St Landrew Posted 12 November, 2009 Share Posted 12 November, 2009 Oh God!!! 'The technology in football debate.' I go to football to be entertained. And poor referees and linos provide part of that entertainment. We all spend a lot of time hurling abuse at the officials......and we love doing it. Now where would the fun be, if you had to wait for a computer to tell you if a ball crossed the line, or if a player was offside? .......please wait....loading...... Jog on! I love sh1t refs and linos....... This whole technology in football issue is for the armchair fans sat at home watching on TV.......Personally, I shall be at the game shouting at the ref, informing him to wake up or feck off! So, for example, you'd allow ManU to get away with this then: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsExRNxhAeI Oh no, I forgot that luck evens itself out over a season. Is that right..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krissyboy31 Posted 12 November, 2009 Share Posted 12 November, 2009 Oh God!!! 'The technology in football debate.' I go to football to be entertained. And poor referees and linos provide part of that entertainment. We all spend a lot of time hurling abuse at the officials......and we love doing it. Now where would the fun be, if you had to wait for a computer to tell you if a ball crossed the line, or if a player was offside? .......please wait....loading...... Jog on! I love sh1t refs and linos....... This whole technology in football issue is for the armchair fans sat at home watching on TV.......Personally, I shall be at the game shouting at the ref, informing him to wake up or feck off! Don't see why that should change, just because technology is brought in. Video Refs in rugby and the 3rd Umpire in cricket, has become part of the entertainment and it doesn't stop the crowd giving the onfield officials stick! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stardustonmyfeet Posted 12 November, 2009 Share Posted 12 November, 2009 Oh please. I really don't get the 'leave refereeing alone' argument. Barring our recent run of results, our team is dodgy enough as it is without worrying about whether the ref's crucial decision-making is going against us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 12 November, 2009 Share Posted 12 November, 2009 So, for example, you'd allow ManU to get away with this then: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsExRNxhAeI Oh no, I forgot that luck evens itself out over a season. Is that right..? There must be one set of laws for the game that is universal throughout the world and at all levels. The example you quote is clearly poor judgment by the officials, but it was a clear-cut case. Television replays are notoriously inaccurate and I have lost count of the number of times I have heard so-called experts saying phrases like 'there was no contact so it wasn't a penalty' or 'that ball was clearly over the line' or 'he was the last man and should have been sent off' when they obviously know nothing about the details of the Laws of the Game. Let's be clear about this: technology is not 100% accurate and a blurred and distorted two-dimensional video image from 80 yards away is not the answer. Let's just stick an independent person down on the pitch-side and let them practise over 100's of games and let them use their best judgment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 12 November, 2009 Share Posted 12 November, 2009 Don't see why that should change, just because technology is brought in. Video Refs in rugby and the 3rd Umpire in cricket, has become part of the entertainment and it doesn't stop the crowd giving the onfield officials stick! Video refs in rugby very often come to the wrong decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted 12 November, 2009 Share Posted 12 November, 2009 Oh God!!! 'The technology in football debate.' I go to football to be entertained. And poor referees and linos provide part of that entertainment. We all spend a lot of time hurling abuse at the officials......and we love doing it........Personally, I shall be at the game shouting at the ref, informing him to wake up or feck off! Yeah but think what fun it would be to shout at 5, 6 or 7 of the buggers! Seriously though, technology is already having an impact - two-way radio? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Munster Posted 12 November, 2009 Share Posted 12 November, 2009 I think you'd be mad to get rid of the offside rule and I don't think video refs are the solution either, as when it comes to offside (a frequent call) it would hold up play far too much. This excellent idea wouldn't hold up play too often: http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showpost.php?p=502096&postcount=11 Who wants scientifically perfect football matches? Not me. Me neither. Except, of course, when Saints are denied a perfectly good goal by an incorrect offside decision, or concede a goal that is incorrectly not ruled offside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Block 5 Posted 12 November, 2009 Share Posted 12 November, 2009 So, for example, you'd allow ManU to get away with this then: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsExRNxhAeI Oh no, I forgot that luck evens itself out over a season. Is that right..? You have unwittingly proved my point. 