|
|
Post by Rajiv on Mar 4, 2016 18:15:25 GMT 8
The Game Rules currently provide as follows: .... - The following are not allowed during a game:
- sliding tackle
- raising of foot above knee level.
- tackle from behind
- tackle where the sole of the shoe makes contact with an opposing player
- body checks
- shoulder charge
- raising of elbow
- outstretched arm
- raising of knee when jumping
- pushing
- holding
- kicking or hacking a player.
- tripping a player.
If significant contact is made with an opposing player by any of the above, it is a foul (even if the ball is won), with a free kick to the opposing side if committed outside the D and a penalty if committed inside the D. The converse is that if there is no significant contact, there is no foul and the game continues. In this context, at its simplest, "significant contact" means contact materially over and above that which is normally incidental to, or to be expected, in our games. Football is a contact sport. Our games are for adults. .... The issue of sliding tackle was raised by Damian on the report thread for the game last night (Thursday) at Khalsa, and by Kong Fei in messages to me on WhatsApp. When the list of actions covered was expanded, the requirement for "significant contact" was added, as a limiting factor. However, looking at it now, the limiting factor cannot be the same for all the different kinds of actions listed. Sliding tackles were first disallowed in our games in December 2008. I found the following discussion about sliding tackles in futsal: A "tackle" in football is an attempt to deprive an opponent who is possession of the ball of possession. If there is no player in possession of the ball, there can be no "tackle", and as such, it is not a "sliding tackle". To make it clearer, I have re-organised that part of our Game Rules as follows: ....
- Sliding tackles are not allowed. A sliding tackle takes place when a player slides in the direction of a player in possession of the ball in order to deprive him of possession of the ball. However, sliding in other contexts, such as sliding to keep the ball in play, or to block a shot, or to intercept a pass, are not "tackles" as such. However, if significant contact is made with an opponent in the sliding motion, it may still be a foul, on one of the grounds below.
- Kicking or hacking an opponent, or tripping an opponent, are not allowed and may be regarded as serious foul play.
- The following are also not allowed during a game:
- raising of foot above knee level.
- tackle from behind
- tackle where the sole of the shoe makes contact with an opposing player
- body checks
- shoulder charge
- raising of elbow
- outstretched arm
- raising of knee when jumping
- pushing
- holding
If significant contact is made with an opposing player by any of the above, it is a foul (even if the ball is won), with a free kick to the opposing side if committed outside the D and a penalty if committed inside the D. The converse is that if there is no significant contact, there is no foul and the game continues. In this context, at its simplest, "significant contact" means contact materially over and above that which is normally incidental to, or to be expected, in our games. Football is a contact sport. Our games are for adults.
.... The Game Rules also have provision as to how the rules are to be interpreted and applied. Safety is a priority. |
|
|
|
Post by Cedric on Mar 6, 2016 9:53:11 GMT 8
Hi Rajiv, my 2 cents worth on the issue of studs. First, it should be banned as safety should be an overriding consideration. Somehow the ban needs to be enforced. So if it means that a game needs to go ahead with a player short then perhaps the offending player should reimburse his team mates some of the cost. I like the idea of captains being delegated the power to enforce. Second, admin could consider that introducing a prerequisite for membership is the applicant sends a WhatsApp of himself wearing a turf shoe (no need to implement retrospectively cos too cumbersome). For members introducing guests to the game, onus is on the member to ensure. This way new members joining will not have any doubts about this particular rule. Apologies if this is posted in the wrong thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Mar 6, 2016 18:06:10 GMT 8
I've moved Cedric's above post from the report thread for the game at The Grandstand (small pitch) on Tuesday, 1 March 2016, to this new thread on the Introductions, Requests & Chat board. Cedric's post followed on from the following on the same thread: .... 6 the studs is a real issue and there is no excuse - Queensway shopping centre is 4km away and has futsal Trainers for 40$ - those who insist on blades and studies I am pretty sure won't be paying medical bills in event of an injury - it's a bit selfish guys and you don't need them - it's a kick about not Wembley .... I've also just reminded Raphael, Alvin Chan and Steeves about suitable footwear for the games on the covered pitches at Grandstand, as follows: .... And from the GIFFA System thread: Game kit & equipmentAs all our games are played on astro turf, if you play regularly, you should get a pair of all-weather astro shoes, like these:  Exceptions: i. For the covered pitches at The Grandstand and Kallang, if you don't have a pair of astro shoes, use flat soled shoes (for hard court), or even trainers (basketball or running). If you are new or irregular and don't even have flat soled shoes or trainers (hard to believe, but I'll take your word for it), you may, as a one-off exception, use boots with soft plastic blades or small studs. ii. For the uncovered pitches at Balestier Road and East Coast, if you don't have a pair of astro shoes, you can use boots with soft plastic blades or small studs, as flat soled shoes or trainers are not suitable when the pitch is wet. Where a player uses blades or studs, the onus is on the user to take extra care not to catch other players with the blades or studs. .... .... => The studs must be banned. Last week, Raphael stepped on me with his studs. This week it was my own team mate (Steeves). It's all accidental but here is a picture of my badly bruised foot today - I can hardly walk. Last night, I couldn't kick the ball and that led to an own goal being scored (by Alvin). I am suggesting that team captains be vested with the power to stop any player who turns up with studs from playing. ....
