"Charlton striker Izale McLeod seemed more interested in throwing himself around on the floor than playing football and had a penalty claim turned down by the referee after running into the back of Nathan Clarke."
[quote][cite]Posted By: northstandsteve[/cite]christ he was awful first half but did better second,but his first touch in the first half and running off the ball was very poor.[/quote]
Sorry but how was McLeod "awful" in the first half, ok he wasn't brilliant but he wasn't bad either, some people are just never happy! Also I can totally understand taking the shirt off he's had to work hard to get his chances so there is a lot of emotion as he's finally scoring goals for us.
[cite]Posted By: northstandsteve[/cite]christ he was awful first half but did better second,but his first touch in the first half and running off the ball was very
poor.
Sorry but how was McLeod "awful" in the first half, ok he wasn't brilliant but he wasn't bad either, some people are just never happy! Also I can totally understand taking the shirt off he's had to work hard to get his chances so there is a lot of emotion as he's finally scoring goals for us.
Taking your shirt off and getting booked for scoring your first goal in years is foregiveable, doing it again a few weeks later is not.
One more yellow card and he will be suspended, which is disgraceful considering he has only started 1 league game.
What is disgraceful is that at least three bookings have been for celebrating goals...and that's three pointless bookings.
Seemingly everytime he score, he takes his top off and gets booked. He's worked hard to get back into the team, he's just made his first start and he's now in danger of spending a match in the stands. Should Mooney or Tuna play in the game he gets suspended for and play a blinder it might be some more time before he gets another start.
As an aside, and in no way in Mcleods defence, wasn't the booked for taking your shirt off rule brought in because a naked male chest is apparently offensive to middle east TV audiences? Stupid bloody rule in itself, imo, but Mcleod a) had a vest on underneath so didn't expose his chest and b) is playing in League 1 so how many middle estern viwers will there have been?
He was always going to get booked for it, so obviously shoudn't have done it, but why does he have to get booked for it when there's absolutely bugger all wrong with it really?
As an aside, and in no way in Mcleods defence, wasn't the booked for taking your shirt off rule brought in because a naked male chest is apparently offensive to middle east TV audiences?
.............
Not as far as I know, I think it was to encourage players to show a little more restraint/respect/decorum.
"but why does he have to get booked for it when there's absolutely bugger all wrong with it really?"
Because it's in the rule book and carries a mandatory booking as a punishment, the referee doesn't make the rules, just enforces them. It is a bit of a silly rule but until it gets changed then the referee had no other option and as it was the third and maybe even the fourth time he's been cautioned for the offence this season you have to wonder about the lad's intelligence.
Lengthy but maybe of interest.
.......................
Adrian Chiles: Memo to the FA: what' so terrible about taking your shirt off?
Saturday, 4 December 2004
Something's been bothering me: why was it felt necessary to make taking your shirt off a bookable offence?
Something's been bothering me: why was it felt necessary to make taking your shirt off a bookable offence?
My first call was to the Professional Footballers' Association. Richard Jobson, an executive there, had a suggestion: "I think it probably started when Robbie Fowler had the message supporting the dockers on his vest. But now my understanding is that it's something to do with certain cultures finding the sight of the naked male torso offensive.
"It's mad, though: that goal Giggs scored in the semi-final of the cup against Arsenal - his celebration, waving the shirt above his head, will be in our memories for years to come. Now that would be a yellow card."
David Elleray refereed that match and points out that now, if Giggs had already been booked, he would have had to send him off. "And that," David says, "would have been a nonsense." Quite. "The trouble," he says, "is that applying these rules makes us look even more out of touch with the modern game than people think we are already."
"But, why is the law there? Do you have any idea?"
Again, apart from some vague recollection that it might be something to do with causing offence to some culture or other, I draw a blank.
Keith Hackett represents Premiership referees: "We saw that this law could cause confusion so we did everything we could to forewarn players and managers about it."
"But why is the law there?"
"If Fifa says that's what's to be done, that's what's to be done."
Seeing the foot soldiers of football struggle,, to obey their generals' orders brings Tennyson's words to mind: "Their's not to make reply, Their's not to reason why".
By now I'm angry on their behalf. If political slogans are the problem then book them if they've got a slogan on their vest; if time-wasting is the problem then book them for that; if they say it's down to some religious objection then I'll find you a senior representative of that religion to tell you it's tosh. But just give us an explanation.
Here's Fifa's rule: it's Law 12 (Fouls and Misconduct); Decision 6. "A player who removes his jersey when celebrating a goal must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour." But why? Explanation is there none.
I called the Football Association. "Ah yes," said the press officer happily, "I'll pass you over to our man for shirts removal." The poor man in question is one Andrin Cooper: "I'm not quite sure of the exact reason for the rule. You better ring Fifa."
