ant Posted 6 April, 2014 Share Posted 6 April, 2014 Plenty of decisions take several replays and deliberations from those in the studio and/or commentating before being able to make a decision, that would also be the case if used by officials. There will be plenty that aren't instantaneous. Depends how much you want to automate. As one example there's no need for incorrect offside decisions any more - this could easily be resolved using very similar tech to the goal-line decision systems already in use. While I fully understand and appreciate not wanting to slow the game down, surely there's an argument for implementing all and any technology as it becomes feasible to integrate it seamlessly? Would seem odd to say it's not worth using the bits that do work flawlessly just because we can't provide a full raft of perfect, seamless solutions right this second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 6 April, 2014 Share Posted 6 April, 2014 Depends how much you want to automate. As one example there's no need for incorrect offside decisions any more - this could easily be resolved using very similar tech to the goal-line decision systems already in use. Far too complicated for that. For the goal decision there are several cameras and the goal frame is in a fixed location. For offside you've got several players moving about. Then you've got to decide 'gaining an advantage' and all that stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 6 April, 2014 Share Posted 6 April, 2014 Far too complicated for that. For the goal decision there are several cameras and the goal frame is in a fixed location. For offside you've got several players moving about. Then you've got to decide 'gaining an advantage' and all that stuff. Nonsense, in most cases you can make an offside call in 5 seconds from looking at a replay. It the video is inconclusive then you can't give offside and the goal should be allowed to stand. It's not complicated and yet the game is in such a state that tedious commentators like Robbie Savage have more information than the guy actually refereeing the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGTL Posted 6 April, 2014 Share Posted 6 April, 2014 Offside doesn't need technology, it just needs linesman (or woman, Sian Massy is one of the best in the league) who aren't ****ing blind, stupid or both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrZuess1979 the 2nd Posted 6 April, 2014 Share Posted 6 April, 2014 Offside doesn't need technology, it just needs linesman (or woman, Sian Massy is one of the best in the league) who aren't ****ing blind, stupid or both. And a decent fitness level would be nice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 6 April, 2014 Share Posted 6 April, 2014 (edited) Nonsense, in most cases you can make an offside call in 5 seconds from looking at a replay. It the video is inconclusive then you can't give offside and the goal should be allowed to stand. It's not complicated and yet the game is in such a state that tedious commentators like Robbie Savage have more information than the guy actually refereeing the game. The TV cameras are not in the correct position. Who draws that line across the pitch? 'Ignoring the arms, any part of the player nearer the goal line than the second-last defender'? You'd need a camera view from pitch level in-line with the second-last defender. Many's the time that I've seen a TV replay where the commentator says one thing when it's the opposite. Edited 7 April, 2014 by Whitey Grandad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Fan CaM Posted 7 April, 2014 Share Posted 7 April, 2014 Completely agree with video replays for goals, pens and red cards. The trouble is the better teams in the division move the ball quicker than others and if you can do that there is more chance that officials will make errors of judgement which could skew a game. I think it would be a really good leveller. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 7 April, 2014 Share Posted 7 April, 2014 Plenty of decisions take several replays and deliberations from those in the studio and/or commentating before being able to make a decision, that would also be the case if used by officials. There will be plenty that aren't instantaneous. Would there? The refereee and linesmen have to make instananeous decisions on the spur of the moment, so just because some ex-footballer pundits in a studio don't have the mental capacity to make quick decisions, you don't think that 4th official referees would have the ability to call it on a quick glance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeShmoe Posted 7 April, 2014 Share Posted 7 April, 2014 The only rugby match I've ever watched live was the Heineken cup final at the millennium stadium. What I noticed was that the video replays on the big screen is all part of the entertainment. Everybody is involved. I personally enjoyed it. With the speed that it can be put on the screen and replayed, there really is no excuse. This. The game isn't slowed, the ref asks a clear question and the game carries on. It would add entertainment to the game, not take it away. With all the money in the game now it's wholly unfair ( and repetitively boring) that every Sunday/Monday morning it's always about the referee. I'd bet fans in other countries would say exactly the same Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 7 April, 2014 Share Posted 7 April, 2014 Would there? The refereee and linesmen have to make instananeous decisions on the spur of the moment, so just because some ex-footballer pundits in a studio don't have the mental capacity to make quick decisions, you don't think that 4th official referees would