: Thu Feb 19, 2009 11:58 pm  

Nemanja wrote: Blue card sin-binning...one step closer? I hope so!

Nemanja wrote: Blue card sin-binning...one step closer? I hope so!

: Fri Feb 20, 2009 1:35 am  

Robbie Rotten wrote:

I hope so!

I think there's a lot of merit in the idea. A lot of merit. A sinbin would be even better in football IMHO, when you're a player down it isn't as bad as it is in RL. Things are getting a bit silly with fouls in football. A sort of intermediary card whereby you punish someone more mildly could just save some players from unnecessary sendings off and big games being ruined.

I can see moaning and shouting at the referee being pulled up a lot more, because it just doesn't warrant a sending off all that much but a five minute cooling off spell? Hell yes.

It'll sometimes be used as a cop out though. There's always a down side. And I'd make it ten minutes not five.

: Fri Feb 20, 2009 1:51 am  

I agree.

I think we see too much cynical stuff now, and too many players 'taking one for the team'. Take a situation, for example, there's a break on and it's 3 on 1 for the attacking team, a player is getting back as quick as he can and he brings the ball carrier down quite cynically, knowing full well he'll get a yellow, but he knows it won't be a red as he wasn't the last man. Would this player be willing to do so if it resulted in a 10 minute sin bin? I think it would certainly add more doubt.

I still think we should have yellows, but a blue card woul definitely be a great addition in my opinion.

I think this would complicate things a little, but could they not do Ice Hockey-eque penalties, say 5 minutes for a minor, 10 for a major? Or should it just be a straight 10 minute sin bin? as defining whether it's a sin bin is hard enough, let alone deciding whether it would be a minor or major.

I also think it may end some of those 'soft' reds we get, for things like an unintentional studs up challenge, which these days seems to warrant a red, although most say it should only be a yellow, maybe the blue could be the answer...


I'm all for it, I hope they try it out more and more and hopefully it works out.

: Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:50 am  

Now look, i know there's a few people who seem to be revelling in the fact that Jimmy Bullard is injured. Always something to chuckle at, isn't it?

Anyway, it's safe to assume that most are laughing because it looks like City have spunked 5 million bones on a cripple, and it turns out that we did know he had a cartilege tear, but this post on a City forum goes some way to explaining all about it:-

Let me hopefully enlighten the less enlightened people on here with regards to knees and meniscus's and acl's. I'm not an Orthopod but having had 6 knee surgeries, including having had both left and right ACL reconstruction, I'm probably about as good as it gets for a non-medical type person when it comes to knee knowledge.

1. A minor meniscus tear can potentially be manageable, at least for a few months until the end of the season, hence their decision to sign JB despite this injury.
2. Despite the wonders of MRI's, unless the machine is programmed correctly a tear in an ACL can be missed quite easily.
3. Orthopods are always more comfortable with going in and having a proper look around and establishing the true extent of a) the meniscus tear, and b) anything else that an MRI scan may have missed, as proved to be the case unfortunately.
4. To call the ACL tear a reoccurrance of the old injury is misleading. The new ligament, fashioned from either the middle 3rd of the patella tendon or harvested from the hamstring tendons, is a completely new ligament. Sometimes if the old ligament was not fully torn it will be retained and knitted in to the new ligament to add additional strength and stability (as happened with my right ACL).
5. A newly constructed ACL, either from the patella tendon or hamstring tendon, is approx 3 times the strength, once grafted and settled, of the original ACL. Tendons are stronger than ligaments.

Bottom line, City and JB have been extremely unlucky, end of story from a medical standpoint.

6 months minimum I would suggest, so we're realistically looking at a September return to playing as a minimum.

So there you are. If this is our last bit of bad luck this season, i'll be pleased. And we've got this far without having him in the team, so there's no panic from me.

: Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:13 am  

A rule that i'd love to see in football, when a player goes down injured, they should be made to stay off the field for 5 minutes, rather than going off and coming straight back on. This would stop players staying down for the sake of, just to try and kill the game. Also, if a player is really hurt, then the chances are that 5 minutes off the field will do him good and allow him to get some treatment. Really winds me up when a player goes down 'injured' then as soon as the other team put the ball out, jumps up and carry's on.

: Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:49 am  

Nemanja wrote: Blue card sin-binning...one step closer? A great idea IMO, it will improve the game a lot, and mean that we (hopefully) wont see as many dives, and it could create a much more free flowing game IMO.

Nemanja wrote: Blue card sin-binning...one step closer? A great idea IMO, it will improve the game a lot, and mean that we (hopefully) wont see as many dives, and it could create a much more free flowing game IMO.

: Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:55 am  

harleyboy742 wrote:

A great idea IMO, it will improve the game a lot, and mean that we (hopefully) wont see as many dives, and it could create a much more free flowing game IMO.

You reckon?

For the period of the sin-binning the team affected would just throw 10 men behind the ball and you'd have a five minute game of attack and defence. If a player needs to commit a cynical foul he'll still commit it in the knowledge that his team will shut up shop while he's off and hopefully hang on until he comes back.

: Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:56 am  

saint billy wrote:

A rule that i'd love to see in football, when a player goes down injured, they should be made to stay off the field for 5 minutes, rather than going off and coming straight back on. This would stop players staying down for the sake of, just to try and kill the game. Also, if a player is really hurt, then the chances are that 5 minutes off the field will do him good and allow him to get some treatment. Really winds me up when a player goes down 'injured' then as soon as the other team put the ball out, jumps up and carry's on.

Please, please tell me someone has hacked your account to make you look stupid.

: Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:57 am  

Andy Gilder wrote:

You reckon?

For the period of the sin-binning the team affected would just throw 10 men behind the ball and you'd have a five minute game of attack and defence. If a player needs to commit a cynical foul he'll still commit it in the knowledge that his team will shut up shop while he's off and hopefully hang on until he comes back.

Teams throw 10 men behind the ball anyway against the better teams. the sin bin would be a great idea. It should be used to tighten up on dissent and diving.

: Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:59 am  

saint billy wrote:

A rule that i'd love to see in football, when a player goes down injured, they should be made to stay off the field for 5 minutes, rather than going off and coming straight back on. This would stop players staying down for the sake of, just to try and kill the game. Also, if a player is really hurt, then the chances are that 5 minutes off the field will do him good and allow him to get some treatment. Really winds me up when a player goes down 'injured' then as soon as the other team put the ball out, jumps up and carry's on.

I can understand where you're coming from but cant see how it would work...what if 2 players from the same team clash heads then that team would be down to 9 men for 5 minutes through no real fault of their own.

What I would think about is trying to bring in a rule that says when Giggs (for example) is fouled and the ref gives United the free kick, then Giggs doesnt have to go off after receiving treatment...why should the team that has been sinned against have a disadvantage at the ensuing free-kick??? I know its pretty much the same as it always used to be but it wasnt that bad was it???