An amiable cove in the press office called Nicholas took my call: "Yes, I can refer you to the laws of the game."
"Look," I said, rather sharply, "I know the rule. I just want to know why the rule is there."
"I can't explain on the phone, but I can send you a presentation including pictures." This was promising. I sensed that my holy grail was at last in sight.
"Thank you for your enquiry," read the e-mail, Our website answers your query.
But far from answering my query, this web page only has more detail on the law itself: "A player will be deemed to have removed his jersey... if the jersey has been pulled over the player's head, or if his head has been covered by the jersey..." and so on. And there's an entertaining series of pictures depicting shirt-lifting crimes of various degrees of heinousness.
I tried again: "Dear Nicholas, there's nothing on here about why the law is in place."
But Nicholas was having none of it: "Yes, this is written in the text. The Laws clearly state: 'Removing one's shirt after scoring is unnecessary and players should avoid such excessive displays of joy.' Hope this helps."
One last time: "Nicholas, your mail doesn't really clarify anything beyond stating that removal of the shirt is unnecessary. Doing back-flips isn't necessary either. Neither is it necessary to kiss your team-mates, or dance around the corner flag, or do a handstand but none of these things attract a yellow card. Why is it different for removing your shirt?"
The tone of his reply indicated that our correspondence was at an end: "The Laws of the Game are established by the International Football Association Board... The IFAB has considered the fact of removing a shirt as 'excessive'. If the other attitudes you are referring to are not mentioned here one can conclude that the IFAB do not consider them 'excessive'."
Right, I've got to speak to someone on this board, the composition of which is somewhat arcane. There are eight board members: four represent Fifa and the other four each of our home football unions. Which is bizarre, not least in that the Northern Ireland representative, for instance, has a voting weight equal to a quarter of the rest of the world. For a new rule to be passed six of the eight have to give it the nod.
The English FA's representative, John Baker, was "away in Africa". Undeterred, I tried the Scottish representative. "Yes," said Donald McVicar, "I can explain. At the 2003 Confederations Cup members of Fifa's executive committee saw a lot of shirts being removed in goal celebrations. Their opinion was that the whole matter was going over the top and they felt that something should be done about it."
"So it's not specifically to do with time-wasting?"
"No."
"Or political slogans?"
"No."
"Or religious sensibilities?"
"No. Everyone can celebrate a goal but they were taking their shirts off unnecessarily. It was getting to the stage when it was becoming ridiculous." And that's all there is to it. "I have sympathy with those who can't understand the reasoning for it," Donald said, "thinking here they go, people with blazers making decisions again. But you're talking about worldwide football from China to America to South Africa and it was felt that overall the shirt removal was getting excessive. What if someone took their shorts off?"
Excellent question, I must say. I can't find anything specific in the rules so I urge footballers to give it a whirl this weekend. Then we can sort out a ruling on it at the next board meeting.
[cite]Posted By: stilladdicted[/cite]Lengthy but maybe of interest.
.......................
"......... it was felt that overall the shirt removal was getting excessive. What if someone took their shorts off?"
Excellent question, I must say. I can't find anything specific in the rules so I urge footballers to give it a whirl this weekend. Then we can sort out a ruling on it at the next board meeting.
Excellent research, SA.
So the law states that you will be cautioned for removing your shirt.
But there is no law to say you will be booked for removing your shorts.
So there's your answer, Izale ........ next time you score, leave your shirt on.
But it'll be okay to twirl your shorts above your head!!
OGGY - So you want me to 'knock it on the head', and then tell me I am entitled to my opinion!! Thanks for telling me what I can do!!! This is a forum, unlucky that you dont agree with me but there you go.
Anyway back to McClown, Confidence or no confidence the bloke is terrible, his positional play is poor and link up lay non existent, he has no first touch, his goal was a simple finish that any pro striker should have got on target, his misses are unacceptable at any level, he is paid to put the ball in the net, he fluked his goal against Barnet FFS. I am not a fan of Dicko as a loan striker however, and have said that all the while we are playing 451 Dicko should not be in the team, but when we play 442 he should be ahead of the Clown, given the chances that Izale has had Dicko would have buried them, he scores goals for fun at this level. I know that he wont play for us again I just think he have at least 1 striker better than the Clown at the club albeit on loan. IMHO.
[cite]Posted By: bibble[/cite]OGGY - So you want me to 'knock it on the head', and then tell me I am entitled to my opinion!! Thanks for telling me what I can do!!! This is a forum, unlucky that you dont agree with me but there you go.
Anyway back to McClown, Confidence or no confidence the bloke is terrible, his positional play is poor and link up lay non existent, he has no first touch, his goal was a simple finish that any pro striker should have got on target, his misses are unacceptable at any level, he is paid to put the ball in the net, he fluked his goal against Barnet FFS. I am not a fan of Dicko as a loan striker however, and have said that all the while we are playing 451 Dicko should not be in the team, but when we play 442 he should be ahead of the Clown, given the chances that Izale has had Dicko would have buried them, he scores goals for fun at this level. I know that he wont play for us again I just think he have at least 1 striker better than the Clown at the club albeit on loan.
