Jump to content

Jezzard

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    94

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Jezzard

  4. Posted · Edited by Jezzard

    Honestly, how was this not a second yellow card? Already on a yellow for a cynical foul on Aarons, he then blocks a cross deliberately with his hands above his head. The referee had clearly seen this but pretends not to. This was at 0-1 with Norwich on top in the second half. Not that they should need to, but not one of our players questions this to the referee….

    • Like 1

  5. Posted

    11 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

    He’s not inactive though. It’s not a momentary thing. He gains an advantage (and in fact is able to score) as a direct result of being in an offside position. And if he’s inactive in that scenario then Cantwell was certainly also inactive 2 weeks ago.

    it beggars belief. No other top flight team would get this dirt if regular shafting from the officials. We need to kick off about it and put these c**ts under some pressure. 

     

    The Cantwell offside optically appeared  wrong, but unfortunately he was interfering with that phase of play so was correctly applied. If that was allowed then we could also have an attacker standing 50 cm in front of the keeper at every free kick from the edge of the box, not moving and be onside. I think most of us would think that was offside. So when we claim inconsistency a law has to apply to every situation.
     

    Regarding the Aubameyang one, an identical example is when a ball is played to the (onside) winger on the flank at the same time as the striker is in an offside position in the box, the winger beats his man, squares it (backwards) to the striker who scores (I should include a diagram..). Do we want that to be offside because in the law it isn’t (different phases)? Probably not. But to backtrack, you could claim that the striker has an advantage as he didn’t have to run as far as a covering defender….similar to your point. This is where the law is inconsistent.

    • Like 1

  7. Posted · Edited by Jezzard

    To be fair deliberate/ late fouls can be more dangerous in that often the fouled player cannot see it coming and brace/ relax muscles/ sort his feet out for impact. I don’t think a shirt pull is dangerous for a neck injury but potentially for muscular/ ligament damage. 

  8. Posted

    Unfortunately it could only be given as a yellow but morally a red. Logically any occasion when a player is happier to ‘take a yellow’ should be a red but this would be hard to apply. I’d almost like any deliberate foul to be a red as the player has the choice of not making it; however it would be a minefield to apply. Delighted Harry Wilson got the red v Denmark- he did the an identical deliberate foul in the home match v Cardiff when we were 2-0 up in the last minute. But this had the endangering opponent so was in laws as a red. 

  9. Posted · Edited by Jezzard

    9 hours ago, chicken said:

    That depends very much on the clubs we are buying from and whether we want to pay interest as well. It's not at all patronising, and the club has never said that we couldn't sign a £15-20m player due to phasing of income. They've just said we can't afford them at all.

    On more than one occasion Webber has given this as one reason we can’t afford to spend ‘big’: “People think we get all the premier league money in one go...” Other chief execs have also stated this. In the unlikely event that we accept phased payments and no club from which we would potentially buy does, we could reschedule payments / bridge loans for 6 months until the next tranche of phased guaranteed income comes in. This would cost us a few £100k tops...we are not missing out on big £15m transfers by £100k or so more like several million. 

  10. Posted

    2 hours ago, chicken said:

    What is incorrect and patronising?

    As for up front costs - depends upon the demands of the selling team. If we are looking at players at less than £10m their clubs may well want the majority of that up front. The more expensive a player, the more likely their fee will be spread out. Bearing in mind the most the club has ever spent on a single player is the rumoured £7.5-8m for Naismith, it is highly likely that the deals we have been looking at in the past do look at more of the cost in advance.

    As I said, using phasing of transfer fee payments ( and premier league income) as an excuse for not making big money signings. We could also phase our payments for a big money £15-20m signing - financing is also available for our purchases as well as money received. I fully understand and accept that we won’t be making £20m signings, but not due to phasing of income. 

  11. Posted · Edited by Jezzard

    On 06/06/2021 at 19:13, chicken said:

    When you go to buy a new car they will always offer you an alternative to buying the car outright up front - lets face it, not a lot of people can drop that money. They offer something called finance.

    Norwich have bought players on deals with instalments, but if we have indeed signed fewer on instalments it is because most of the players we have signed down the years haven't been expensive enough and teams have probably demanded we coughed up the £1.5-2mil in advance.

    Remember, although we sold Sutton for a record breaking £5mil, it took us a long time to get to a position to  be able to spend £5million on a player. I think I am right in saying we have only a handful of players that have cost more than that in fact - RVW, Naismith and Klose off the top of my head.

    Well obviously, but it’s incorrect and patronising as the club does to use this as the reason why we can’t sign players 60-100% of the sale value. Clearly there are are other reasons why we can’t and don’t sign players at these prices, but it’s dishonest to use phasing of finance as the justification. 