have the ability to call it on a quick glance? Some would be quick some wouldn't I'm afraid. It would actually lead to more debate and questioning of refereeing decisions. There still hasn't been a system proposed that makes sense I'm afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 7 April, 2014 Share Posted 7 April, 2014 This. The game isn't slowed, the ref asks a clear question and the game carries on. It would add entertainment to the game, not take it away. With all the money in the game now it's wholly unfair ( and repetitively boring) that every Sunday/Monday morning it's always about the referee. I'd bet fans in other countries would say exactly the same The game carries on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 7 April, 2014 Share Posted 7 April, 2014 Some would be quick some wouldn't I'm afraid. It would actually lead to more debate and questioning of refereeing decisions. There still hasn't been a system proposed that makes sense I'm afraid. So the fourth officials, who are professional referees and have to make snap judgements when they are on the pitch, would all of a sudden become ditherers faced with the technology that allows them an instant replay of the event to be analysed? Why would it lead to more debate and questioning of refereeing decisions? They would be interpreting the laws of the game, which they would be the best qualified persons to be able to do, so why wouldn't their decisions be accepted as final? The pundits don't have that degree of expertise and just because their opinions are exactly that, doesn't mean that the decisions of qualifed people would be questioned. The fourth officials would have the time available to make their judgments based on what unravels during play. When a goal is scored, plays stops. Like on Saturday in our match, there was plenty of time to have assessed that the Man City goal was offside, so would be disallowed. At the moment, when there is a foul and an advantage is played, there is the same amount of time available as there is given before the referee decides that there is no advantage and play is called back for a free kick. In the same way, play can be stopped to award handballs and penalties. I really don't see the problem if the will is there to introduce it. In the same way that we were cheated when the Gerrard? shot crossed the line and the goal wasn't given and the uproar led to goal line technology, there will come some more wrong decisions like that Silva offside goal in important matches and then the uproar that follows will lead to the introduction of video technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRichmond Posted 7 April, 2014 Share Posted 7 April, 2014 The modern game is so much Faster than it used to be Players make mistakes, of course they do, thry are only human. But they are punished for their mistakes, sometimes by retrospective video replay Referees make mistakes, of course they do, they are only human, but their mistakes are NEVER corrected, even though the same retrospective replays would aid them And the people who NEED the most help ARE the Refs and Linesmen In a lot of other sports, Modern Technology is there to HELP the officials, not deride them. The derision comes when Oficials don't utilise the Technology that is available When cars were first invented, there had to be a man with a red flag walking in front (True), BUT That changed when the cars started to go faster than the man could walk. WHY ? Because it moved with the times ........ ( and there were too many flat people with red flags ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Rees Posted 7 April, 2014 Share Posted 7 April, 2014 It annoys me that just because we have nothing to play for, the Silva offside is just being brushed aside by the media. Imagine if that was Lallana or someone and we went on to win the game, denting their title hopes, or if it was in the Liverpool/City game next week. The whole country would be going berserk calling for more technology! Seems to be bad decisions like this every other game, technology is there so why not use it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 7 April, 2014 Share Posted 7 April, 2014 So the fourth officials, who are professional referees and have to make snap judgements when they are on the pitch, would all of a sudden become ditherers faced with the technology that allows them an instant replay of the event to be analysed? Why would it lead to more debate and questioning of refereeing decisions? They would be interpreting the laws of the game, which they would be the best qualified persons to be able to do, so why wouldn't their decisions be accepted as final? The pundits don't have that degree of expertise and just because their opinions are exactly that, doesn't mean that the decisions of qualifed people would be questioned. The fourth officials would have the time available to make their judgments based on what unravels during play. When a goal is scored, plays stops. Like on Saturday in our match, there was plenty of time to have assessed that the Man City goal was offside, so would be disallowed. At the moment, when there is a foul and an advantage is played, there is the same amount of time available as there is given before the referee decides that there is no advantage and play is called back for a free kick. In the same way, play can be stopped to award handballs and penalties. I really don't see the problem if the will is there to introduce it. In the same way that we were cheated when the Gerrard? shot crossed the line and the goal wasn't given and the uproar led to goal line technology, there will come some more wrong decisions like that Silva offside goal in important