wild-saint Posted 20 November, 2009 Posted 20 November, 2009 You still don't get it, do you. OK, I'll make it plain. In the days before it was possible to confirm a dodgy refereeing decision we had to go on what was best - the ref himself. But since video technology has been around for almost 20 years, I have been calling for its introduction. You may have not been listening or reading, but it is so. So it isn't just an isolated match that I'm taking issue with, it's all games where the wrong decision has been reached. I carry no favouritism at all, including anything involving Saints. The fact that Ireland got a bad penalty against Georgia means nothing in this context. One team got a bad penalty against another team, and it could so easily have been corrected. Take away the bullsh!t of who cares about this or that, or which team. It's about playing to the rules. Not about playing to the referee's faulty eyesight. Yes, one of the rules says that the referees decision is final. Rules that were written in the days when no quick and reliable verification was possible or affordable. And besides, people abided by the decisions back then. Now they don't, and it is because it means so much, in certain matches. For me, there has been a case for video technology in International matches, since the technology became available. If a league [the Premiership, for example] can afford it, then they should take it on too. So please don't insult me with your cries of berk, because you think I am having some massive knee jerk reaction over one game, and it has affected the Irish, because I have been raising this issue so many times I'm bored with it. I couldn't give a toss about which particular team this has affected [which you surely must have gathered from my previous post], only that football has let itself down again. Cricket and Rugby Union shows us the way. It's time football followed. Oh Come on FFS what you are suggesting is the very thin end of the wedge. Video evidence at the time would correct a wrong decision that effects the overall result of a game. Was it over the line, was it a penalty etc. If you are going to do that then what about a throw in being given the wrong way that results in a goal What about a offside decision that leads to a goal. What about a foul that was given that leads to a goal that when looked at again was actually a perfect tackle. what about a keeper getting a fingertip to a ball and a goal comes from the resulting corner. But upon inspection from a million TV angles turns out not to be a save / corner at all. Start with big decisions and where do u stop. Video evidence. No No No.
humber Posted 20 November, 2009 Posted 20 November, 2009 funniest thing i've seen in years, did the irish ask for our WC 1/4 final v argi scum to be replayed i think not
Minsk Posted 20 November, 2009 Posted 20 November, 2009 Oh Come on FFS what you are suggesting is the very thin end of the wedge. Video evidence at the time would correct a wrong decision that effects the overall result of a game. Was it over the line, was it a penalty etc. If you are going to do that then what about a throw in being given the wrong way that results in a goal What about a offside decision that leads to a goal. What about a foul that was given that leads to a goal that when looked at again was actually a perfect tackle. what about a keeper getting a fingertip to a ball and a goal comes from the resulting corner. But upon inspection from a million TV angles turns out not to be a save / corner at all. Start with big decisions and where do u stop. Video evidence. No No No. You stop with the obvious and highly contentious issues: Was it really a goal? Was it a penalty, or did he dive? Was the ball punched into the net/thrown (illegally) to a team-mate to score? Things like, 'Whose throw in on the half-way line is it?' should not be up for interpretation. Anything could happen to those (and if the wrong decision is made and the benefitting team go on to score poeple like you can still be happy ). As others have suggested, it could be left to the discretion of the 4th official (who could watch all replays and inform the ref if the cameras prove his decision was incorrect) or each team could have, say, 3 'objections' per half. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. Using your thought process it is like saying, 'Why do we prosecute people for murders? Murders still happen.'
Minsk Posted 20 November, 2009 Posted 20 November, 2009 funniest thing i've seen in years, did the irish ask for our WC 1/4 final v argi scum to be replayed i think not Why is it funny? Serious question.
Graffito Posted 20 November, 2009 Posted 20 November, 2009 Human error. Unbelievable human error on the part of the Linesman. The real scandal is the seeding.