As for footwear, the current rule was formulated after lengthy discussions. Read the previous discussions. The link is above.
Ultimately, as I pointed out in the WhatsApp group chat yesterday, the team selectors/captains have the final say on everything at the game. To repeat, from the Overriding Principles, Core Values & Game Rules thread:
PLEASE READ TO THE END OF THIS THREAD. YOUR PARTICIPATION IN OUR GAMES IS PREMISED ON IT.We play each game without a referee. Our games, and the playing rules set out in the post below are geared towards (i) keeping the game flowing (ii) while reducing the risk of injury and (iii) are intended to accommodate different styles of play. These are Overriding Principles.  All Game Rules should be interpreted and applied in this light. Further, our Core Values are: - Maintaining health, fitness and/or interests even as we get older through sustainable participation in sports and other activity.
- Facilitating a work-life balance.
- Voluntary participation with maturity and in good spirits.
- Achieving a balanced and healthy perspective on sport and competition.
- Enhancing appreciation and understanding of teamwork and co-operation.
- Developing friendships and finding enjoyment through participation.
All games are expected to be played, and all Game Rules interpreted and applied, in accordance with the Core Values. The Game Rules are set out below. The two team selectors/captains for any game can, between themselves, agree to modify the Game Rules for that particular game, as they think necessary or desirable. During a game, the two team selectors/captains also have the final say on the application of the Overriding Principles, Core Values & Game Rules. If the team selectors/captains cannot agree, the issue should be discussed on the report thread after the game, and may be followed up on the appropriate announcements and developments thread. Any residual dissatisfaction after the game can also be discussed on the report thread for the game. Everyone who plays by the Core Values and Game Rules is welcome. The converse is that anyone who does not play by the rules and core values is not welcome.I rely on information provided to me. To this end: - Information from a team selector/captain relating to a particular player on that player's team carries the greatest weight.
- Information from the opposing team selector/captain carries significant weight.
- Information from players who are not team selectors or captains will carry such weight as may be appropriate, taking into account how many games the player has played in the current 6 month period or current 3 year period, the number of players providing the same, similar or related information, and the manner in which the information is provided.
Possible sanctions include being excluded from the whole of, or aspects of, our games or system for a period or time, or indefinitely. .... The Game Rules also provide: .... - If you use blades/studs, the onus is on you to exercise greater care not to accidentally catch other players with the blades/studs. The converse is that using astro shoes is not an excuse for being more careless or reckless in your tackling.
.... .... As a former regular on Tuesday's I have this to say : 1) I raised the studs issue many times and nobody is enforcing. .... Nothing wrong with studs in my view if people are careful and everyone wears shin pads (should be mandatory). The pitch is designed for it and even in proper 11 a side occasionally a foot gets stepped on. .... Studs should be banned. There is no place for them and people get injured. Steeves not only injured his own player but also tackled Jason (or Justin) pretty hard. The week before he went in studs up on me. .... In my view ... no shin pads (people should just get the right gear according to the rules), .... This is about having a laugh and getting some exercise on a Tuesday night. Nothing more. If we have 10 or 12 like minded people everyone will have fun. .... .... I'm not sure how the rules can be tightened any further, without the risk of players who turn up with the wrong footwear being excluded, and the game proceeding with uneven numbers, or short of players. Everyone is free to add their views on the "Safety, health & sustainability" thread. .... I think this is going to run for a while, so I've created a new thread. Feel free to add your views below. Some considerations: - Different considerations apply to the covered pitches from the uncovered pitches.
