[gwnn]

Codo, on Jul 5 2010, 02:23 PM, said:

But they do not wish to introduce new technics without checking. They checked the chip in the ball, they checked 2 more refs. It was just not convincing so far.

Did they? I know they put two referees behind the goals in the Europa League but I don't know what the conclusions were. Anyway, have they ever tried the chips in the ball? If so, what constituted the arguments against it?

"Last game there were no contested goal-line decisions, so the chips were unconvincing" ?

[Phil]

TimG, on Jul 5 2010, 07:02 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 5 2010, 01:09 AM, said:

They need a rule like bridge has that says you can't intentionally break a rule simply because you are willing to accept the penalty.

They need one of these in basketball too in order to prevent the intentional fouling that so often occurs at the end of the game and seems to make the final 1:00 of some game time last longer than entire quarters.

Disagree. Basketball already has goatending when the ball is in the cylinder. This is the same as Suarez' violation when the ball was at point blank range.

A flagrant foul when shooting is akin to a hockey player getting hooked (or a soccer player getting fouled) when he's on a breakaway. Neither player has actually scored yet, but they should get another fair opportunity.

Haven't checked in on any soccer threads but this handball rule is very strange. Where is the restoration of equity? As Josh said, bridge players are used to this.

Sitting out the next match is an odd penalty. Some might say its harsh, but it doesn't seem congruent with the actual penalty. I know of no other sport where you get to miss another game - suspensions leveled by hockey and basketball don't count in my mind; they are given by the league and they are not proscribed like soccer.

[pooltuna]

Cascade, on Jul 5 2010, 12:47 AM, said:

A penalty kick and a red card seems an insufficient penalty to pay for a deliberate handball that stopped a certain goal.

Having said that if that is the rule then the player must weigh up the risk and reward. So it is hard to criticize his actions on that basis.

I think the rule is a bad rule so my critcism go with the rule makers.

yes I think the rule should be sufficiently harsh that the players not only see no advantage to doing it but a significant disadvantage....IMO a penalty like automatic goal score seems to fit my definition.

[hotShot]

pooltuna, on Jul 5 2010, 05:32 PM, said:

IMO a penalty like automatic goal score seems to fit my definition.

Also the balls weight is between 410 and 450 gr. (when dry) it can reach up to 130 km/h (80 mph).
This text explains why a soccer ball hits you harder than a baseball or puck.

Projectile weight  tops speed m/s Energy J
Soccer ball (kick) 430 35,6 270
Baseball (batting) 145 53,3 210
Hockey puck 170 46,7 190
Baseball (pitching) 145 44,4 140
Golf ball 46 71,1 120
Tennis ball 57 62,2 110

If you are standing on the goal line and the ball is flying towards your face or other sensitive parts of your body, you better use your hand to protect yourself.
The rules allow that.
The rules also state that if you are hit by the ball at your hand, this is no problem.

The book by Metin Tolan (Prof. of Physics Univiversity Dortmund Germany) title "So werden wir Weltmeister" subtitle: Die Physik des Fußballspiels explains that the contact time is only 0,008 sec. and that a humans visual processing needs a visual impression of more than 0,05 sec. to see what's actually going on.

So the rule contributes to the fact the referee might have gotten a wrong impression of the players intentions.

[kfay]

Phil, on Jul 5 2010, 11:21 AM, said:

TimG, on Jul 5 2010, 07:02 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 5 2010, 01:09 AM, said:

They need a rule like bridge has that says you can't intentionally break a rule simply because you are willing to accept the penalty.

They need one of these in basketball too in order to prevent the intentional fouling that so often occurs at the end of the game and seems to make the final 1:00 of some game time last longer than entire quarters.

Disagree. Basketball already has goatending when the ball is in the cylinder. This is the same as Suarez' violation when the ball was at point blank range.

A flagrant foul when shooting is akin to a hockey player getting hooked (or a soccer player getting fouled) when he's on a breakaway. Neither player has actually scored yet, but they should get another fair opportunity.

Haven't checked in on any soccer threads but this handball rule is very strange. Where is the restoration of equity? As Josh said, bridge players are used to this.

