It's not wrong, it's football, it's sport and it's life. Some things go your way, some don't.
Take all video technology out of sport.
....unless it's a photo proving your horse nicked it on the line in the Cheltenham gold cup. Or would you be happy with a race stewards naked eye saying the other horse won? After all, some things go your way. Some don't.
Would suit me fine. I think if you are actually on the line in a race, be it human or animal, you call it correct 998/1002.
10 months to reply. Perhaps Riviera would prefer doing this by letters
If other people took their time to make a considered reply we wouldn't have so many rows on here.
Hawkeye works as it not intrusive, doesn't stop the flow of the game, and the players trust it, stopping for decisions during a game is far far more complex and I can't see it happening soon.
I would just give each manager one challenge a game, if they are correct then they get it back but if wrong they have lost it for the rest of the match.
Should stop managers using it on silly minor decisions but mean we won't see so many games decided by a mistake from the officials.
I reckon if any kind of video technology/review system is brought it, there would be a season or two where the game flows a lot worse as play is halted for a length of time more often, but then players and managers would adapt to it (for example, far less diving and far less hacking) as there will no place for cheats to hide so they might as well not bother and play would return to normal.
I don't think it will ever be the kind of stop-start that people seem to fear it will be. It does not even work like that in rugby - the video review is only used if the referee does not get a good enough view of a potential try/drop goal/illegal move and play has come to a stop by any other means (a ref never stops play purely to force a video review). Plus we already allow play to stop for five or ten minutes at a time for far worse reasons, such as fan trouble or players feigning injury/play-acting. Granted it does not happen that often but to be fair TMO decisions in rugby hardly ever take more than a minute to resolve and refs do not refer to the TMO that often. It only seems to be for big games (6 Nations, cup finals etc.) where refs tend to refer to TMO more often because the match is more important - league games hardly ever seem TMO referrals.
The fact is if we brought in TMO for dives/penalties and we made it an instant red card for any clear dive or straight yellow for play-acting/going to ground too easily, we'd stamp out professional football's most embarrassing problem.
I would just give each manager one challenge a game, if they are correct then they get it back but if wrong they have lost it for the rest of the match.
Should stop managers using it on silly minor decisions but mean we won't see so many games decided by a mistake from the officials.
I bet if they brought this rule in, Man U, Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal would be allowed 3 challenges.
If they had one challenge per game it could only be in a situation where the game had stopped. Things like a goal has been given but the player was potentially offside. Or a foul has been given and a player carded but the manager thinks there was a dive. Would be very selective
Suppose a player is through on goal and whistled offside. The video replay proves he/she was onside. What happens next?
Maybe there is some way the game can be restarted with the players in their original positions like in snooker.
No one has really come up with a system of video replays which would be fair and does not undermine the referee to the extent where he will stop blowing his whistle for fear that he will be overruled!
Suppose a player is through on goal and whistled offside. The video replay proves he/she was onside. What happens next?
Maybe there is some way the game can be restarted with the players in their original positions like in snooker.
No one has really come up with a system of video replays which would be fair and does not undermine the referee to the extent where he will stop blowing his whistle for fear that he will be overruled!
In rugby, offside calls are only reviewed if a try or drop goal is being reviewed. I imagine if a linesman calls offside then there is no review available.
The point of video reviews, in rugby at least, is to ensure that any possible illegal actions (such as high tackles or dangerous play) or any scores are correctly noted - officiating errors are not reviewed independently of these. The good thing about video reviews is that linesmen will leave 50/50 decisions (ie they won't flag them) and if it does result in a goal, the decision can then be reviewed. I guess this is what will happen in football as well.
Personally I think the offside rule is not being applied in the spirit of the original rule. The original rule was to stop players taking up offside positions, and the current rule works to this effect. However, it is being officiated very poorly, with most controversy surrounding players who are in an offside position but not in play, or whether a player had crept offside in the split second before the pass was made (50/50 decisions) - I think linos need to be a bit more liberal with this - unless the player is deliberately and obviously offside before the ball is played, then play on. The onus should on the defender to ensure they can track back in time to stop an attacker, not whether they can manipulate their position and then rely on the lino to call it in their favour. Obviously that will never happen so the next best thing would be to introduce the video review for potentially offside goals and takes the linesman out of the equation (who would only flag if the attacker is obviously offside).
(also, I understand that this is not the only issue with the offside rule, since the problem with last night's goal is that none of the officials seem to actually understand the change in the rule...in which case they should be all be suspended until they have grasped it).
On the Liverpool thread we have at least one person agreeing with the decision to disallow the Cherries goal, even if most don't. If that person happens to be the fourth official, you lot are screaming even louder...