30th July 1966.......Wembley Stadium..... Did the ball cross the line? Wouldn't life be dull if a piece of software had ruled that the ball did not cross the line. TV technology will kill real football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 12 November, 2009 Author Share Posted 12 November, 2009 Yawn. No response whatsoever on the sensible points made I see, just the usual grandstanding. But there are lots of rules that you could say is "physically impossible" to implement correctly unless you want 10 refs all sat round the perimeter like tennis umpires, or every whistle blown (or not blown) is discussed and counter discussed by video refs. Offside is a judgment call made to the best of a linesman's ability, much like all of us make judgment calls in life about things all the time. And life aint perfect, so yearning for every single decision made by a football official to be scientifically perfect is building a ladder to the moon. Pointless. Who wants scientifically perfect football matches? Not me. Quite prepared to respond to your points when you leave out the personal stuff. While I understand your point about not wanting scientifically perfect football matches I think in this day and age when many careers are delicately poised, a couple of bad offside decisions can affect a player's future. Waigo quite rightly got a lot of stick for his poor grasp of the offside law a month ago but it appears to me he has been working on it. To the best of my memory he did not get called offside once at Orient and last night he showed commendable restraint. When he was mistakenly pulled up when well-placed he could have scored and a goal would give him a lift at a time when he is being overshadowed by Antonio. There's there are a lot of rules that are hard to implement these days without technology but I think the offside law is a particular out-of-date law that no longer fulfills the function for which it was introduced. If we are going to keep it positioning the asst refs on the roofs of the stand might see an improvement. Sorry if you think me starting this thread as "grandstanding" - I am genuinely interested in fans' views on this. Especially those fans I respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Block 5 Posted 12 November, 2009 Share Posted 12 November, 2009 Video Refs in rugby and the 3rd Umpire in cricket, has become part of the entertainment and it doesn't stop the crowd giving the onfield officials stick! Hmmm....Rugger and cricket..... both non-stop yawn-a-thons! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 12 November, 2009 Share Posted 12 November, 2009 You have unwittingly proved my point. 30th July 1966.......Wembley Stadium..... Did the ball cross the line? Wouldn't life be dull if a piece of software had ruled that the ball did not cross the line. TV technology will kill real football. The more I look at that goal the less it looks like the ball was over the line. What convinced me at the time was that the other english forward (Martin Peters?) who was there did not even bother to stick the ball in the net and make sure, he turned starigt round and celebrated. (Anyway, it was 4-2 so it didn't matter in the end) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Block 5 Posted 12 November, 2009 Share Posted 12 November, 2009 The more I look at that goal the less it looks like the ball was over the line. What convinced me at the time was that the other english forward (Martin Peters?) who was there did not even bother to stick the ball in the net and make sure, he turned starigt round and celebrated. (Anyway, it was 4-2 so it didn't matter in the end) And isn't it bloody brilliant that here we are, more than 40 years later, debating an event that we didn't even witness. (Sorry Whitey, I'm making an assumption that you weren't actually at Wembley, but of course you may have been.) I wasn't even born! You say it didn't matter because we won 4-2.......unless you have live in a parallel universe where the lino ruled that it wasn't a goal, you wouldn't know what the subsequent events would have been. One thing is for sure.......that somewhere in a parallel universe some saints fans on an internet forum are discussing that Russian lino's decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krissyboy31 Posted 12 November, 2009 Share Posted 12 November, 2009 I think the bast@rdisation of the off-side rule has made things worse. The active and non-active rule is a nonsense (especially the fact that the player has to touch the ball to become active). If a player is standing in an off-side position within range of the flight of the ball, then they are off-side!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Block 5 Posted 12 November, 2009 Share Posted 12 November, 2009 I think the bast@rdisation of the off-side rule has made things worse. The active and non-active rule is a nonsense (especially the fact that the player has to touch the ball to become active). If a player is standing in an off-side position within range of the flight of the ball, then they are off-side!! I totally agree 100%. Offside = offside. End of discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pele Posted 12 November, 2009 Share Posted 12 November, 2009 What should happen is a little more respect for Ref's....yes I shout at them in the heat of the moment at games (not swearing as my son is with me!) but players and managers alike treat them with total venom. A prime example being Ferguson who I see has been let off lightly again!!!!! In Rugby Union players respect or shut up about decisions - what meassage are we portraying to our kids when the Manager of your team can use disgraceful language and berate and stamp their feet like petulant boys when they disagree with a decision. Do we ever hear Ferguson say no it was my team not playing very well........everytime he accuses this and that of cheating , when really he should be looking in his own backyard.....how many penalties are awarded against teams like Man U etc. The Football Authorities are incompetent and the way the Premiership is run as a club for the in crowd is a disgrace! I think half the enjoyment of playing League 1 (albeit that we are winning which is FANTASTIC) is that you come up against genuine teams and grounds where you can enjoy yourself! Sorry rant over!