Sitting out the next match is an odd penalty. Some might say its harsh, but it doesn't seem congruent with the actual penalty. I know of no other sport where you get to miss another game - suspensions leveled by hockey and basketball don't count in my mind; they are given by the league and they are not proscribed like soccer.

Isn't a game misconduct accompanied by a suspension for the next game?

[gwnn]

hotShot, just wondering, is there a good reason why in these sorts of comparative tables they use the kinetic energy instead of momentum? For me it's unclear which is most representative to the pain caused. I mean one is force*distance, the other one is force*time.

[kfay]

gwnn, on Jul 5 2010, 01:00 PM, said:

hotShot, just wondering, is there a good reason why in these sorts of comparative tables they use the kinetic energy instead of momentum? For me it's unclear which is most representative to the pain caused. I mean one is force*distance, the other one is force*time.

Furthermore, why aren't we taking into account size and hardness?

Sure a baseball has less energy, but it impacts you on a much smaller area of your body --> greater pressure.

Also, it is not inflatable, nor as pliable. So the impulse is much greater as well.

[hotShot]

gwnn, on Jul 5 2010, 07:00 PM, said:

hotShot, just wondering, is there a good reason why in these sorts of comparative tables they use the kinetic energy instead of momentum? For me it's unclear which is most representative to the pain caused. I mean one is force*distance, the other one is force*time.

My physics professor, made someone shot a bullet into a beer can filled with water.
(For the joy of one student he needed a volunteer to get rid of the beer first...)
The can was ripped to pieces and he explained that the water did not have enough time move out of the way so it had to absorb most of the energy. And that energy was used to deform the can.

I guess when a projectile hits your face the deformation has to correlate with the energy transfered.

But feel free to ask someone who is more competent in physics than me.....

[hotShot]

kfay, on Jul 5 2010, 07:37 PM, said:

gwnn, on Jul 5 2010, 01:00 PM, said:

hotShot, just wondering, is there a good reason why in these sorts of comparative tables they use the kinetic energy instead of momentum? For me it's unclear which is most representative to the pain caused.  I mean one is force*distance, the other one is force*time.

Furthermore, why aren't we taking into account size and hardness?

Sure a baseball has less energy, but it impacts you on a much smaller area of your body --> greater pressure.

Also, it is not inflatable, nor as pliable. So the impulse is much greater as well.

You are right these are also factors to determine the damage.

Although I would have liked to find data to compare a soccer ball to a boxing glove.

[matmat]

hotShot, on Jul 5 2010, 01:41 PM, said:

gwnn, on Jul 5 2010, 07:00 PM, said:

hotShot, just wondering, is there a good reason why in these sorts of comparative tables they use the kinetic energy instead of momentum? For me it's unclear which is most representative to the pain caused.  I mean one is force*distance, the other one is force*time.

My physics professor, made someone shot a bullet into a beer can filled with water.
(For the joy of one student he needed a volunteer to get rid of the beer first...)
The can was ripped to pieces and he explained that the water did not have enough time move out of the way so it had to absorb most of the energy. And that energy was used to deform the can.

I guess when a projectile hits your face the deformation has to correlate with the energy transfered.

But feel free to ask someone who is more competent in physics than me.....

Tell me, did you read the text or did you just look at the kinetic energy table?

he discusses projectile size and elasticity as factors that need to be included in thinking about damage to the body...

gwnn and kfay are onto something...

if a 200lb (~100kg) man jogs into you at a normal pace of 5mi/h (8km/h), the kinetic energy you just experienced is 250J of energy (whatever the hell that means)... do you think that will do as much damage as a hockey puck launched at 100mph at your skull?

[Gerben42]

Quote

A penalty kick and a red card seems an insufficient penalty to pay for a deliberate handball that stopped a certain goal.

Having said that if that is the rule then the player must weigh up the risk and reward. So it is hard to criticize his actions on that basis.

I think the rule is a bad rule so my criticism go with the rule makers.

Funny, a commentator meant that when the goalie fouled a player who was just about to shoot on the goal, the penalty kick should be enough penalty and a red card for the goalie was over-the-top. The same penalty, but perhaps two different situations?