- How practicable is tightening the existing rules, or enforcing tighter rules, bearing in mind that it will be selectors/captains enforcing the rules.
- Is it fair to impose stricter requirements on new players than existing players? GIFFA is premised on welcoming new players, so I have always given new players more leeway than existing players.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Mar 6, 2016 18:25:29 GMT 8
Another issue that I have addressed several times on the "Safety, health & sustainability" thread is that manufacturers design and sell hybrids, and market them as suitable for both grass and astro turf. It is not easy to draw the line. As for shin pads, I agree they are not necessary. Heavy duty shin pads used in 11-a-side can cause a lot of pain to an opponent when there is any clash of legs. Lightweight shin pads may be acceptable. However, shin pads do not solve the problem of injury to feet caused by being stepped on by a player wearing harder blades or studs. |
|
|
|
Post by Foo Cheong on Mar 6, 2016 22:10:05 GMT 8
This issue always resurfaces. After a period of strict enforcement, the fuss dies down, regulars and newcomers get lax about the rules again and start wearing studs. Predictably, a few incidents or injuries happened and this becomes an issue again.
The main problem is that players, especially newcomers, do not read the rules and presume that the rules of 11-a-side apply to indoor soccer.
The rules must be enforced.
1. These are social games. Injuries caused by studs can be avoided.
2. If enforcement is lax, we go down a slippery slope where the lackadaisical attitude towards footwear can spread. If a player gets away with wearing studs, others will follow.
3. It is a matter of respect for fellow players and for the organiser.
A newcomer should be given a grace period (say, 5 games) before he has to get a pair of turf shoes. Apart from this exception,
- Any player wearing studs should be warned. If he continues to show up again in studs, he should be banned for a while.
- A player should be banned if he injures another with his studs.
Certainly the commercial considerations (lesser players) will come in for the organiser but don't forget that the safety of 9 - 15 others have been compromised.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Mar 6, 2016 22:40:41 GMT 8
The rules are enforced by:
- Selectors/captains applying and enforcing the rules at the game itself.
- My reminding the player concerned of the rules when it is brought to my attention that a particular player has not complied with a particular rule.
Is there anything more that needs to be added?
If not, then it is simply a matter of everyone playing their part.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Mar 8, 2016 9:40:45 GMT 8
Continuing from above, continuing on the report thread for the game on Thursday, 3 March 2016, at Khalsa: Sorry guys. Just one last point to make regarding sliding tackle. The rule states that "A sliding tackle takes place when a player slides in the direction of the PLAYER..." In this case, the target of the tackle is the PLAYER with the aim "to deprive him of the possession of the ball", then it should be a sliding tackle and a foul. However, if a player slides in the direction of the BALL to deprive the player of possession of the ball, it will not be considered a sliding tackle. If the ball and the player are in the same general direction, it is still a foul Kong Fei. Please do not get overly technical by trying to draw an artificial separation between the ball and the player in possession of the ball. I have added the word "general" before direction to make this clear. It is quite clear, to me at least, that the ball and the player in possession of the ball, will be in the same general direction of any other player. And a player running with the ball is in possession of the ball. I have made that clear too. The rule now reads: ....
- Sliding tackles are not allowed. A sliding tackle takes place when a player slides in the general direction of an opponent who is in, or receiving, possession of the ball (including a player running with the ball) in order to deprive him of possession of the ball, or to challenge the opponent. However, sliding in other contexts, such as sliding to keep the ball in play, or to block a shot, or to intercept a pass, are not "tackles" as such. However, if any contact is made with an opponent in the sliding motion, it will still be a foul, either as a sliding tackle, or on one of the grounds below.