Divers and play actors can be done in retrospect, 6 match ban.
Last year a rugby match stopped for 13 minutes while they looked at a try from every angle about twenty times
Fiiish mentions breaks in play for fan trouble - clutching at 30 year old straws there old bean...
And I like that the game is more or less exactly the same (bar goal line technology) from the world cup final down to the Greenwich and district under 11 cubs league.
Even though it annoys me that big clubs get more decisions in their favour, leave it alone - what would we have to discuss if every decision was perfect?
A match was stopped on the continent because someone threw a coin at someone on the pitch last week, and if you think crowd problems don't stop a game in modern England, Millwall and Blackpool both had matches stopped in the last year thanks to the fans. Plus the occasional streaker (granted a streaker only causes 2 minutes at most of stoppage but it still happens). Shove your straws...
As I said before, rugby rarely has extended breaks for TMO and and usually this is reserved for important games.
I'm not saying that video reviews need to be introduced or that they're a good idea, but the argument that they will break up play too often or ruin the flow of the game simply is not true, and the game would adapt accordingly to the change if it was introduced.
I don't really wanna repeat what I said, just look through my previous posts, the only people who will need to adapt their game are the play actors, divers, naughty managers and other cheats who are currently a scourge on the game. Honest players will have nothing to fear.
Simply for me, Football is a sport, so if technology exists that stops so many games being decided by understandable human error on the part of the officials without slowing the game down anymore then it currently does(which from everything i have read it would not) then it needs to be used.
The fact is if we brought in TMO for dives/penalties and we made it an instant red card for any clear dive or straight yellow for play-acting/going to ground too easily, we'd stamp out professional football's most embarrassing problem.
How would in-match video evidence stamp out racism?
The fact is if we brought in TMO for dives/penalties and we made it an instant red card for any clear dive or straight yellow for play-acting/going to ground too easily, we'd stamp out professional football's most embarrassing problem.
How would in-match video evidence stamp out racism?
It wouldn't. That isn't specifically a problem with professional football, it is a problem with the human race.
In rugby, generally the ref will ask the TMO 'Is there any reason why I should not award the try?'
I do not believe that technology should be used for things like fouls or simulation, or anything other than 'Is there any reason why I should not award the goal'. And goal line technology already covers whether or not the ball was over the line.
So on Monday, Liverpool's goal would have been disallowed within a minute at most by the TMO responding to the ref's direct question by saying 'No you should not award the goal - player x was active and attempted to play the ball whilst in an offside position.
This would happen on average 2-3 times in each game and would not affect the flow of play as it would only be used when the ball entered the goal.
bobmunro - In rugby the TMO is also referred to if there was believed to be any foul play that could have obstructed a try, in which case a penalty try can be awarded. Naturally this could be the case for penalties in football as well.
bobmunro - In rugby the TMO is also referred to if there was believed to be any foul play that could have obstructed a try, in which case a penalty try can be awarded. Naturally this could be the case for penalties in football as well.
Yes I know which is why I said 'generally' and 'is there any reason I should not award a try' is the most often used request.
But I wouldn't include those other requests in football and would leave it up to the referee and assistants on the field of play. I would only use 'reviews' for goals.
Aren't diving/penalties the main reason why people want video reviews? Bad offside calls are generally few and far between and the Liverpool match the other night seemed to mired more by the fact none of the officials knew the new rules more than they did not see that it was offside.
I see something on sky sports news the other day about the new offside rule and they said that in Holland they were trialling some sort of TV ref thing but didn't mention what ?? Any ideas
And what about the disallowed "goal" from Bournemouth? As I stated earlier, most people think the decision was wrong, but some don't. If the bloke watching the telly thinks the decision was correct most of you technophiles will be howling even louder and longer... It will still be a human making the decision.
Having gone back to look at Bournemouth's disallowed goal, don't think technology is needed there. Is grabbing another player whilst the heading the ball a foul? If it was a Liverpool player doing it to a Bournemouth player no one would be complaining if it was disallowed (except the bedwetting bindippers of course).
Shit refereeing decisions are part of the game and sometimes the only thing worth discussing.
They should not bring any video technology into the game in my opinion.
It would no doubt become prohibitively expensive to apply for some teams anyway and we would be left with yet another 'gap' between top and lower leagues.
Shit refereeing decisions are part of the game and sometimes the only thing worth discussing.
They should not bring any video technology into the game in my opinion.
It would no doubt become prohibitively expensive to apply for some teams anyway and we would be left with yet another 'gap' between top and lower leagues.
