Second Captains Part II

Yeah would love more random sports stuff from the pod. Would also listen to ken make his shopping list each week.

Ken's discussion with Murph about Kilmacud-Crokes fielding an extra player was pure gold. He was obviously trying to wind-up Murph, but he also made valid points as well.

His accent makes him very hard to listen to

I do rate David Syned for his LOI contributions but he went down in my estimations for claiming other users tweets as his own

Agreed. It was the main thing I put in my survey as their boxing coverage is so good, they just don't do much of it.

Gordon Darzzzzzzzzz

......

Shoite I've missed my stop

I think it's a love it or hate it sort of song. Can't handle it myself, the singer's tone of voice just cuts right through my nerves, so it's always a +30 button mash from me!

Sound levels all over the place again today.

Perhaps before sending out surveys on improving the show they could get the basic fundamentals right.

Maybe I'm getting deaf in my old age but I can't say I've noticed anything really about the sound levels.

The audiobed at the end was noticeably loud. Overall I don’t see it as anything major as an issue with the show

Murph: "I just find my own reaction to this fascinating." No surprise he featured so much on egomaniacs.

Yep terrible again yesterday, the interviews were low but the "links" in between them were barely audible, the audiobeds were at a normal level but sounded way too loud because the rest was so poor

This might sound harsh, but I've been listening back to the isolating podcasts over the okay while, and the quality dropped when Doddles went back to Dublin for lockdown 2. The jingley/fun elements added in weren't as good. Just noticed he said that Simon was producing it (Mark did series 1 from Achill). Simon has been on a few times over the past little bit, maybe he's producing more at the moment and that's where the drop in quality comes from?

There actually is plenty of language in the rulebook to prohibit this sort of challenge (and I think it's fairly easy to argue that there is at very least a clear lack of consideration for an opponent, and a disregard for the danger to an opponant);

• "A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force",

It provides a list of these types of challenges, including; "charges" and "jumps at". And also specifies that; "Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution", "Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned", "Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off"

By the rules, it would seem at least a yellow should have been the decision, and imo would be very difficult to argue against.

(would also disagree with your reading of the Ken/Eoin interaction... didn't sound miffed to me, just sounded like a regular interaction, with a reasonable answer. It also sounded like Eoin agreed with Ken).

It’s in the rules that getting the ball at all costs is not acceptable. I agree excessive force is harder to argue, in that his maximum pace was needed to get to the ball. But it’s clearly reckless, in that his only consideration was getting the ball, even when it was clear he would absolutely smash his opponent - significantly enough to see the fella have to leave the game with a concussion.

yeah, got absolutely none of the ‘miffed’ aspect from their chat tbh.

Can’t say I particularly disagree with his broader point too… we’re seeing more challenges where someone doesn’t touch the ball let go. Prior to this new shift, we had ~10 years of knowing what a foul was. The change to let things go (but paradoxically pull them back if someone scores in the next minute) just wasn’t needed. And given the numbers of matches played now, and the ever increasing numbers of injuries from wear and tear right across the league, it’s not helpful for anyone.

If it’s deemed reckless for a player to run at full pace which is all pope basically done then I think football is putting themselves in a tricky position in terms of making that reckless play in the rules.

the exchange between Eoin and Ken (and murph) went like this. Eoin asked Ken if the clash came between two other players out the field with no GK involved would he still deem the pope challenge as a problem (forget his exact phrase). Ken doesn’t understand the question and murph interjects with a minute or two of pure murph waffle where his point is that GKs have to be subject to different rules because they haven’t the technical or athletic balance capacity of outfield players. Try putting that in a book of rules. Moving on from that eye rolling point, Eoin puts the original question to ken and then sheepishly (and I’m not really having anyone say it isn’t sheepish) says “ just trying to tease it out”. It sounds like Eoin says that in reaction to a grimace or some non verbal reaction but that’s strictly what I’m hearing. Ken then bluffs his response by saying we “ don’t want to see players taken off with concussion”. that’s about it as i heard it

i agree we don’t want to see players off with concussion. If that means players aren’t allowed to run at full speed in certain situations as Ken’s point basically implies them again I think you’re talking about a fundamental change in the game. A fundamental and slightly bizarre change to the game.

as for not knowing what is a foul anymore, nah I don’t agree. Pre VAR or Let it flow was a far worst period in knowing what a foul was in my opinion. People have moaned about the refs and the rules for 30 or so years since sky tv started. Not much has changed.

in the aftermath of the Harvey Elliot broken leg, Ken’s hypothesis was this was a natural consequence of let it flow but the year plus since has been quiet in terms of serious injuries inflicted by tackles in the premier (van der beek and doherty being two exceptions) . And overall soccer and serious injuries are not very conjoined. Jiminez and Ryan mason were two atrocious injuries but complete mishaps that could only be taken out of the game by not allowing players to challenge for an aerial ball.

as I said Ken’s squeamishness about physical contact in soccer is to me, a load of hot air that is affecting my enjoyment of the podcast when Ken gets on his high horse about it. He ignores or can’t process through a lack of perspective the absolute gallons of play acting and injury faking most premier leagues serve up.

just expressing it here as it’s got to the stage where a bit of pushback and debate is helpful

I’d like to see the incident, If a knee is raised then you’re definitely in the realm of recklessness

popes knee wasn’t raised. His chest made contact with djenepo. You can’t “extend” your chest or hide it away. It’s just there. If you think GKs get away with stuff like this then I would say that in this incident if there’s 2 outfield players involved in this clash in the middle of the pitch I don’t see it being anything other than an accepted clash for the ball .

I think since it’s a gk involved and it’s a incident near the goal it’s unjustly getting upgraded even though the rules are the same in what constitutes a foul in all parts of the pitch

The Southampton player went off with concussion. No play acting going on

I notice a creeping increase in players waving imaginary cards recently. They need to get on top of that.