matches and then the uproar that follows will lead to the introduction of video technology. Why is reviewing a decision from various angles "becoming a ditherer? Bizarre viewpoint. So your proposed system consists of a 4th official watching the game live on a screen and blowing up when he believes a decision is wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 7 April, 2014 Share Posted 7 April, 2014 Why is reviewing a decision from various angles "becoming a ditherer? Bizarre viewpoint. So your proposed system consists of a 4th official watching the game live on a screen and blowing up when he believes a decision is wrong? It was you who inferred that somehow some referees acting as fourth officials might become ditherers faced with making snap judgments based on reviewing video evidence. As you say, it is a bizarre assumption. Some would be quick some wouldn't I'm afraid. My proposal involves the fourth official advising the referee on crucial decisions which are game changing, like offsides which result in goals, penalties, red card tackles. Whether the ball had crossed the line for a goal would have been on that list, but the technology is already there now, thank God. With luck, it won't be long before technology moves forward on those other contentious decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 7 April, 2014 Share Posted 7 April, 2014 It annoys me that just because we have nothing to play for, the Silva offside is just being brushed aside by the media. Imagine if that was Lallana or someone and we went on to win the game, denting their title hopes, or if it was in the Liverpool/City game next week. The whole country would be going berserk calling for more technology! Seems to be bad decisions like this every other game, technology is there so why not use it Spot on. We'll obviously have to await the more incompetant referees from third World Countries denying Germany or Brazil goals in the World Cup for there to be a universal clamour for the technology to be introduced. The pundits were asked yesterday on Match of the Day whether the poor decisions balanced out during the course of the seasons. Both said not. I would say that it possibly did for the top teams, but at the expense of it not balancing out for the lower down teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 7 April, 2014 Share Posted 7 April, 2014 It's only a game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 7 April, 2014 Share Posted 7 April, 2014 If someone is looking at replays and relaying that info to the ref, I don't think the 4th official is the right person. It should be someone in the stands, away from coaches/players/managers(/also execs etc) of either club to prevent anyone from getting in their ear or influencing them at all. I think this will also be quicker than if the 4th official is trying to watch on a laptop/iPad or whatever on the touchline with managers etc grabbing at them. This would slow things down most likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_clark Posted 7 April, 2014 Share Posted 7 April, 2014 And a decent fitness level would be nice Do referees "train" as part of their job, or are they left to maintain their own fitness levels? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 7 April, 2014 Share Posted 7 April, 2014 It was you who inferred that somehow some referees acting as fourth officials might become ditherers faced with making snap judgments based on reviewing video evidence. As you say, it is a bizarre assumption. My proposal involves the fourth official advising the referee on crucial decisions which are game changing, like offsides which result in goals, penalties, red card tackles. Whether the ball had crossed the line for a goal would have been on that list, but the technology is already there now, thank God. With luck, it won't be long before technology moves forward on those other contentious decisions. How on earth do you know what I've inferred? Unless you can read my mind. You were the one who suggested that 4th officials are "ditherers" for some reason. So you're saying your proposal doesn't allow for the 4th official or whoever it is in the stand to watch replays of the incident and only make decisions based on live evidence? Doesn't make sense I'm afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david in sweden Posted 7 April, 2014 Share Posted 7 April, 2014 What about when a red card is not given when it should have been? ......surely it is good way to stamp out many of the dubious decisions .....in all situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 7 April, 2014 Share Posted 7 April, 2014 Do referees "train" as part of their job, or are they left to maintain their own fitness levels? They have a very stringent fitness level to maintain and they are tested regularly with a beep test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 7 April, 2014 Share Posted 7 April, 2014 How on earth do you know what I've inferred? Unless you can read my mind. You were the one who suggested that 4th officials are "ditherers" for some reason. So you're saying your proposal doesn't allow for the 4th official or whoever it is in the stand to watch replays of the incident and only make decisions based on live evidence? Doesn't make sense I'm afraid. If we're going to discuss semantics, when one writes a post expressing an opinion it is not up to the poster to decide what is inferred. It is up to the reader to interpret what he thought the poster meant. I asked:- you don't think that 4th official referees would have the ability to call it on a quick glance? You responded:- Some would be quick some wouldn't I'm afraid. I thought that it was fairly reasonable concusion to reach from that, that some 4th officials might take longer than others to reach a decision based on the video evidence. If that is not what you meant, perhaps you'll enlighten us to what you really meant, and try to explain yourself a bit more clearly next time. And regarding what I said, no, you've got entirely the wrong end of the stick. I reckon that you are being deliberately obtuse. I'll correct it for you. So you're saying your proposal does allow for the 4th official or whoever it is in the stand to watch replays of the incident and only make decisions based on video evidence? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 7 April, 2014 Share Posted 7 April, 2014 If we're going to discuss semantics, when one writes a post expressing an opinion it is not up to the poster to decide what is inferred. It is up to the reader to interpret what he thought the poster meant. I asked:- You responded:- I thought that it was fairly reasonable concusion to reach from that, that some 4th officials might take longer than others to reach a decision based on the video evidence. If that is not what you meant, perhaps you'll enlighten us to what you really meant, and try to explain yourself a bit more clearly next time. And regarding what I said, no, you've got entirely the wrong end of the stick. I reckon that you are being deliberately obtuse. I'll correct it for you. Yes. But you said earlier in the thread that makes them a "ditherer" and they'll be able to make a decision straight away? So how long will this 4th official have to review the decision and watch replays? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 7 April, 2014 Share Posted 7 April, 2014 I have no problem at all with the ref/officials, being able to "go upstairs" to check if they aren't sure themselves or if the offical watching the game spots something the officals have missed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 7 April, 2014 Share Posted 7 April, 2014 But you said earlier in the thread that makes them a "ditherer" and they'll be able to make a decision straight away? So how long will this 4th official have to review the decision and watch replays? No, you inferred that some 4th officials might dither, i.e. take longer to decide than others. I'll ask you again, if you did not mean that, then please explain what you did mean. I have already advanced the opinion that if referees are capable of making snap decisions on incidents during the match, that there is no reason why the professional referees who act as 4th officials would not be capable of making snap judgements accurately with the benefit of viseo evidence to support them. Why do you find that so difficult to comprehend? I'll say it a different way if you like. The fourth officials' decision will take only moments beyond the time necessary to view the video evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baird of the land Posted 7 April, 2014 Share Posted 7 April, 2014 I'd opt for some sort of limited challenge system(1-2 a game)(akin to Tennis/Cricket) where team can challenge goal/penalty/free kick/booking etc. If they get it right they retain that challenge. Utterly crazy decisions would either be overturned or it would be the fault of managers for wasting their challenges on other scenarios. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 7 April, 2014 Share Posted 7 April, 2014 No, you inferred that some 4th officials might dither, i.e. take longer to decide than others. I'll ask you again, if you did not mean that, then please explain what you did mean. I have already advanced the opinion that if referees are capable of making snap decisions on incidents during the match, that there is no reason why the professional referees who act as 4th officials would not be capable of making snap judgements accurately with the benefit of viseo evidence to support them. Why do you find that so difficult to comprehend? I'll say it a different way if you like. The fourth officials' decision will take only moments beyond the time necessary to view the video evidence. And I'll ask again, how do you know what I have inferred? Weird. So you think unless everyone takes the same amount of time to make a decision on something, they are a "ditherer". Weird. I'll also ask again, how long will the 4th official have to review these decisions? It's not a trick question, just a simple, straight forward one to understand this system you are proposing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 7 April, 2014 Share Posted 7 April, 2014 And I'll ask again, how do you know what I have inferred? Weird. So you think unless everyone takes the same amount of time to make a decision on something, they are a "ditherer". Weird. I'll also ask again, how long will the 4th official have to review these decisions? It's not a trick question, just a simple, straight forward one to understand this system you are proposing. If the system is only being used when there is a break in play anyway then they should have as long as it takes. You can easily watch a bunch of replays and make a reasonable conclusion in the time it takes 10 players to hug each other and walk back to their own half after a goal. It should only be used for game changing scenarios like goals, fouls (including offside) in the build up and red card offences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 7 April, 2014 Share Posted 7 April, 2014 A system where the referee makes all the decision except for big ones like penalties or can correct blatantly wrong decisions like the offside Saturday where a fifth official is watching in the stands on a video might work. Much like the goal line technology now play continues for a few