This is mainly my reasoning. There is so much money and interest in the Premier League that there will always be calls to introduce video replays at the top level and for the big international competitions. The quality of officials though lower than Premier League and world class is so shocking that there is simply no need, refs tend to get decisions wrong left right and centre with a clear view of it, usually because they don't know the rules, even if you showed them an incident over and over again, and since it would only get introduced for goals/penalties anyway, I imagine very few results would change at any level lower than the top tier anyway if video reviews were brought in. As some people have already stated, bad refereeing is a part of the game now and gives you something to moan about if you lose.
So after last night - anyone feel that it really should be put into place. What a joke.
Its because of last night the governing bodies and the big clubs don't want it. I bet there are a few people waking up this morning with bigger bank balances following last night.
Comments
Should stop managers using it on silly minor decisions but mean we won't see so many games decided by a mistake from the officials.
I don't think it will ever be the kind of stop-start that people seem to fear it will be. It does not even work like that in rugby - the video review is only used if the referee does not get a good enough view of a potential try/drop goal/illegal move and play has come to a stop by any other means (a ref never stops play purely to force a video review). Plus we already allow play to stop for five or ten minutes at a time for far worse reasons, such as fan trouble or players feigning injury/play-acting. Granted it does not happen that often but to be fair TMO decisions in rugby hardly ever take more than a minute to resolve and refs do not refer to the TMO that often. It only seems to be for big games (6 Nations, cup finals etc.) where refs tend to refer to TMO more often because the match is more important - league games hardly ever seem TMO referrals.
The fact is if we brought in TMO for dives/penalties and we made it an instant red card for any clear dive or straight yellow for play-acting/going to ground too easily, we'd stamp out professional football's most embarrassing problem.
Maybe there is some way the game can be restarted with the players in their original positions like in snooker.
No one has really come up with a system of video replays which would be fair and does not undermine the referee to the extent where he will stop blowing his whistle for fear that he will be overruled!
The point of video reviews, in rugby at least, is to ensure that any possible illegal actions (such as high tackles or dangerous play) or any scores are correctly noted - officiating errors are not reviewed independently of these. The good thing about video reviews is that linesmen will leave 50/50 decisions (ie they won't flag them) and if it does result in a goal, the decision can then be reviewed. I guess this is what will happen in football as well.
Personally I think the offside rule is not being applied in the spirit of the original rule. The original rule was to stop players taking up offside positions, and the current rule works to this effect. However, it is being officiated very poorly, with most controversy surrounding players who are in an offside position but not in play, or whether a player had crept offside in the split second before the pass was made (50/50 decisions) - I think linos need to be a bit more liberal with this - unless the player is deliberately and obviously offside before the ball is played, then play on. The onus should on the defender to ensure they can track back in time to stop an attacker, not whether they can manipulate their position and then rely on the lino to call it in their favour. Obviously that will never happen so the next best thing would be to introduce the video review for potentially offside goals and takes the linesman out of the equation (who would only flag if the attacker is obviously offside).
(also, I understand that this is not the only issue with the offside rule, since the problem with last night's goal is that none of the officials seem to actually understand the change in the rule...in which case they should be all be suspended until they have grasped it).
Divers and play actors can be done in retrospect, 6 match ban.
Last year a rugby match stopped for 13 minutes while they looked at a try from every angle about twenty times
Fiiish mentions breaks in play for fan trouble - clutching at 30 year old straws there old bean...
And I like that the game is more or less exactly the same (bar goal line technology) from the world cup final down to the Greenwich and district under 11 cubs league.
Even though it annoys me that big clubs get more decisions in their favour, leave it alone - what would we have to discuss if every decision was perfect?
As I said before, rugby rarely has extended breaks for TMO and and usually this is reserved for important games.
I'm not saying that video reviews need to be introduced or that they're a good idea, but the argument that they will break up play too often or ruin the flow of the game simply is not true, and the game would adapt accordingly to the change if it was introduced.
I do not believe that technology should be used for things like fouls or simulation, or anything other than 'Is there any reason why I should not award the goal'. And goal line technology already covers whether or not the ball was over the line.
So on Monday, Liverpool's goal would have been disallowed within a minute at most by the TMO responding to the ref's direct question by saying 'No you should not award the goal - player x was active and attempted to play the ball whilst in an offside position.
This would happen on average 2-3 times in each game and would not affect the flow of play as it would only be used when the ball entered the goal.
But I wouldn't include those other requests in football and would leave it up to the referee and assistants on the field of play. I would only use 'reviews' for goals.
They should not bring any video technology into the game in my opinion.
It would no doubt become prohibitively expensive to apply for some teams anyway and we would be left with yet another 'gap' between top and lower leagues.
Technology would stop that cash flow.