.... If, in sliding, you make contact with an opponent, or bring an opponent down in the slide, it would be a "sliding tackle", or "tripping", or "any action where the sole of the shoe makes contact with an opposing player", and would still be a foul under the rules (including other rules). I have also made this clear. I have also added the words "or receiving" before possession to clarify. The onus is on the player making the slide for any other purpose to take care. As safety is a priority, any genuine dispute would be resolved in favour of the player who is on the receiving end of the slide. In the circumstances, it is best not to slide unless it is clearly to block a shot (with no other player nearby), intercept a pass (again with no other player nearby) or to keep the ball in play (again, with no other player nearby). And from the report thread for the game on yesterday (Monday) at Macpherson: I was informed that there was some overly physical challenges during the game, particularly between two players. A reminder that the rules provide as follows: .... More generally, all forms of over-zealous or overly physical tackles or challenges are not allowed. I will add that to the rules. .... I have amended the Rules as follows: ....
- Sliding tackles are not allowed.
- Other than that the goalkeeper within the "D", players are not allowed to deliberately handle the ball or deliberately use their arm to change the direction of the ball. As each of our games is played in a confined space, with a much higher player to playing area ratio than 11-a-side football, the risk of the ball deflecting or ricocheting off other players or other parts of the body and striking an arm or the hand is high. Unless it is reasonably clear that the hand or arm was moved towards the ball, or held in a position, to deliberately block, deflect or control the ball, it is not a foul.
- Kicking or hacking an opponent, or tripping an opponent, are not allowed, and may be regarded as serious foul play or violent play.
- Subject to the considerations and qualifications below, the following are also not allowed during a game:
- raising of foot above knee level.
- tackle from behind
- any action where the sole of the shoe makes contact with an opposing player
- body checks
- shoulder charge
- raising of elbow
- outstretched arm
- raising of knee when jumping
- pushing
- holding
Considerations/qualifications: If significant contact is made with an opposing player by any of the above, it is a foul (even if the ball is won), with a free kick to the opposing side if committed outside the D and a penalty if committed inside the D. The converse is that if there is no significant contact, there is no foul and the game continues. In this context, at its simplest, "significant contact" means contact materially over and above that which is normally incidental to, or to be expected, in our games. Football is a contact sport. Our games are for adults.
- More generally, over-zealous, overly physical or reckless tackling or challenges are not allowed. Players who repeatedly commit such acts may face sanctions.
- If any act strictly not allowed takes place, the opposing side will have a free kick (or penalty if the infringement takes place within the "D"). A free kick to the opposing side is also given when there is a foul. When a free kick is taken, the opposing players must be at least 7 paces away for games on a big pitch and at least 5 paces away for games on a small pitch.
- The following will be regarded as violent conduct and will result in immediate suspension:
- Violent play.
- Committing or attempting to commit a deliberate foul or other act which carries a serious risk of injury to another player.
- Instigating another player to do either of the above. This could include calling out to a team mate to commit such a foul on an opposing player.
Selectors/captains can between themselves agree to ask any player committing the above to leave the game. .... I have made the following changes: - I don't think we need explanation for the rule that there is no sliding tackle. It is common sense. I have taken out the explanation as to what is a sliding tackle.
- I have moved the principles on hand ball up, and added the general rule.
- I have added the word "violent" for the rule against kicking, hacking and tripping.
- I have put the rule against over-zealous or overly physical tackles and challenges together with the rule against reckless play.
- I have clarified when a free kick is to be given, and moved the rule on the distance of the opposing players there.
- I have re-framed the rule against violent conduct.
From the report thread for the game on Tuesday, 1 March 2016: .... You don't need to remember lots of technical rules. All you really need to remember are:
- We accommodate different styles of play.
- The game should be fun for everyone.
- Selectors/captains have the final say.
Not that difficult, is it? Not rocket science in any event. .... And from the footwear thread on the "Introductions, Requests & Chat board: The rules are enforced by:
- Selectors/captains applying and enforcing the rules at the game itself.
- My reminding the player concerned of the rules when it is brought to my attention that a particular player has not complied with a particular rule.
Is there anything more that needs to be added?