Whitey Grandad Posted 21 November, 2009 Posted 21 November, 2009 If the video evidence is inconclusive, then the match officials original decision stands. It's when a clear f*ck-up has been made, the decision should be reversed. The 4th official has a tv monitor which can be viewed and reviewed immediately. He's already got the radio link to the ref and if he can't be seen to overrule the decision, he can call the ref over to see for himself. But who provides those video feeds? - normally the host nation. They will not therefore be impartial. The technicians could select the angles that suited their nation's best interests. I've seen many false video decisions in cricket and rugby and don't get me started on the pontifications I've seen in Sky's football coverage based on inconclusive evidence. It would only be passing the buck and would keep holding up the flow of the game. Then we'd have advert breaks whenever a decision was referred and we'd end up like american football. Somewhere somebody has to make a decision sometime. What we need are better referees and assistants.
dubsaint Posted 21 November, 2009 Posted 21 November, 2009 It is because we own Northern Ireland which is on the same island as Ireland. waanker
dubsaint Posted 21 November, 2009 Posted 21 November, 2009 Ireland is not a part of Britain, but it is a part of 'The British Isles'. Do a quick google 'image search and have a look for yourself. I dont need google to tell me what country I live in and we have nothing to do with the British Isles
Saint_Si Posted 21 November, 2009 Posted 21 November, 2009 If England meet France in the knockout stage next year, would the Irish (for the first time in history) actually want England to win? The answer to this is yes, incredibly! I dont need google to tell me what country I live in and we have nothing to do with the British Isles Agreed.
OttawaSaint Posted 21 November, 2009 Posted 21 November, 2009 Just have it like the NFL where the team that feels cheated gets to ask for a replay, they can only ask a certain number of times (3 I think) and if they challenge it and are wrong they lose a time-out. As there are no time-outs in football, perhaps they could lose a substitution if they ask for a review and are shown to be wrong...
OttawaSaint Posted 21 November, 2009 Posted 21 November, 2009 by replay I mean video replay not a replayed match..(sorry can't edit)
Fan The Flames Posted 21 November, 2009 Posted 21 November, 2009 Yes it is. Deal with it. I bet you dont object to the "Irish Sea"... Places are called different names the world over, is Prague Praha or London Londres, the French call the English channel something else.
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 21 November, 2009 Posted 21 November, 2009 It is because we own Northern Ireland which is on the same island as Ireland. "we own N Ireland" - what a bizarre comment. We effin colonised it, raped and pillaged it, then starved it, and then bullied it, invaded it and then corrupted it. And you wonder why the Irish don't like us?
brianoneils slidingtackle Posted 21 November, 2009 Posted 21 November, 2009 Dont forget the Scots also were involved, a lot were moved over to Ireland and settled there, England owe Ireland nothing, potatoe famine was not englands fault. Get over it, I thought this was about a handball :-)
Andy_Porter Posted 21 November, 2009 Posted 21 November, 2009 Roy Keane is a bit of a knob but that video is spot on.
aintforever Posted 21 November, 2009 Posted 21 November, 2009 "we own N Ireland" - what a bizarre comment. We effin colonised it, raped and pillaged it, then starved it, and then bullied it, invaded it and then corrupted it. And you wonder why the Irish don't like us? Exactly.
aintforever Posted 21 November, 2009 Posted 21 November, 2009 waanker Don't blame me, I wasn't even alive when we invaded Ireland. My point was that technically the British Isles is the islands which includes your country. To quote Wiki... The British Isles are a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe that include Great Britain, Ireland and over six-thousand smaller islands.[7] There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Ireland.[8] The British Isles also include the Crown Dependencies of the Isle of Man and, by tradition, the Channel Islands, although the latter are not geographically part of the island group.
Whitey Grandad Posted 21 November, 2009 Posted 21 November, 2009 I dont need google to tell me what country I live in and we have nothing to do with the British Isles Just because the big Island sometime called 'Ireland' is one of the british isles does not mean that it is part of the nation of Britain, 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' to give it its full title. It is a historical term to differentiate it from little britain, which is in France and is now called 'Brittany'. Great britain was originally just the big island on which most of us live, and technically did not include the smaller islands one of which is the Isle of Wight. Geographically the complete set of islands is called the British Isles. The big island to the west was called Hibernia in roman times and is now generally known as Ireland. I don't have a problem with that. Can we please make a distinction between geography and politics? I've looked at the handball again and it happened so quickly that I'm prepared to accept that it is just one of those things that sometimes happens. There were hundreds of refereeing decisions made in that game and this was just one of them. We can't have a plebicite for every one of them. It's only a game, isn't it?