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Block 5 Posted 12 November, 2009 Share Posted 12 November, 2009 What should happen is a little more respect for Ref's....yes I shout at them in the heat of the moment at games (not swearing as my son is with me!) but players and managers alike treat them with total venom. A prime example being Ferguson who I see has been let off lightly again!!!!! In Rugby Union players respect or shut up about decisions - what meassage are we portraying to our kids when the Manager of your team can use disgraceful language and berate and stamp their feet like petulant boys when they disagree with a decision. Do we ever hear Ferguson say no it was my team not playing very well........everytime he accuses this and that of cheating , when really he should be looking in his own backyard.....how many penalties are awarded against teams like Man U etc. The Football Authorities are incompetent and the way the Premiership is run as a club for the in crowd is a disgrace! I think half the enjoyment of playing League 1 (albeit that we are winning which is FANTASTIC) is that you come up against genuine teams and grounds where you can enjoy yourself! Sorry rant over!!!!! I agree Pele. I hate seeing players mouth off at the ref........that's MY job! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kadeem Hardison Posted 12 November, 2009 Share Posted 12 November, 2009 I feel that Fitzhugh Fella may have outgrown the modern game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 12 November, 2009 Share Posted 12 November, 2009 And isn't it bloody brilliant that here we are, more than 40 years later, debating an event that we didn't even witness. (Sorry Whitey, I'm making an assumption that you weren't actually at Wembley, but of course you may have been.) I wasn't even born! You say it didn't matter because we won 4-2.......unless you have live in a parallel universe where the lino ruled that it wasn't a goal, you wouldn't know what the subsequent events would have been. One thing is for sure.......that somewhere in a parallel universe some saints fans on an internet forum are discussing that Russian lino's decision. I was 16 at the time and we watched it on a 14" black-and-white 405-line television" It's not that long ago that if you went to a game of football then all you had were memories, no video recordings, no highlights just endless debates in the pub after the match. Match Of The Day would cover just the one match. (I preferred Brian Moore and The Big Match on ITV myself). There was a sports writer for a Sunday paper who used to cover the Arsenal and who spent the whole of the game in a pub outside the ground. He used to write his report based on what he heard from the fans after the game. There's nothing to beat being at a live game of footy in a real English football ground with all that goes with it. This premiership rubbish they show on Sky is a sanitised, sterile product that bears no relation to the real game - 'jumpers for goalposts' and all that stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Monkey Posted 12 November, 2009 Share Posted 12 November, 2009 Keep the offside rule. I'd hate to see BWP in the England team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 12 November, 2009 Share Posted 12 November, 2009 You have unwittingly proved my point. 30th July 1966.......Wembley Stadium..... Did the ball cross the line? Wouldn't life be dull if a piece of software had ruled that the ball did not cross the line. TV technology will kill real football. Seeing as I was there, then yes the ball did cross the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 12 November, 2009 Share Posted 12 November, 2009 The more I look at that goal the less it looks like the ball was over the line. What convinced me at the time was that the other english forward (Martin Peters?) who was there did not even bother to stick the ball in the net and make sure, he turned starigt round and celebrated. (Anyway, it was 4-2 so it didn't matter in the end) No, it was Liverpool centre forward Roger Hunt. To this day he maintains the ball crossed the line. It did look like a goal, and in similar circumstances over the years, when footballs have been driven against the bar, only to bounce behind the goal line, the spin implied to the ball has seen it bounce out of the goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 12 November, 2009 Share Posted 12 November, 2009 No, it was Liverpool centre forward Roger Hunt. To this day he maintains the ball crossed the line. It did look like a goal, and in similar circumstances over the years, when footballs have been driven against the bar, only to bounce behind the goal line, the spin implied to the ball has seen it bounce out of the goal. According to the 'Laws', the 'whole of the ball' has to cross the 'whole of the line' and it is