If not, then it is simply a matter of everyone playing their part.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Mar 18, 2016 7:12:01 GMT 8
From the report thread for the game last night (Thursday, 17 March 2016), at Khalsa: There was an incident where I made a slide to block a shot. As Rajiv pointed out to me a few weeks ago, sliding to block a shot or intercept a pass is not considered a sliding tackle and hence is not a foul. However, if any contact is made with the opponent in the sliding motion it will still be a foul. My intention was purely to slide and block the shot and I want to stress that there was no contact made with the opponent. I have been told to stop making these sort of tackles to minimise controversy. But I feel that what I was doing was within the rules of the game and will continue to make these sliding blocks in future games. Anyway I apologised to the player involved but stressed that I did not make any contact with him. Sorry. I was the one guilty of not keeping a distance from kick ins Kong Fei, the discussion on sliding tackles was on the report thread for the game at Khalsa two weeks ago (Thursday, 3 March 2016). I added the following on that thread: If the ball and the player are in the same general direction, it is still a foul Kong Fei. Please do not get overly technical by trying to draw an artificial separation between the ball and the player in possession of the ball. .... It is quite clear, to me at least, that the ball and the player in possession of the ball, will be in the same general direction of any other player. And a player running with the ball is in possession of the ball. I have made that clear too. .... The onus is on the player making the slide for any other purpose to take care. As safety is a priority, any genuine dispute would be resolved in favour of the player who is on the receiving end of the slide. In the circumstances, it is best not to slide unless it is clearly to block a shot (with no other player nearby), intercept a pass (again with no other player nearby) or to keep the ball in play (again, with no other player nearby). Even at that stage, I thought it was clear that it is a foul if there is a sliding tackle, OR contact is made with another player when sliding. And from the "GIFFA system & playing rules" thread: .... I have made the following changes: - I don't think we need explanation for the rule that there is no sliding tackle. It is common sense. I have taken out the explanation as to what is a sliding tackle.
.... Anyway, I simplified the rule soon after to read "Sliding tackles are not allowed." For free kicks, the rules provide "When a free kick is taken, the opposing players must be at least 7 paces away for games on a big pitch and at least 5 paces away for games on a small pitch." I have added the following: However, everything is open to discussion on this forum. It is useful to remember the following from the report thread for the game on Tuesday, 1 March 2016, at The Grandstand (small pitch): .... You don't need to remember lots of technical rules. All you really need to remember are:
- We accommodate different styles of play.
- The game should be fun for everyone.
- Selectors/captains have the final say.
.... I've adapted this thread to be a broader discussion of the rules generally, by re-naming it from "Can the rules on footwear be tightened or better enforced?" to "The rules generally". I've also moved the two posts on the same subject from the "GIFFA system & playing rules thread" to this thread. They are now above, the first and [url=http://giffas.proboards.com/post/56682/threadseventh[/url] posts on this thread. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Mar 18, 2016 14:36:11 GMT 8
Continuing from the thread for last night's game: .... But if we are to err on the side of caution then a lot of challenges and tackles will have to be disallowed. For eg. 1) challenging for headers should be banned because a stray elbow or clash of heads can cause serious head injuries. 2) all balls should be played below waist level cos a ball hit with full force onto someone's head can cause concussion. The possibilities can go on forever. So where do we draw the line on these? If we really do then the game will become a contactless sport cos every contact brings with it a certain risk of injury. I believe that everyone who plays should do so with the acceptance that there is a always chance of an injury because it's fast-paced. The only way he can totally avoid injuries is not to play. I think the word "banned" is not useful. Certain things are disallowed, other things are allowed. However, even the things that are disallowed, we look at the consequences first, before deciding whether to interrupt the game by calling a foul. That's the way the rules are formulated. If a player takes the risk of doing an act which is disallowed, or carries the risk of making improper contact with an opponent, and there is improper contact with an opponent, or an opponent is forced to take evasive action, then if the foul is called, it is a foul. Is that so hard to implement? The onus is on the player doing a risky act to take care. That's repeated all over the place! If the foul is called, just accept the risk wasn't worth it on that occasion, and carry on. If the act is one that carries the risk of causing injury to an opponent, then it should be cut out. That's why I say all you really need to remember are:
- We accommodate different styles of play.
- The game should be fun for everyone.
