Gianluca Vialli wrote in his book that they should play 30 minute halves and stop the clock on every whistle. He advocates that it will increase actual game play.
It absolutely would do. The amount of time the ball is in play is ridiculously low in the modern game.
Yeah and they were completely gassed at that point. Corner flag looked a damn attractive strategy. Still don't like it though.
Interesting. The basis of my understanding of obstruction is probably from when I played in high school, but I'll admit that I was coached by guys who probably weren't the wisest when it came to rules & tactics. Do you think the refs still apply the obstruction rule the way you describe it? Because I can't recall seeing anyone ever called for that infraction in the last 10-20 years, practically forever. And I do recall "obstruction" being called both in my dinky school leagues and in the English top flight, back in the day. If obstruction is still a law/rule, then I'd suggest that it's no longer enforced. Which has been my assumption for a long long time. Also, the key phrase of your definition seems to be "has clear possession" which seems a bit subjective. If the attacker has the ball but let's it get a little bit too far away from him, and the defender puts his body in between so that the attacker can't stop it from going out... I feel like I've seen that quite a few times in recent years. Similarly to the above, I'm curious how "within playing distance" is defined. But maybe I'm more wondering whether you're saying that even if the attacker has/had clear possession (as Tonerl states) the defender is still not obstructing as long as he's close to the ball? p.s. All of my questions are genuine attempts to understand better the laws, their nuances, and the degree of enforcement that goes on. So thanks for the dialogue.
My understanding is that for shielding not to be obstruction you have to be within playing distance of the ball, which means that ball is within your leg's reach even if you're not actually touching it. I've seen obstruction still called occasionally. But it's in a situation analogous to a basketball player setting a pick or a screen when the ball isn't within playing distance.
oof. Barcelona's wages ahead of the start of the season... 🤯 pic.twitter.com/73OmutAwtj— SPORTbible (@sportbible) August 3, 2022
as @ArsenalMetro said, lewandowski is 4th @ 360,577 PW/18,750,000 PY. the other new boys are: kessie 8th @ 260,385 / 13,540,000. raphinha 9th-T @ 240,385 / 12,500,000. kounde 9th-T @ 240,385 / 12,500,000. christensen 13 @ 200,385 / 10,420,000. dembele's new reduced contract is 7th @ 264,423 /13,750,000. aubameyang ended up at 11th @ 220,385 / 11,460,000.
it's good to know stillman shares my 12 year old sense of humour. Forest want him just a question of whether he’ll cum https://t.co/dzb82S0UMW— Tim Stillman (@Stillmanator) August 3, 2022
Dembele is known to have re-upped on a much reduced contract, so doubt he is on the figure. Auba and Christensen joined on free transfers, so has to be figured into cost of deal. The whole point is the players who are coming in are on a reduced wage structure to meet the salary cap. I am not sure how much i believe these numbers, as per Atheletic reporting, Barca already reduced payroll by 100m What we do know is the likes of Busquets, Pique etc had really dumb contracts
Yes - these are advantageous because the equivalent transfer fee liability is split up and placed into future years where it won't count for this years cap, rather than as a lump sum outlay that might add to debt and thus count in the current year So you get a highish yearly salary figure but it means only a small part of the deal is being included in the calculation
It's hard to imagine they would offer the player 264k per week to re-sign with them in their current predicament. It is also hard to imagine he was signed on more than that - even at Barca
Jordan Alba is on €400k and Frenkie de Jong €560 but you find it hard to imagine Dembele was signed on more than €264? Anyway, Capology shows €264 this year and €384 last season.
There are all kinds of numbers thrown about but it is difficult to believe the new contracts have crazy base pay when the whole point is to reduce the salary mass I agree De Jongs number is crazy but his base pay IIRC was a much more reasonable 14m per year - the problem is they deferred 17m of that which needs to be caught up So while the numbers are insane, I think that "leaked" salary list is not likely to be very accurate
@Tonerl and @The Jitty Slitter you are both right. One is talking Gross and the other Net... https://www.capology.com/club/barcelona/salaries/
damn. leicester need to sacrifice some goat or chicken or something. first fofana broke his leg then justin did his cruciate and now pereira pops his achilles.
No, Jitty is saying he doesn’t believe what is reported except when he does. I’m just reprinting what capology has on their website: that the 384k was the number until Barça blackmailed him into taking less, and 264k is what he accepted as a result.