IMHO.
He is woeful. I'd have him as 4th choice now behind Burton, McKenzie and Mooney. Also likely to cop a 3 match ban for that elbow as well.
At best he can be used as a sub in home games if we\re chasing a goal and need to stretch a defence. but i think Mooney deserves a run out ahead of him.
Its my fault, I always thought Roomedahl would come good for us, I always thought Ambrose would come good for us, I think McCleod will come good for us --- sorry :-(
[cite]Posted By: Barn Door Varney[/cite]Why this thread has been dug up following todays performance I don't know. Strikers need service, what service did Mcleod get today?
It was a poor team performance. Scapegoating Mcleod is ridiculous. He went off and we were still shit!
No, Mckenzie and Burton looked more dangerous than him within 1 minute of coming on.
Comments
"Charlton striker Izale McLeod seemed more interested in throwing himself around on the floor than playing football and had a penalty claim turned down by the referee after running into the back of Nathan Clarke."
poor.[/quote]
Sorry but how was McLeod "awful" in the first half, ok he wasn't brilliant but he wasn't bad either, some people are just never happy! Also I can totally understand taking the shirt off he's had to work hard to get his chances so there is a lot of emotion as he's finally scoring goals for us.
Taking your shirt off and getting booked for scoring your first goal in years is foregiveable, doing it again a few weeks later is not.
One more yellow card and he will be suspended, which is disgraceful considering he has only started 1 league game.
Seemingly everytime he score, he takes his top off and gets booked. He's worked hard to get back into the team, he's just made his first start and he's now in danger of spending a match in the stands. Should Mooney or Tuna play in the game he gets suspended for and play a blinder it might be some more time before he gets another start.
He was always going to get booked for it, so obviously shoudn't have done it, but why does he have to get booked for it when there's absolutely bugger all wrong with it really?
So does Parky, who straight after the match made a barely disguised comment that McLeod's in hot water.
If Parky's already said he's on the case, we can now all get off our high horse.
Or is it more fun to continually diss the player ?
.............
Not as far as I know, I think it was to encourage players to show a little more restraint/respect/decorum.
"but why does he have to get booked for it when there's absolutely bugger all wrong with it really?"
Because it's in the rule book and carries a mandatory booking as a punishment, the referee doesn't make the rules, just enforces them. It is a bit of a silly rule but until it gets changed then the referee had no other option and as it was the third and maybe even the fourth time he's been cautioned for the offence this season you have to wonder about the lad's intelligence.
.......................
Adrian Chiles: Memo to the FA: what' so terrible about taking your shirt off?
Saturday, 4 December 2004
Something's been bothering me: why was it felt necessary to make taking your shirt off a bookable offence?
Something's been bothering me: why was it felt necessary to make taking your shirt off a bookable offence?
My first call was to the Professional Footballers' Association. Richard Jobson, an executive there, had a suggestion: "I think it probably started when Robbie Fowler had the message supporting the dockers on his vest. But now my understanding is that it's something to do with certain cultures finding the sight of the naked male torso offensive.
"It's mad, though: that goal Giggs scored in the semi-final of the cup against Arsenal - his celebration, waving the shirt above his head, will be in our memories for years to come. Now that would be a yellow card."
David Elleray refereed that match and points out that now, if Giggs had already been booked, he would have had to send him off. "And that," David says, "would have been a nonsense." Quite. "The trouble," he says, "is that applying these rules makes us look even more out of touch with the modern game than people think we are already."
"But, why is the law there? Do you have any idea?"
Again, apart from some vague recollection that it might be something to do with causing offence to some culture or other, I draw a blank.
Keith Hackett represents Premiership referees: "We saw that this law could cause confusion so we did everything we could to forewarn players and managers about it."
"But why is the law there?"
"If Fifa says that's what's to be done, that's what's to be done."
Seeing the foot soldiers of football struggle,, to obey their generals' orders brings Tennyson's words to mind: "Their's not to make reply, Their's not to reason why".
By now I'm angry on their behalf. If political slogans are the problem then book them if they've got a slogan on their vest; if time-wasting is the problem then book them for that; if they say it's down to some religious objection then I'll find you a senior representative of that religion to tell you it's tosh. But just give us an explanation.
Here's Fifa's rule: it's Law 12 (Fouls and Misconduct); Decision 6. "A player who removes his jersey when celebrating a goal must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour." But why? Explanation is there none.
I called the Football Association. "Ah yes," said the press officer happily, "I'll pass you over to our man for shirts removal." The poor man in question is one Andrin Cooper: "I'm not quite sure of the exact reason for the rule. You better ring Fifa."