But I agree one should be able to give a penalty goal in cases like this.

[Cascade]

Free, on Jul 6 2010, 02:07 AM, said:

For example you score a penalty but your team mates run in the 16 before you shoot: you have to retake the penalty. Teammates running in the 16 is irrelevant to the fact that you beat the goal keeper. However, if you'd miss the penalty and your team mates score the rebound, the goal shouldn't count.

Disagree.

A penalty is a one on one event. The fact that half a dozen other guys are running at the goal keeper changes the dynamic and at the very least could cause a distraction.

[Cascade]

pooltuna, on Jul 6 2010, 04:32 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 5 2010, 12:47 AM, said:

A penalty kick and a red card seems an insufficient penalty to pay for a deliberate handball that stopped a certain goal.

Having said that if that is the rule then the player must weigh up the risk and reward. So it is hard to criticize his actions on that basis.

I think the rule is a bad rule so my critcism go with the rule makers.

yes I think the rule should be sufficiently harsh that the players not only see no advantage to doing it but a significant disadvantage....IMO a penalty like automatic goal score seems to fit my definition.

In bridge terms this is not a penalty this is merely restoring equity when the goal was imminent.

[hotShot]

matmat, on Jul 5 2010, 08:00 PM, said:

he discusses projectile size and elasticity as factors that need to be included in thinking about damage to the body...

Yes he did, but I did not.

I illustrated that it is a good idea, and legal by the rules of soccer, to protect yourself using your hand.

And I suggested that the rules tries to compensate for the fact that no referee can always make the right decision in such a situation.

Later I tried to give an example why energy and not momentum is used.
I hope that it was conclusive.

[matmat]

duplicate...

[matmat]

matmat, on Jul 5 2010, 02:58 PM, said:

hotShot, on Jul 5 2010, 02:48 PM, said:

Later I tried to give an example why energy and not momentum is used.
I hope that it was conclusive.

not really... in fact, not at all.

you are trying to compare an incompressible fluid (water) inside a rigid container with a compressible fluid (air) inside an elastic shell.

[hotShot]

matmat, on Jul 5 2010, 08:59 PM, said:

matmat, on Jul 5 2010, 02:58 PM, said:

hotShot, on Jul 5 2010, 02:48 PM, said:

Later I tried to give an example why energy and not momentum is used.
I hope that it was conclusive.

not really... in fact, not at all.

you are trying to compare an incompressible fluid (water) inside a rigid container with a compressible fluid (air) inside an elastic shell.

Damn, it was such a memorable lecture.

[Fluffy]

talking about breaking rules, I don't understand why if there are players worth 100 million € there aren't people willing to bounty on them so that if a substitute player in his thirties breaks his knee into tiny pieces so he's got to retire forever he gets some millions reward.

[gwnn]

hotShot, on Jul 5 2010, 07:48 PM, said:

matmat, on Jul 5 2010, 08:00 PM, said:

he discusses projectile size and elasticity as factors that need to be included in thinking about damage to the body...

Yes he did, but I did not.

I illustrated that it is a good idea, and legal by the rules of soccer, to protect yourself using your hand.

And I suggested that the rules tries to compensate for the fact that no referee can always make the right decision in such a situation.

Later I tried to give an example why energy and not momentum is used.
I hope that it was conclusive.

Sorry but it just sounds to me like "because your physics professor said so, it's true." I don't see any way in which he explained his reasoning. What would happen if someone had just said:

hypothetical other professor said:

The can was ripped to pieces and he explained that the water did not have enough time move out of the way so it had to absorb most of the energy momentum. And that energy momentum was used to deform the can.

[hotShot]

gwnn, on Jul 6 2010, 01:10 AM, said:

Sorry but it just sounds to me like "because your physics professor said so, it's true." I don't see any way in which he explained his reasoning. What would happen if someone had just said:

hypothetical other professor said:

The can was ripped to pieces and he explained that the water did not have enough time move out of the way so it had to absorb most of the energy momentum. And that energy momentum was used to deform the can.

Don't expect more physics from me, didn't you read I tried to compare an incompressible fluid (water) inside a container (human body) with a compressible fluid (air) inside an elastic shell (ball).