possible for there to be a few inches of grass between the inside edge of the line and the bottom of the ball yet the edge of the ball is still not completely over the line. Try it next time you have a football and a spare couple of minutes and you'll be amazed how it looks from different angles. As for the ball being across the goal-line, the goalposts are the same width as the goal-line so if you are looking directly along the goal-line you need to be able to see the whole of the ball behind the posts for it to be inside the goal. TV cameras often give a wrong impression because they are looking at the goal from a strange angle. As for the spin of the ball, remember the 'goal' that Matty wasn't allowed down at the Dell once when the ball came down off the crossbar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krissyboy31 Posted 12 November, 2009 Share Posted 12 November, 2009 According to the 'Laws', the 'whole of the ball' has to cross the 'whole of the line' and it is possible for there to be a few inches of grass between the inside edge of the line and the bottom of the ball yet the edge of the ball is still not completely over the line. Try it next time you have a football and a spare couple of minutes and you'll be amazed how it looks from different angles. As for the ball being across the goal-line, the goalposts are the same width as the goal-line so if you are looking directly along the goal-line you need to be able to see the whole of the ball behind the posts for it to be inside the goal. TV cameras often give a wrong impression because they are looking at the goal from a strange angle. As for the spin of the ball, remember the 'goal' that Matty wasn't allowed down at the Dell once when the ball came down off the crossbar? Well that doesn't always constitute a goal either. Ask any Spurs fan in a match against Man U, a couple of years ago or Crystal Palace fan, this season against Bristol City or even Saints' fan who was at the Dell against Leeds? When Sparky Hughes had one rebound off the advertising hoardings. It's true that TV pictures can never be 100% in certain circumstances and back in 1966 the pictures would have been too grainy anyway (even if the technology was available then), but surely for mistakes as fundamental as those, technology has to be brought in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 12 November, 2009 Share Posted 12 November, 2009 It's true that TV pictures can never be 100% in certain circumstances and back in 1966 the pictures would have been too grainy anyway (even if the technology was available then), but surely for mistakes as fundamental as those, technology has to be brought in. Sometimes all is not quite what it seems.... http://www.maniacworld.com/optical-illusions.html This one is better: http://media.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/537747/637336.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 12 November, 2009 Author Share Posted 12 November, 2009 I feel that Fitzhugh Fella may have outgrown the modern game. I feel you may be right. Or perhaps I feel more comfortable that it might have outgrown me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brightspark Posted 12 November, 2009 Share Posted 12 November, 2009 I'm actually a referee and its easy to keep up with play as an assistant... you are instructed to keep on the 2nd last defender and anyone with a brain finds this easy. I know I do a good job, but it doesn't stop fans hurling abuse like they just don't care. It is the fans who start to make excuses. They believe this decision was wrong.... therefore they PRESUME the assistant was out of position. Which in the most part is b*ll*cks. The only difficult bit as an assistant is judging the so called "crossover effect". This is when the defender runs up and the attacker runs towards goal. To judge where each player is when the ball is kicked is really difficult, and often you have to consider the sound delay from when you hear the ball being kicked to where the players are on the ball. It sounds like a good assistant may and should have kept Waigo onside from what I read on the first post. Another thing that winds me up is when fans don't understand the offside rule, and presume they are right and we the refs are wrong. Sorry, but the refs do know what they are doing. Its our job, we fight for promotion or relegation in terms of the quality we officiate. For example, the post by Hutch on Page 1 is the posting of a typically vile football fan who believes that all refs are rubbish, and that they should be punished. Codswallop. I'd like to see you try better. At the end of the day, you have the BEST doing it, so STOP WHINGING!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 12 November, 2009 Share Posted 12 November, 2009 I'm actually a referee and its easy to keep up with play as an assistant... you are instructed to keep on the 2nd last defender and anyone with a brain finds this easy. I know I do a good job, but it doesn't stop fans hurling abuse like they just don't care. It is the fans who start to make excuses. They believe this decision was wrong.... therefore they PRESUME the assistant was out of position. Which in the most part is b*ll*cks. The only difficult bit as an assistant is judging the so called "crossover effect". This is when the defender runs up and the attacker runs towards goal. To judge where each player is when the ball is kicked is really difficult, and often you have to consider the sound delay from when you hear the