- Selectors/captains have the final say.
Don't look for refuge behind technical rules! 
|
|
|
|
Post by Kong Fei on Mar 18, 2016 15:13:12 GMT 8
Yes I agree. Should look at the consequences instead of the "what ifs".
If I do something that is disallowed but there is no adverse consequence, then just play on. If I do something that is allowed but injured someone in the process, then call a foul. Allow the game to flow.
If someone challenges and takes the ball from me cleanly, can I call a foul because I feel that he is not considering my safety properly in making that tackle even though I'm not injured?
Can I ask the striker not to shoot too hard cos it may cause serious injury to my hand when I try to stop the shot or worse still, the ball hits someone in the face?
I think the rules should be applied with flexibility with regards to the actual situation, not just at face value
|
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Mar 18, 2016 15:15:39 GMT 8
Well, I'd rather deal with it at an earlier stage, avoiding the risk of injury, rather than waiting for a player to be injured.
If you look at the list of actions disallowed, they all carry additional risk. If you take the risk, then the onus is on you to be extra careful, because injuring another player is not worth the additional risk.
Once we get to the stage where we are talking about additional risk of injury to other players, then we are already talking about reckless play, which is more serious.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joel Lim on Mar 18, 2016 16:03:07 GMT 8
Yes I agree. Should look at the consequences instead of the "what ifs". If I do something that is disallowed but there is no adverse consequence, then just play on. If I do something that is allowed but injured someone in the process, then call a foul. Allow the game to flow. If someone challenges and takes the ball from me cleanly, can I call a foul because I feel that he is not considering my safety properly in making that tackle even though I'm not injured? Can I ask the striker not to shoot too hard cos it may cause serious injury to my hand when I try to stop the shot or worse still, the ball hits someone in the face? I think the rules should be applied with flexibility with regards to the actual situation, not just at face value I think you're mistaking "can do" with "should do". I can be a slob, don't shower, wear the same sweaty shirt out to each game (and have all my fellow players enjoy the scent of manliness  ) but should i? Should I instead consider that others may have a hard time or be put off my lack of hygiene? It is legal or "can be done" but is it something I should do? Likewise, you "can" slide (within reasons) but should you? especially when you might just cause injury to either a player near you or to yourself? |
|
|
|
Post by Kong Fei on Mar 18, 2016 16:27:29 GMT 8
Agreed. As Rajiv said, the onus is on the player to be careful and I feel that there should be a mutual trust that everyone who steps onto the field will try to be careful and with no intention of deliberately injuring others.
If there is this suspicion that someone is out to injure you then however minor an incident is, it will be blown out of proportion. Even if an injury does occur it should be taken as an accident, not a malicious and intentional attempt to harm.
It's like the studs situation, I have never felt that it should be disallowed because some players feel more comfortable with them and they should be allowed to wear whatever they choose. And I trust that everyone who wears studs is for the comfort, not to deliberately injure others with them. If there is really an injury caused by studs, then by default it should be seen as an accident. Otherwise tempers will flare easily. For clarification, I only wear astro turf shoes.