Whitey Grandad Posted 21 November, 2009 Posted 21 November, 2009 Don't blame me, I wasn't even alive when we invaded Ireland. What do you mean, 'we'?
alpine_saint Posted 21 November, 2009 Posted 21 November, 2009 I dont need google to tell me what country I live in and we have nothing to do with the British Isles Are you a raving nationalist republican extremist who throws a fit if one uses the term "British" in any sort of context in relation to Eire ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_isles Ho hum.....
Thedelldays Posted 21 November, 2009 Posted 21 November, 2009 of course ireland is located within the british isles....they are also not british
alpine_saint Posted 21 November, 2009 Posted 21 November, 2009 of course ireland is located within the british isles....they are also not british He objected to me calling the collection of islands the British Isles. He was WRONG.
Whitey Grandad Posted 21 November, 2009 Posted 21 November, 2009 Britain. Wasn't that before the Act of Union, so presumably you mean the English at that tim? Please don't include me in 'we'. Even I wasn't a twinkle then and the sins of the fathers and all that...
scotty Posted 22 November, 2009 Posted 22 November, 2009 I don't think Gallas actually knew the goal was hooky. He was at the end of the cross and headed the ball instinctively. Henry's attitude however baffles me as he has always had a reputation for fair play. Now, with so much money involved... +1. I dont think Gallas could have seen the handball from his position. That doesnt make Henry any less of a c*nt tho
saintbletch Posted 22 November, 2009 Posted 22 November, 2009 He objected to me calling the collection of islands the British Isles. He was WRONG. Depends on your perspective alpine_saint. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles_naming_dispute I think you'll find there are many people, on both sides of the sea that divides us that refer to them simply as "these islands" because of the political connotations of using the term the British Isles.
alpine_saint Posted 23 November, 2009 Posted 23 November, 2009 Depends on your perspective alpine_saint. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles_naming_dispute I think you'll find there are many people, on both sides of the sea that divides us that refer to them simply as "these islands" because of the political connotations of using the term the British Isles. Whatever. This article is basically saying it is down to interpretations on either side of the Irish Sea. Fine, I come from the English side, so when I used the term "British Isles", I meant the whole island group because that is what I perceived the term to mean. And dubsaint therefore has no greater right to condemn my description than I do his. He pulled me up for it and lectured me, remember ? Note that very few, if any, English people object to the term "Irish Sea", but then we come from a mature nation of people without collosal chips on our shoulders and institutional paranoia.
saintbletch Posted 23 November, 2009 Posted 23 November, 2009 Whatever. This article is basically saying it is down to interpretations on either side of the Irish Sea. Fine, I come from the English side, so when I used the term "British Isles", I meant the whole island group because that is what I perceived the term to mean. And dubsaint therefore has no greater right to condemn my description than I do his. He pulled me up for it and lectured me, remember ? Note that very few, if any, English people object to the term "Irish Sea", but then we come from a mature nation of people without collosal chips on our shoulders and institutional paranoia. So you basically used a lot of emotion-laden, hot air and defensive rhetoric to say what I originally said... Depends on your perspective alpine_saint. Who's got the collosal[sic] chip on their shoulder?
brianoneils slidingtackle Posted 23 November, 2009 Posted 23 November, 2009 Bunch of plastic paddies!! Learning all about British oppression on their mothers knee, what a bunch of jokers. So endeth the lesson...
alpine_saint Posted 23 November, 2009 Posted 23 November, 2009 So you basically used a lot of emotion-laden, hot air and defensive rhetoric to say what I originally said... Who's got the collosal[sic] chip on their shoulder? Certainly not me. I dont feel any guilt about sodding potato famines and sh*te like that. I do feel a certain amount of anger when I think of pensioners surviving WW2 only to get blown up on Remembrance Sunday in Enniskillen or little boys barely out of their nappies being blown up when shopping with their parents in Warrington but being expected to feel sorry for using a slightly controversial geographical term. But WTF, now we are really going off subject. Time to close the thread I think.
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