  12. Posted

    15 hours ago, chicken said:

    When is the deadline date for squad submission then?

    All of the evidence I can see so far is a squad of players for the Copa America which does not include Buendia at this time. Eg the following:
    https://www.sportsunfold.com/copa-america-squad/

    Edit: Just found articles elsewhere that said that submission of squads deadline is 3rd June. So the above is in fact the final squad and Buendia is not in it.

    Eg: https://www.nationalworld.com/sport/football/copa-america-2021-fixtures-squads-tv-schedule-and-host-as-south-american-football-tournament-is-confirmed-3258315

    Three days before the tournament after the World Cup qualifiers have been played...players must have been in the provisional squad which haven’t been made public. Whole thing a mess and there’s allowances for injury and covid replacements. This tournament won’t be taken seriously and I’ve no interest now we have no (possible) representation.

  16. Posted

    In an unlikely event of an incomplete season where all title and relegation issues have been decided, then you could luckily avoid null and voiding the season as consensus would probably be reached that the season is effectively finished. In the past some postponed dead rubbers have not been played. Otherwise in the absense of regulation, then yes, null and void is the only option and far superior imposing a rule change mid- season. I’m not saying it’s fair and it’s not about Norwich. It’s just ridiculous the leagues don’t have regulation to cover this.

    • Like 2

  17. Posted

    Using points per game to decide incomplete leagues is on the whole accepted within journalism, ex-players and seemingly administrators. But it is flawed. The mean average is a statistic – it informs what has happened but isn’t predictive as to what will happen. And we have so much evidence (West Brom ‘05, Portsmouth ‘06, Fulham ’08, Wigan ’12, Leicester ’14, Sunderland each time we go down to name a few off the top of my head) that using it as a predictor is flawed. It would be quite easy to show that often the average points after 38 matches is significantly different from after 29. A bugbear is that while pundits like to appear sophisticated by talking about “complex” statistical concepts such as a mean, in a league 90% of teams have played the same number of matches, it’s identical to freezing the table at an arbitrary date. What if the suspension had happened after 9 or 19 matches? We could have still worked out average points (or frozen the table then). The logic seems “well after 29 matches we’ve played most of the games, and this gives positions which would probably not change that much”? So poitns per game is nonsense, but this isn’t the point. The point is using this would represent about the biggest regulation change imaginable mid-season, and one that teams can’t respond to. Presumably there is nothing in the Premier League regulations on incomplete seasons, or we wouldn’t be discussing how to decide final positions. It’s amazing given the turnover and staff at the Premier League, that no one ever thought to write a regulation to cover this. How is it allowed to change the regulation mid-season? Whose mad idea was it? Is the one regulation that matters that if 14 clubs vote for a law change mid-season, anything can happen? Can they vote that Brighton to go down as their chief exec is annoying some other clubs?

     

    Which gets me on to the championship…..why is it widely accepted that Leeds and West Brom should go up? A 7 point gap in the championship can disappear in a week, and usually does in Leads’ case, but again, this isn’t the point. All the Premier League teams earned the right last May to compete for 38 matches (19) home and away to finish as high as they can and the top 17 remain in the division; the championship teams earned the right to play 46 matches (23) home and away to finish (yes finish) in the top 2 (or win the play offs) to go up. If either (not neither) cannot be completed, then no one has earned/ forfeited the right to swap divisions. Null and void is the only means to solve this. Yes, there will be winners and losers who will be lucky and unlucky, but you accept luck and bad luck in sport. Average points/ freezing the table contravenes the existing sporting laws and regulations, which isn’t acceptable and surely be crushed legally.  

    • Like 1

  18. Posted · Edited by Jezzard

    There was one very good angle from above shown ten minutes later on the international feed that showed the Palace player, knees buckling, going down prior to contact with Amadou. Still can’t expect VAR officials to consider all available information 

    • Like 1

  23. Posted

    The season was over on Boxing Day when we beat Birmingham to avoid a relegation battle. WIth one of the strongest squads in the league and probably the best player, it''s some achievement to be 14th and to have scored an average of one goal per game - well done Farke. Still the beauty with Webber''s strategy is it''s repeat-ability. No matter how many Borussia Dortmund reserve team coaches and lower league Bundesliga players he takes, they will be replaced so can end up at Carrow Road in the future.

  25. Posted

    Each of the 24 teams in the division has a plan and philosophy but what is more important is the players on the pitch. I agree we cannot afford this squad, but it was together for this season for the final time and much stronger than most of the other teams''. This is the point of difference; not a philosophy. So this season was not the one to gamble on Daniel Farke, Mario Vrancic and Franke tearing up the championship. If all had failed being conventional this season then next season was the one to change philosophy.
×
×
  • Create New...