An amiable cove in the press office called Nicholas took my call: "Yes, I can refer you to the laws of the game."
"Look," I said, rather sharply, "I know the rule. I just want to know why the rule is there."
"I can't explain on the phone, but I can send you a presentation including pictures." This was promising. I sensed that my holy grail was at last in sight.
"Thank you for your enquiry," read the e-mail, Our website answers your query.
But far from answering my query, this web page only has more detail on the law itself: "A player will be deemed to have removed his jersey... if the jersey has been pulled over the player's head, or if his head has been covered by the jersey..." and so on. And there's an entertaining series of pictures depicting shirt-lifting crimes of various degrees of heinousness.
I tried again: "Dear Nicholas, there's nothing on here about why the law is in place."
But Nicholas was having none of it: "Yes, this is written in the text. The Laws clearly state: 'Removing one's shirt after scoring is unnecessary and players should avoid such excessive displays of joy.' Hope this helps."
One last time: "Nicholas, your mail doesn't really clarify anything beyond stating that removal of the shirt is unnecessary. Doing back-flips isn't necessary either. Neither is it necessary to kiss your team-mates, or dance around the corner flag, or do a handstand but none of these things attract a yellow card. Why is it different for removing your shirt?"
The tone of his reply indicated that our correspondence was at an end: "The Laws of the Game are established by the International Football Association Board... The IFAB has considered the fact of removing a shirt as 'excessive'. If the other attitudes you are referring to are not mentioned here one can conclude that the IFAB do not consider them 'excessive'."
Right, I've got to speak to someone on this board, the composition of which is somewhat arcane. There are eight board members: four represent Fifa and the other four each of our home football unions. Which is bizarre, not least in that the Northern Ireland representative, for instance, has a voting weight equal to a quarter of the rest of the world. For a new rule to be passed six of the eight have to give it the nod.
The English FA's representative, John Baker, was "away in Africa". Undeterred, I tried the Scottish representative. "Yes," said Donald McVicar, "I can explain. At the 2003 Confederations Cup members of Fifa's executive committee saw a lot of shirts being removed in goal celebrations. Their opinion was that the whole matter was going over the top and they felt that something should be done about it."
"So it's not specifically to do with time-wasting?"
"No."
"Or political slogans?"
"No."
"Or religious sensibilities?"
"No. Everyone can celebrate a goal but they were taking their shirts off unnecessarily. It was getting to the stage when it was becoming ridiculous." And that's all there is to it. "I have sympathy with those who can't understand the reasoning for it," Donald said, "thinking here they go, people with blazers making decisions again. But you're talking about worldwide football from China to America to South Africa and it was felt that overall the shirt removal was getting excessive. What if someone took their shorts off?"
Excellent question, I must say. I can't find anything specific in the rules so I urge footballers to give it a whirl this weekend. Then we can sort out a ruling on it at the next board meeting.
Excellent research, SA.
So the law states that you will be cautioned for removing your shirt.
But there is no law to say you will be booked for removing your shorts.
So there's your answer, Izale ........ next time you score, leave your shirt on.
But it'll be okay to twirl your shorts above your head!!
Anyway back to McClown, Confidence or no confidence the bloke is terrible, his positional play is poor and link up lay non existent, he has no first touch, his goal was a simple finish that any pro striker should have got on target, his misses are unacceptable at any level, he is paid to put the ball in the net, he fluked his goal against Barnet FFS. I am not a fan of Dicko as a loan striker however, and have said that all the while we are playing 451 Dicko should not be in the team, but when we play 442 he should be ahead of the Clown, given the chances that Izale has had Dicko would have buried them, he scores goals for fun at this level. I know that he wont play for us again I just think he have at least 1 striker better than the Clown at the club albeit on loan.
IMHO.
Well, if Izzy keeps on scoring, we will find out soon enough.
Obviously can't play with Shelvey but each game I see him I find nothing to be impressed about. Even when he scores I'm not convinced by him.
More problems than McLeod today but we need better than him up front.
At best he can be used as a sub in home games if we\re chasing a goal and need to stretch a defence. but i think Mooney deserves a run out ahead of him.
McCleod is a silly striker!
The only thing he did was forearm smash their bloke in the face for no apparent reason ??? WTF.
That will be a 3 match ban for violent conduct I think.
But whoever we sell him to will make a player out of him somehow. 'Tis always the way for some reason
It was a poor team performance. Scapegoating Mcleod is ridiculous. He went off and we were still shit!
No, Mckenzie and Burton looked more dangerous than him within 1 minute of coming on.
and hes obviously rubbish......
the game agains thte dons on Saturday is huge and will signify what is to come......
Coem on Parky earn your money.......
I have.
I thought he was hopeless, now I now he is total total rubbish !!!!!
Nope