingly, but that isn’t the issue.
It will be interesting to see if City can beat Luton Town's 30 point deduction they received back in 2008-2009 which caused them to get relegated from the football league and into non league football.
Everton: What other big points deductions have there been?
With Everton's record 10-point Premier League deduction, BBC Sport look at other incidents where clubs in England have been hit by similar punishments.
www.bbc.co.uk
2020 SWFC had a 12 point deduction reduced to only 6... still messed us up for 3 years...It will be interesting to see if City can beat Luton Town's 30 point deduction they received back in 2008-2009 which caused them to get relegated from the football league and into non league football.
Everton: What other big points deductions have there been?
With Everton's record 10-point Premier League deduction, BBC Sport look at other incidents where clubs in England have been hit by similar punishments.www.bbc.co.uk
I knew of the points deduction but was not fully aware of it being halved. I have just read up about it and the decision to halve it seems weird to me because according to the various articles I've read about it, the independent panel that initially handed out the 12 point penalty said they rejected the clubs appeal and they that they did not agree with the club's assertion that a points deduction should not have been imposed on them but yet they decided to halve the points anyway!!! So basically the independent panel still disagreed with the club, rejected their appeal but halve their points anyway. How utterly ridiculous in my opinion. But what is done it done.
It would seem appealing to the independent panel scores results, City did it before and got reinstated to the champions league, SWFC got their points halved and I am sure other clubs have had successes as well. If Everton appeal and get their points deduction reduced it would be good news for City because whatever punishment they would receive they would know they could appeal it to an independent panel and get the punishment reduced.
This is one of many articles I read about SWFC
Sheffield Wednesday's points deduction halved on appeal - TNT Sports
Nov 4 (Reuters) - Sheffield Wednesday's punishment for breaching profit and sustainability rules has been cut to a six-point deduction from a 12-point deduction
Oh it was whack-a-doodle. Still a good firm kick in the soccer balls for us...I knew of the points deduction but was not fully aware of it being halved. I have just read up about it and the decision to halve it seems weird to me because according to the various articles I've read about it, the independent panel that initially handed out the 12 point penalty said they rejected the clubs appeal and they that they did not agree with the club's assertion that a points deduction should not have been imposed on them but yet they decided to halve the points anyway!!! So basically the independent panel still disagreed with the club, rejected their appeal but halve their points anyway. How utterly ridiculous in my opinion. But what is done it done.
It would seem appealing to the independent panel scores results, City did it before and got reinstated to the champions league, SWFC got their points halved and I am sure other clubs have had successes as well. If Everton appeal and get their points deduction reduced it would be good news for City because whatever punishment they would receive they would know they could appeal it to an independent panel and get the punishment reduced.
This is one of many articles I read about SWFC
Sheffield Wednesday's points deduction halved on appeal - TNT Sports
Nov 4 (Reuters) - Sheffield Wednesday's punishment for breaching profit and sustainability rules has been cut to a six-point deduction from a 12-point deductionwww.tntsports.co.uk
If you wanted to see the influence Saudi Arabi is having on football related people, just read this article about Steven Gerrard and his take on who is GOAT (Greatest of All Time), Messi or Ronaldo.
For a long time Gerrard has stated Messi was the GOAT but now Gerrard is a manager of a Saudi league team, when he was recently asked the GOAT question, he said Ronaldo was the GOAT, even though Messi won the World Cup with Argentina last year. Of course Ronaldo plays for a Saudi league team. Saudi influence appears strong here.
For a long time Gerrard has stated Messi was the GOAT but now Gerrard is a manager of a Saudi league team, when he was recently asked the GOAT question, he said Ronaldo was the GOAT, even though Messi won the World Cup with Argentina last year. Of course Ronaldo plays for a Saudi league team. Saudi influence appears strong here.
That has to be the most pointless football headline I've ever read...it just screamed 'boring international break weekend' and the journos were scraping the bottom of the barrel for a 'story.'If you wanted to see the influence Saudi Arabi is having on football related people, just read this article about Steven Gerrard and his take on who is GOAT (Greatest of All Time), Messi or Ronaldo.
For a long time Gerrard has stated Messi was the GOAT but now Gerrard is a manager of a Saudi league team, when he was recently asked the GOAT question, he said Ronaldo was the GOAT, even though Messi won the World Cup with Argentina last year. Of course Ronaldo plays for a Saudi league team. Saudi influence appears strong here.
The 'GOAT' debate, if you take it seriously, is the dumbest debate in world football.
That may be but it shows just how much ex-footballers can be bought at the right price. When Qatar was awarded the world cup and build began on it's stadiums with reports of workers dieing on the job, both Beckham and Neville denounced the country for the human rights abuses that was going on but come the year of the world cup, both of them become 'ambassadors' of the game and neither of them would say a bad world against the country. Look at ex-Liverpool player Henderson, supposedly very supportive of LGBTQ, always being seen and heard supporting LGBTQ but since his move to a country where all things LGBTQ is banned, he has not been involved in anything LGBTQ related.