I had someone sunk his studs into my ankle that it left a permanent bloodied scar. I accept that this is one of many risks that cannot be avoided when I play despite the best intention of everyone to play safely. And by continuing to play in these games, means that with it, I accept that there will be a risk of injury despite the best efforts of Rajiv and others to minimise them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kong Fei on Mar 18, 2016 16:30:14 GMT 8
Yes I agree. Should look at the consequences instead of the "what ifs". If I do something that is disallowed but there is no adverse consequence, then just play on. If I do something that is allowed but injured someone in the process, then call a foul. Allow the game to flow. If someone challenges and takes the ball from me cleanly, can I call a foul because I feel that he is not considering my safety properly in making that tackle even though I'm not injured? Can I ask the striker not to shoot too hard cos it may cause serious injury to my hand when I try to stop the shot or worse still, the ball hits someone in the face? I think the rules should be applied with flexibility with regards to the actual situation, not just at face value I think you're mistaking "can do" with "should do". I can be a slob, don't shower, wear the same sweaty shirt out to each game (and have all my fellow players enjoy the scent of manliness ) but should i? Should I instead consider that others may have a hard time or be put off my lack of hygiene? It is legal or "can be done" but is it something I should do? Likewise, you "can" slide (within reasons) but should you? especially when you might just cause injury to either a player near you or to yourself? Yes, Joel. I understand what you mean. But if you are delving into the discussion of "should do" or "should not do" then the word "should" will already mean that there is no clear right or wrong. I feel that you "should not" slide me whatsoever because I feel that you may injure me. Am I wrong if I do have a genuine fear of injury by you? No. Because it implies a certain personal opinion which I believe is correct. On the other hand, I feel that I "should" slide because I feel that it is safe to do it without injuring others. Am I wrong? No again. Because I truly believe in my stance and outcome. In your example, you are not in the wrong if you feel that you "should not" shower. You are also not in the wrong if you feel that you "should" shower. So in the end where does this leads usI think the point here is not to decide if it is a "should" or "should not". It is to accept the fact that there is a "should" and there is also a "should not" . No one's opinion is outrightly wrong or correct if they truly believe in it. And the important thing is not to impose your "should" onto others but accept and respect others' "should not". |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Mar 18, 2016 16:32:39 GMT 8
I have moved the posts starting with mine at 2.36 pm above from the report thread for last night's game to this thread, as they relate to the rules generally, and not to the game last night. I added to my post at 2.36 pm a quote of the post by Kong Fei to which I was responding. Kong Fei, you're too focused on actual injury. You have to see my focus is the "risk" of injury. A player who repeatedly does an act that carries the "risk" of injury is reckless, regardless of whether any injury is caused. Running and kicking the ball (including shooting) are intrinsic parts of football. Sticking your arms out while you run, charging with your shoulder, or sliding are not. If an action is carried out which is not intrinsic to football, and carries extra risk of injury to another player, then the onus is on that player to take greater care. Sliding tackles are specifically disallowed. For any other type of sliding, the onus is on the player doing the act to take extra care. I have added that not only should no contact be made with an opponent when sliding, but the opponent should not have to take evasive action to avoid contact being made. If a player intends to cause injury to another, that's far worse than being reckless. That's an immediate suspension. As for the discussion on "should", all I can do is remind players. If there is no improvement after reminders, I can suspend a player. He can then be "smelly" somewhere else! Coming back to sliding tackles, the rule now is simply "Sliding tackles are not allowed". I have removed any qualification from the rule. Please do not try to circumvent the rule by any artificial reference to sliding to block. I trust the team captains to be sensible about that, and to know the difference. A slide is a tackle if: - It is in the general direction of an opponent. If you want to be technical, let's say within a radius of 30 degrees either side of the opponent.
- Any contact is made with an opponent.
- An opponent has to take evasive action to avoid contact being made.
Blocking a shot would usually be where the ball has already left the opponent who made the shot, and is heading in the direction of goal, and a player slides at the ball, in order to direct it away from goal.
If the slide is in anticipation of a shot, to block the anticipated trajectory of the shot, then the sliding motion should be well clear of the opponent who is about to shoot. I can't see this happening often though. Firstly, the positions of the respective players, and the degree of anticipation required, would be rare. Secondly, a quick-witted opponent might be able to dummy the shot, let you slide, pull the ball clear of your prostrate body, and shoot unhindered. You're better off staying on your feet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joel Lim on Mar 18, 2016 16:59:39 GMT 8