ball being kicked to where the players are on the ball. It sounds like a good assistant may and should have kept Waigo onside from what I read on the first post. Another thing that winds me up is when fans don't understand the offside rule, and presume they are right and we the refs are wrong. Sorry, but the refs do know what they are doing. Its our job, we fight for promotion or relegation in terms of the quality we officiate. For example, the post by Hutch on Page 1 is the posting of a typically vile football fan who believes that all refs are rubbish, and that they should be punished. Codswallop. I'd like to see you try better. At the end of the day, you have the BEST doing it, so STOP WHINGING!!! I'm with you Brightey! As a fellow ref I support everything you say. After all is said and done, it all comes down to somebody having to make a decision, and just because you don't agree with that decision doesn't give you the right to call them all sorts of names. A lot of rulings are 'in the opinion of the referee' and you can't hold a referendum every time something happens out on the pitch. Pick some experienced, neutral judges and give them a whistle and a couple of flags. It works well almost all the time (except at Old trafford ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sydney_saint Posted 13 November, 2009 Share Posted 13 November, 2009 And yours reminds me why I quit. As the posts above say, we are pretty much always in position and are therefore in the best position to judge, not some fan 50 yards away screaming he's offside you ****. I just ask for one thing and you can tell me if this is too much 1. To respect my decision. I will never claim to be always correct, that is impossible. After every game I used to type up a report of my performance and analyze where I went wrong and try and improve for the next game. I have made mistakes, some of them massive, and I deeply apologize for them, however even the worst one I do not feel it is correct to hurl abuse at, whether you are a fan, player or coach. I have never gone out to deliberately make decisions against a team, absolutely never. I don't ask people to congratulate me if I make a good decision, so I'm not an egotistical maniac, and I don't ask people to abuse me if I get a decision wrong. I'm just a guy trying to contribute to the game I love, I really don't see how that merits abuse. But if you see otherwise I would like to know your reasons, and then explain to me why you think the number of refs are decreasing, particularly at grassroots level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pele Posted 13 November, 2009 Share Posted 13 November, 2009 They are decreasing at grassroots level because people do not want to do it as at the supposed top of the game Ferguson sets the example he does.......a BAD one and then is not punished by The Football league who are just happy to roll over and let the money flow in! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pele Posted 13 November, 2009 Share Posted 13 November, 2009 In addition sydney saint - do you think a form of tv technology would assist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sydney_saint Posted 13 November, 2009 Share Posted 13 November, 2009 In addition sydney saint - do you think a form of tv technology would assist? I'm all for goal line technology, there are occasions that due to positioning in line with the second last defender, it is very difficult to see whether the ball is a tiny distance over the line, say about an inch. I am slightly hesitant over other forms of technology. I think when it comes to tackles the ref has the best judgement rather then technology. For instance a defender come is two footed with excessive force. He gets the ball but if he hadn't he would have broken the attackers legs. I don't think technology can make a decision on whether that should be given as a foul or not. Perhaps the attacker moved out of the way to avoid being injured which in that case the defender has gained an unfair advantage and should be given as an indirect free kick. Also the case of high boots, how high must a boot be to be called a foul? I don't think technology can help with fouls. In regards to offsides, I do not have any statistics to back me up, but I would wager that about 90% of offside decisions are correct, and of that 10% only a small fraction ends up in a game changing consequence. Therefore I believe that maybe offside technology should not be discarded completely, but be very hesitant before implementing it because it will most definitely slow down the game. The final discrepancy I have about technology is the fact that it would need to be implemented down to grass roots level. Every ref obviously works out their technique at this level such as positioning and judgements. If technology was brought just at a certain level, refs would need to readjust many aspects of their game as soon as they reached that level. For me personally, I would not like that, however I realise I can't speak for all refs. I think that it would worsen the standard of reffing, not improve it. The best example I can think of is in cricket, where the umpire has to look down to see whether a player bowls a no ball. I was listening to Simon Taufel, who umpired a match where they brought in another umpire who looked at a screen and yelled into an earpiece "no ball" if the bowler over stepped. This meant that the umpire kept his head up and concentrated solely on the batsman. Taufel said he found