seconds until the official in the stand can review the decision the play pulled back and the correct decision given. It's also cut out diving. That said though I'd have had nothing to moan about all weekend if citys goal had been chalked off so from that point of view never bring it in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 7 April, 2014 Share Posted 7 April, 2014 If the system is only being used when there is a break in play anyway then they should have as long as it takes. You can easily watch a bunch of replays and make a reasonable conclusion in the time it takes 10 players to hug each other and walk back to their own half after a goal. It should only be used for game changing scenarios like goals, fouls (including offside) in the build up and red card offences. So it'll only be used to challenge decisions that the ref has given and not in any instances where he may wave on play incorrectly or not give a goal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 7 April, 2014 Share Posted 7 April, 2014 I'll say it again - TV does not give a very good representation of what actually took place. There are a lot more clues that the referee uses, the speed at which the player goes down, where his eyes are looking, how his momentum affects his behaviour, does his action seem natural? There is far more going on in real life than TV can ever portray. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 7 April, 2014 Share Posted 7 April, 2014 And I'll ask again, how do you know what I have inferred? Weird. So you think unless everyone takes the same amount of time to make a decision on something, they are a "ditherer". Weird. I'll also ask again, how long will the 4th official have to review these decisions? It's not a trick question, just a simple, straight forward one to understand this system you are proposing. The conclusions that you draw from what people have presented as their opinions - weird. Your comprehension (or lack of it) leads me to conclude that there is a possibility that English might not be your first language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 7 April, 2014 Share Posted 7 April, 2014 So it'll only be used to challenge decisions that the ref has given and not in any instances where he may wave on play incorrectly or not give a goal? Yes. Although I don't see how he can not give a goal now we have goal line technology telling the ref the ball has crossed the line. It's not a perfect system but it would iron out a lot of problems with the game. Diving would be pretty much wiped out if every player knew the foul was going to be reviewed before a penalty is given. The only scenarios where it wont help is if there is a foul which should lead to a penalty or sending off but it isn't seen by the officials and so there is no stoppage in play. We already have retrospective bans for incidents the ref didn't see, so that's not so much of an issue anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 7 April, 2014 Share Posted 7 April, 2014 The conclusions that you draw from what people have presented as their opinions - weird. Your comprehension (or lack of it) leads me to conclude that there is a possibility that English might not be your first language. You're struggling that much already Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 7 April, 2014 Share Posted 7 April, 2014 A decision review when a goal has been scored, as was the case yesterday, will not slow the game down. If was kept to that, like the goal line technology, is it a goal or not, is a sensible move. The game is about goals, we should at least award them correctly. Agree, The players of the scoring team take a couple of minutes cuddling each other anyway. We all saw it was offside within 30 seconds of replays, there would be no wasted time at all. the ball is dead regardless. Imagine if the boot was on the other foot and that decision cost City the title or had relegated another team - too much is at stake not to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 7 April, 2014 Share Posted 7 April, 2014 Yes. Although I don't see how he can not give a goal now we have goal line technology telling the ref the ball has crossed the line. It's not a perfect system but it would iron out a lot of problems with the game. Diving would be pretty much wiped out if every player knew the foul was going to be reviewed before a penalty is given. The only scenarios where it wont help is if there is a foul which should lead to a penalty or sending off but it isn't seen by the officials and so there is no stoppage in play. We already have retrospective bans for incidents the ref didn't see, so that's not so much of an issue anyway. So only some of the key incidents and not others? How far back will the decision making process go? If it should have been a foul several minutes before and the team continue to play and score a goal, will play be brought back to the incident a couple of mintues before and no goal given? And to think some feel this will reduce arguments and disputes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 7 April, 2014 Share Posted 7 April, 2014 I'll say it again - TV does not give a very good representation of what actually took place. There are a lot more clues that the referee uses, the speed at which the player goes down, where his eyes are looking, how his momentum affects his behaviour, does his action seem natural? There is far more going on in real life than TV can ever portray. That just doesn't make sense. TV is a video recording of exactly what happened and you can see it in HD from about 10 different camera angles, slowed motion, freeze frame etc. etc. It is a far better way of judging an incident than