Yes, Joel. I understand what you mean. But if you are delving into the discussion of "should do" or "should not do" then the word "should" will already mean that there is no clear right or wrong. I feel that you "should not" slide me whatsoever because I feel that you may injure me. Am I wrong if I do have a genuine fear of injury by you? No. Because it implies a certain personal opinion which I believe is correct. On the other hand, I feel that I "should" slide because I feel that it is safe to do it without injuring others. Am I wrong? No again. Because I truly believe in my stance and outcome. In your example, you are not in the wrong if you feel that you "should not" shower. You are also not in the wrong if you feel that you "should" shower. So in the end where does this leads usI think the point here is not to decide if it is a "should" or "should not". It is to accept the fact that there is a "should" and there is also a "should not" . No one's opinion is outrightly wrong or correct if they truly believe in it. And the important thing is not to impose your "should" onto others but accept and respect others' "should not". I'm not sure if I can make sense of your argument or if it's an elaborate method of confusion. I'm speaking from experience. On a game almost 2 years ago, playing keeper, I dived to collect a loose ball. A certain player in this community, in his zeal, challenged for that ball. However, I had gotten to it first and he tried to avoid a collision by jumping over me. He did not clear the ground quick enough and collided, his knee into the left side of my face. As a result, two years down the road, I still bear residual effects from that collision. Did I mention that I had an orbital floor fracture that caused dizzying double vision and required surgery. Till this day, I still do have double vision, thankfully on the extreme upper, lower and left side only. Was he wrong to challenge for the loose ball? Not at all! However, should he have? Hindsight would say, perhaps not. Was he wrong to try to jump over me to avoid collision? Perfectly logical to me, except we had just played 60-70 mins of intense football. Again, hindsight would say, perhaps not. (In truth, I'd gladly say I'd rather have him slide into me, was already curled up. I can heal from a bruised rib, the double vision not so much.) So are you wrong to slide to block a shot? You aren't, in fact if you could stop a goal from happening, I'd say go for it BUT can you say with absolute certainty that you will not endanger anyone? Yesterday, your slide clearance was a mere couple of inches from my teammate. What would happen if he had lost his balance trying to avoid your slide and smashed right into you? As Rajiv said earlier, better it be before an accident would happen than do the post mortem of one. |
|
|
|
Post by Kong Fei on Mar 18, 2016 18:10:00 GMT 8
Joel, back to this should and should not thing and how it relates to what we are discussing here.
My point is that you should trust me to make my call and not impose your view on me by insisting that I should not do it. I have my "should" and you have your "should not".
I believe that I will cleanly block the shot when I made the decision to block it. That's why I went ahead with it. You see, I accept that you have your own opinion on how things will turn out and acknowledge it but ultimately the decision is mine to make and consequences mine to bear.
Same thing for you, if I were in your shoes 2 years ago, I feel that you shouldn't dive for the ball. But I accept that you have made a call in what you feel is right at that split second and I respect it. You got hit, so you have to live with your decision. Do I gloat and say that you wouldn't have to live with this fracture if you had listened to me? No. Cos I understand that you did what you feel is right at that time and you will live with the outcome, good or bad.
If I didn't have any concern for safety I would not have made just one sliding block. Even if you don't trust my judgement you will have to accept it. If I make decisions based on your opinion, would you bear the consequences for me? So you just have to let me exercise my basic right to make my own decisions
|
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Mar 18, 2016 18:17:52 GMT 8
A player acts based on his judgment. The player on the receiving end can make a call. If there is a dispute, the captains decide. If the dispute cannot be resolved, or arises again, it can be discussed on the forum. If need be, I will address the matter.
The position is sliding tackles are not allowed. If you are claiming to block a shot, then it must clearly be to block a shot. If it it any way resembles a sliding tackle, even if you claim it is to block a shot, then I will remind you to cut it out.
That's how it works.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kong Fei on Mar 18, 2016 19:57:41 GMT 8
Can I clarify that even if I were to slide and block a ball, it has to be outside of 30 degrees radius of the player? Roughly how many paces are 30 degrees?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Mar 18, 2016 20:43:13 GMT 8
 Does this help? No paces here, entirely a question of direction. 30° on either side, so a total of 60°. If it is within that angle, then no matter what you claim your intentions are, it looks like a tackle to me. More importantly, from above: .... Blocking a shot would usually be where the ball has already left the opponent who made the shot, and is heading in the direction of goal, and a player slides at the ball, in order to direct it away from goal. If the slide is in anticipation of a shot, to block the anticipated trajectory of the shot, then the sliding motion should be well clear of the opponent who is about to shoot. I can't see this happening often though. Firstly, the positions of the respective players, and the degree of anticipation required, would be rare. Secondly, a quick-witted opponent might be able to dummy the shot, let you slide, pull the ball clear of your prostrate body, and shoot unhindered. You're better off staying on your feet. |
|
....
) but should i? Should I instead consider that others may have a hard time or be put off my lack of hygiene? It is legal or "can be done" but is it something I should do?