this worsened his game, as he had been brought up and worked out his game by looking down at the bowler foot, before looking up to watch the bowl. I hope this example is clear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krissyboy31 Posted 13 November, 2009 Share Posted 13 November, 2009 I'm all for goal line technology, there are occasions that due to positioning in line with the second last defender, it is very difficult to see whether the ball is a tiny distance over the line, say about an inch. I am slightly hesitant over other forms of technology. I think when it comes to tackles the ref has the best judgement rather then technology. For instance a defender come is two footed with excessive force. He gets the ball but if he hadn't he would have broken the attackers legs. I don't think technology can make a decision on whether that should be given as a foul or not. Perhaps the attacker moved out of the way to avoid being injured which in that case the defender has gained an unfair advantage and should be given as an indirect free kick. Also the case of high boots, how high must a boot be to be called a foul? I don't think technology can help with fouls. In regards to offsides, I do not have any statistics to back me up, but I would wager that about 90% of offside decisions are correct, and of that 10% only a small fraction ends up in a game changing consequence. Therefore I believe that maybe offside technology should not be discarded completely, but be very hesitant before implementing it because it will most definitely slow down the game. The final discrepancy I have about technology is the fact that it would need to be implemented down to grass roots level. Every ref obviously works out their technique at this level such as positioning and judgements. If technology was brought just at a certain level, refs would need to readjust many aspects of their game as soon as they reached that level. For me personally, I would not like that, however I realise I can't speak for all refs. I think that it would worsen the standard of reffing, not improve it. The best example I can think of is in cricket, where the umpire has to look down to see whether a player bowls a no ball. I was listening to Simon Taufel, who umpired a match where they brought in another umpire who looked at a screen and yelled into an earpiece "no ball" if the bowler over stepped. This meant that the umpire kept his head up and concentrated solely on the batsman. Taufel said he found this worsened his game, as he had been brought up and worked out his game by looking down at the bowler foot, before looking up to watch the bowl. I hope this example is clear In the case of the cricket no-ball, that could just be checked if the consequence is a wicket. IMO It doesn't need somebody analysing every ball (apart from maybe 20/20, where every ball is vital) . Off-side technology could be used similarly. If there is a close run decision that leads to a goal, before awarding it, the Ref could ask the 4th official to check, similar to the way in rugby the Ref asks the VR to check on-side/off-side before awarding tries score from kicks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alain Perrin Posted 13 November, 2009 Share Posted 13 November, 2009 Hmmmm a thread without Lowe being mentioned (aawww nuts!). I support the view that footaball should be playable in a park with jumpers for goalposts. The sooner you introduce rules dependent on technology then you'll kill that spirit. If you remove the uncertainty and (perceived) injustice from football, it'll just sanitise it too much. There will be nothing to talk about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junior Mullet Posted 13 November, 2009 Share Posted 13 November, 2009 What about 4 linesmen? Two either side of the half way line. Each has to give the attacking player offside for him to be offside. Alternatively only one has to give him off. Depends on whether you want to give the benefit of the doubt to the defending or attacking team. Wasnt there a game recently with assistant refs behind the goals? Was that some sort of FIFA pilot? Looked absolutely stupid to me. FWIW I would like to see goalline technology. The decision would be almost instant and wouldnt hold the game up - it might actually speed it up when you think how long a game can stop for while players argue with the ref. Imagine if England had been on the other end of the 1966 goal. Imagine we lose in the playoff final this year due to a poor goal line decision. IMO a goal should count as a goal - that part of the game should be relied on as fact. I don't advocate technology for any other aspect of the game, ie penalty decisions, fouls etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hughieslastminutegoal Posted 13 November, 2009 Share Posted 13 November, 2009 (edited) People say scrapping the offside rule just encourages goal-hanging. Watching Italian football in particular, when is anyone ever offside anyway? Defenders play very deep much of the time, offside isn't really part of the thinking. So I doubt scrapping the rule would really make as much difference these days as people might expect. So maybe scrap it but have something like ice hockey where if the puck comes back out over the blue line, forwards must come out of that zone. If say a similar rule was applied to the penalty area, i.e. if the ball comes out of the area all attackers must come out as well, and once out you can't be offside, that might be interesting. What would the