one man, running, 20 yards from the incident, who gets one look at what happened at full speed, possibly with a bunch of players blocking his view. How can you 'not see the speed a player goes down' from looking at a video? That doesn't make sense. Same with the the direction the player is looking, I've seen dosens of replays of players diving when it's blatantly obvious a player is looking at the ref before he even falls over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 7 April, 2014 Share Posted 7 April, 2014 (edited) Agree, The players of the scoring team take a couple of minutes cuddling each other anyway. We all saw it was offside within 30 seconds of replays, there would be no wasted time at all. the ball is dead regardless. Imagine if the boot was on the other foot and that decision cost City the title or had relegated another team - too much is at stake not to do it. Agreed. Or maybe that decision wins City the title. WHat would have happened in the second half is impossible to say but we go in at half time 1-1, they need to win and are getting anxious, could we have held on for a draw or even win? Quite possibly. They are then 3 further points behind Liverpool with a trip to Anfield looming which they have to win. Lets not forget that in 1989 Arsenal won the league due to an equaliser that was scored in the 8th minute of injury time against us, time added on because the ref missed Paul Davis punching Glen Cockerill in the jaw. Had the ref seen it he'd have been sent off, we'd have been 2-1 up against 10 men and MIchael Thomas 91st minute title winner at Anfield on the last day of the season would have been irrelevant. Anyway, point being there is so much money at stake these days and every decison analysed and reviewed time after time that i think the refs do need some help. They still need the authority to make some decisions but with so much diving and every mistake being highlighted it would be in the interests of the integrity of the sport to offer them some video support. Edited 7 April, 2014 by Turkish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 7 April, 2014 Share Posted 7 April, 2014 So only some of the key incidents and not others? How far back will the decision making process go? If it should have been a foul several minutes before and the team continue to play and score a goal, will play be brought back to the incident a couple of mintues before and no goal given? And to think some feel this will reduce arguments and disputes. 1. Yes. Just because we can't solve every problem, doesn't mean we should ignore all of them. 2. No. If a foul occurred 2 minutes before the goal is scored then the defending team has had ample opportunity to get back into position and defend properly. Any advantage gained from the foul will be largely negated and the defending team will have had to have made mistakes of their own for a goal to be scored. I would say a time limit of maybe 30 seconds for the video ref. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 7 April, 2014 Share Posted 7 April, 2014 1. Yes. Just because we can't solve every problem, doesn't mean we should ignore all of them. 2. No. If a foul occurred 2 minutes before the goal is scored then the defending team has had ample opportunity to get back into position and defend properly. Any advantage gained from the foul will be largely negated and the defending team will have had to have made mistakes of their own for a goal to be scored. I would say a time limit of maybe 30 seconds for the video ref. So a challenge happens in one box, the atacking team go up for a pen, ref waves play on and the defending team break down the other end and score and all the fans stand in silence waiting to see if that was 30 seconds or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 7 April, 2014 Share Posted 7 April, 2014 Agreed. Or maybe that decision wins City the title. WHat would have happened in the second half is impossible to say but we go in at half time 1-1, they need to win and are getting anxious, could we have held on for a draw or even win? Quite possibly. They are then 3 further points behind Liverpool with a trip to Anfield looming which they have to win. Lets not forget that in 1989 Arsenal won the league due to an equaliser that was scored in the 8th minute of injury time against us, time added on because the ref missed Paul Davis punching Glen Cockerill in the jaw. Had the ref seen it he'd have been sent off, we'd have been 2-1 up against 10 men and MIchtell Thomas 91st minute title winner at Anfield on the last day of the season would have been irrelevant. Anyway, point being there is so much money at stake these days and every decison analysed and reviewed time after time that i think the refs do need some help. They still need the authority to make some decisions but with so much diving and every mistake being highlighted it would be in the interests of the integrity of the sport to offer them some video support. Agree with this. I've said repeatedly here and over beer that refs need a lot more help. 3 officials to 22 players on the pitch the size of that at the eithad is ridiculous and outdated, especially when you consider how quick the game is now. To think referees won't get decisions wrong is daft. It further undermines the whole 'respect' campaign, which Im not sure if is actually still ongoing or not to be honest. How can you be respectful of people that make such glaring errors, and are then not held accountable for them. Poor decisions change games, and therefore affect results. Managers jobs hinge on results. Yet, referees cannot comment on glaring errors by officials, and they are just brushed under the carpet and people are expected