Arab countries will wave huge amounts of money in their faces but it comes at a huge cost, their self respect.
Agree the GOAT is pointless debate. I don't think it's either Messi or Ronaldo.
Pele, Maradona, Best all have a claim in my opinion.
Not forgetting other positions of course. Bobby Moore was a great player in my totally unbiased opinion!
Pele, Maradona, Best all have a claim in my opinion.
Not forgetting other positions of course. Bobby Moore was a great player in my totally unbiased opinion!
Pele, Maradona, yes, agreed, but not Best, who shone for a few, short, brief (but brilliant) years.
I do not understand why such a nonsensical debate - from individuals who lack credibility or integrity - should even be aired, or given the oxygen of publicity, let alone listened to and treated seriously.If you wanted to see the influence Saudi Arabi is having on football related people, just read this article about Steven Gerrard and his take on who is GOAT (Greatest of All Time), Messi or Ronaldo.
For a long time Gerrard has stated Messi was the GOAT but now Gerrard is a manager of a Saudi league team, when he was recently asked the GOAT question, he said Ronaldo was the GOAT, even though Messi won the World Cup with Argentina last year. Of course Ronaldo plays for a Saudi league team. Saudi influence appears strong here.
The drama surrounding Everton's point deduction is getting even more ridiculous. Now there are MP's in the UK's government discussing it within parliament!!!
The MP's are saying the punishment does not fit the crime and in my opinion that view just epitomizes the long held view that the UK is seen as being a soft touch when it comes to punishment. There must be effective deterrents to prevent clubs from doing the same. There is so much money and wealth in the game now, especially with regards to the Premier league that would a 3 point or even a 6 point deduction for breach of FFP be enough to deter a premier league club from taking huge financial risks?
I have worked in companies long enough to know that where risks are part and parcel of the business, they employ risk management strategies. These strategies are designed to factor in penalties and punishments that the company/business could incur if they were to take risks. Some of the money the company/business makes goes into a risk management account whose purpose is to pay any punishments or fines put upon them. I've seen it written a couple of times in posts within this forum that Apple has such an account whose purpose is to pay out fines levied against it by the courts. These risk management accounts are totally separate from the day to day accounts of the company/business thus not being affected if a huge fine/punishment were to come their way.
I believe many many football clubs do the same thing. They know what the FA and league rules are and if they feel they need to take risks they will factor those risks into the operation of the club. If they do such and such that would incur a points deduction, could they handle the points deduction without it causing the club to be relegated. Could the club handle a fine if they were caught doing such and such. I have no doubt such discussions goes on in the boardroom and if the owner(s)/directors feel they can cope with any fine or points deduction (having some idea of past events of clubs getting fines and point deductions) they will go ahead and take the risk. But with every club owner(s)/directors seeing Everton getting a 10 point deduction for breach of FFP, is that 10 point reduction enough for those planning to take risks to get them to stop and think again but if Everton was to only get say a 3 point deduction, would owner(s)/directors think they can handle that deduction therefore go ahead with the risk.
I hope who ever is involved with the independent panel do not weaken and keep the 10 point deduction.
Everton points deduction taken to Parliament by MP Ian Byrne with early day motion
Everton's 10-point deduction by the Premier League will be taken to Parliament after Liverpool MP Ian Byrne calls the punishment "grossly unfair".
www.bbc.co.uk
The MP's are saying the punishment does not fit the crime and in my opinion that view just epitomizes the long held view that the UK is seen as being a soft touch when it comes to punishment. There must be effective deterrents to prevent clubs from doing the same. There is so much money and wealth in the game now, especially with regards to the Premier league that would a 3 point or even a 6 point deduction for breach of FFP be enough to deter a premier league club from taking huge financial risks?
I have worked in companies long enough to know that where risks are part and parcel of the business, they employ risk management strategies. These strategies are designed to factor in penalties and punishments that the company/business could incur if they were to take risks. Some of the money the company/business makes goes into a risk management account whose purpose is to pay any punishments or fines put upon them. I've seen it written a couple of times in posts within this forum that Apple has such an account whose purpose is to pay out fines levied against it by the courts. These risk management accounts are totally separate from the day to day accounts of the company/business thus not being affected if a huge fine/punishment were to come their way.
I believe many many football clubs do the same thing. They know what the FA and league rules are and if they feel they need to take risks they will factor those risks into the operation of the club. If they do such and such that would incur a points deduction, could they handle the points deduction without it causing the club to be relegated. Could the club handle a fine if they were caught doing such and such. I have no doubt such discussions goes on in the boardroom and if the owner(s)/directors feel they can cope with any fine or points deduction (having some idea of past events of clubs getting fines and point deductions) they will go ahead and take the risk. But with every club owner(s)/directors seeing Everton getting a 10 point deduction for breach of FFP, is that 10 point reduction enough for those planning to take risks to get them to stop and think again but if Everton was to only get say a 3 point deduction, would owner(s)/directors think they can handle that deduction therefore go ahead with the risk.
I hope who ever is involved with the independent panel do not weaken and keep the 10 point deduction.