defenders do? They'd mostly have to follow them out to mark up, but are at risk of quick balls being played in just behind them. So not quite the same as just having an 18 yard offside line. The edge of the box could become quite exiting, as long as it doesn't become as ridiculous as that awful game Handball! Edited 13 November, 2009 by hughieslastminutegoal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFKA South Woodford Posted 13 November, 2009 Share Posted 13 November, 2009 It could actually be possible IMO, to put a chip inside a ball, and also to have them sewn into the players kit, say around the neckband. These chips would have to be embedded with the correct programming so that they could transmit where they are in relation to where the ball was when it was last kicked. This could then be flagged to an assistant referee or the ref himself. Of course, some means of ignoring the chips would have to be in place in situations of non-interference with play; second phase stuff, and the last player still being in his own half when the ball is kicked. End of confusion. Now some bright spark can go off and do it. I'll share 5% with Junior Mullet for the idea. Wouldn't work as well, as the current system. 'Which I agree is flawed' It takes time to process and collate the data from the various sources, even with the speed at which processors work now. Then you add in the human element of the ajudicator, as they will need to verify the data and give a final decision, and you may as well stick with the current system. One of the biggest frustrations we have with football is stoppages, if the game was continually being stopped even for twenty or thirty seconds at a time, I think it would ruin a lot of peoples enjoyment of a game which is all about speed. The only way around this would be to review in the wake of a goal being scored, or at half and full time, but that would also upset a lot of people and change the make up of the game, so that football played at the top level would be a lot different to that played at non league and amateur level. Part of the magic of the game of football is that it is fundamentally the same in the top divisions as it is at amateur level. I agree that we need a better system but what it will be, is a way off yet! BTW, I think this debate also points to Papa Waigo being too quick for the officals, and is not offside anything like as much as some on here think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sydney_saint Posted 13 November, 2009 Share Posted 13 November, 2009 In the case of the cricket no-ball, that could just be checked if the consequence is a wicket. IMO It doesn't need somebody analysing every ball (apart from maybe 20/20, where every ball is vital) . Off-side technology could be used similarly. If there is a close run decision that leads to a goal, before awarding it, the Ref could ask the 4th official to check, similar to the way in rugby the Ref asks the VR to check on-side/off-side before awarding tries score from kicks. This idea though leads to a couple of situations that may prove to be too controversial. For instance how far back in time do you go in order to check whether a player was offside or not? This is obvious for a quick counter attack where the ball is threaded through the defence, but what about a play that has twenty passes together? The second problem this may cause is that the most probable outcome is that it only checks one side of the offside law, that is whether the attacker was offside in that game decision, rather then been a close call where it was given offside when the attacker was in fact onside. Another problem this may cause is that managers will call for this to be checked after every goal, regardless of whether it was a close decision. I apologise by using cricket as an example again but in the recent 'appeals' in the west indies vs england series, decisions were being reviewed for legitimate dismissals against players like monty,just to use them up, which just slows the game down. In rugby league barely a try goes by without the ref checking to see whether there was any infringement in that try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNSUN Posted 13 November, 2009 Share Posted 13 November, 2009 I wasn't around before the offside rule came in, but I definitely think it has a place in our game. Decisions such as the ones mentioned in the opening post are what we talk about after the match, something to have a moan at or revel in if said decisions have gone our way. Ultimately it could have cost us, I agree, but on the flip side we can also benefit from those poor decisions; while the balance isn't perfect, generally it's a case of what goes around, comes around. If the FA or UEFA or whoever is going to do anything, then the Offside rule needs to be better policed. The same goes for goalline incidents - we have the technology to do something about it, then why don't we use it? If there's a debatable offside decision, within a matter of seconds someone could get a decent camera shot of it and declare it one way or the other. I don't think anything will be done though - and this debate will run on and on and on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano6 Posted 13 November, 2009 Share Posted 13 November, 2009 Worst idea I have every heard in my life...and I was sat in the boardroom of Lehman Brothers when Richard Fuld suggested we move into the less creditworthy mortgage market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now