to shrug their shoulders and get on with it. I do not blame officials, I think they try their best to do a very hard job, but quite simply, they need more help. I forget which game it was this weekend, but there was a goal-line clearance (possibly Villa-Fulham?) that the naked eye in real time would never have been able to detect. You could see the ref allow play to continue whilst looking at his watch, which tells him whether or not the ball is in or not. And the game continues, if it had been a goal, he simply blows up and awards the goal. The 'slowing the game down' nonsense argument was used against GLT as well. Referees are not respected as people do not have faith in the to get decisions correct. More officials are needed (I've suggested several times adding two more linesman/assistant referees), and technology should be embraced. It's bizarre that the sport with one of largest amounts of money involved, and riding on it for clubs, is one of the least willing to embrace technology. If players, mangers, fans etc have faith that officials are going to get decisions right, they will be much more likely to be respected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 7 April, 2014 Share Posted 7 April, 2014 1. Yes. Just because we can't solve every problem, doesn't mean we should ignore all of them. 2. No. If a foul occurred 2 minutes before the goal is scored then the defending team has had ample opportunity to get back into position and defend properly. Any advantage gained from the foul will be largely negated and the defending team will have had to have made mistakes of their own for a goal to be scored. I would say a time limit of maybe 30 seconds for the video ref. I'd give up trying to debate this with Sour Mash, Lighthouse. He won't understand what you're trying to say, no matter how simply you state your case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 7 April, 2014 Share Posted 7 April, 2014 I'd give up trying to debate this with Sour Mash, Lighthouse. He won't understand what you're trying to say, no matter how simply you state your case. People not having a clue what you are banging on about seems to be a common problem with you Les, it cant be you can it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxi_sopez Posted 7 April, 2014 Share Posted 7 April, 2014 Just another opinion... I was at the game on Saturday and was very lucky to be sitting in a box just above the Directors box. When the Nasri goal goes in I immediately shout that is offside. Then turn round and look at the tv screen in the box showing the game... Within 10 seconds of the goal going in - I have seen a replay showing 100% it is offside. My point being is technology won't delay the game, by the time city players had stopped celebrating the referee could have had it in his ear that it was not a goal. No delay, the correct decision made and the game continues 1 minute later. I really think it is no brainer - why is the most popular sport in the world lagging behind every other sport when it comes to this?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lets B Avenue Posted 7 April, 2014 Share Posted 7 April, 2014 No way should we stop the game for about 30 secs to get the correct decision. It would leave every TV station, newspaper and website with nothing to pontificate about for the following week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 7 April, 2014 Share Posted 7 April, 2014 That just doesn't make sense. TV is a video recording of exactly what happened and you can see it in HD from about 10 different camera angles, slowed motion, freeze frame etc. etc. It is a far better way of judging an incident than one man, running, 20 yards from the incident, who gets one look at what happened at full speed, possibly with a bunch of players blocking his view. How can you 'not see the speed a player goes down' from looking at a video? That doesn't make sense. Same with the the direction the player is looking, I've seen dosens of replays of players diving when it's blatantly obvious a player is looking at the ref before he even falls over. That's exactly my point. Slow-motion does not give you the natural cadence of the incident. On television you can't see which direction the player is looking. It's like a picture where the eyes follow you round the room. There's a whole a lot of detail that you can't get on the replay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 7 April, 2014 Share Posted 7 April, 2014 No way should we stop the game for about 30 secs to get the correct decision. It would leave every TV station, newspaper and website with nothing to pontificate about for the following week. It will allow them more time to speculate on how many of our squad are already on the way to Man City, Man Utd, Chelsea, Liverpool, Spurs, Arsenal, Real Madrid. The additional time will also allow them to go beyond our top players and to dig for rumours about the next lot coming through the ranks. Expect headlines along the lines of "Harrison Read is expected to sign for ......... " and then the rumours for the likes of Matt Targett, Sam Mc Queen, Sam Gallagher, Jake Hesketh, Josh Simms, Omar Rowe, Jake Sinclair, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 7 April, 2014 Share Posted 7 April, 2014 So a challenge happens in one box, the atacking team go up for a pen, ref waves play on and the defending team break down the other end and score and all the fans stand in silence waiting to see if that was 30 seconds or not? That being a hypothetical scenario which probably happens once a year out of all the Premier League fixtures. My answer is yes, only without the silence. 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