Sepp Blatter considers "review of decsions"

[david in sweden]

......and about ****ing time !

 

This has been a sore point with me and millions of fans who watch a game (especially on TV) and see "perfectly good goals " ...disallowed or not even given....because of some refereeing error.

IMO.. There are few things that irk more than seeing goals disallowed / not allowed when miiions of people see the real situation and the ref.(s) have missed it.

 

This type of TV replay has been in many sports for decades past - at last Football will be dragged kicking and screaming into 21st century now that we have the technology to give us the correct answer.

 

In an attempt to placate his many critics, (and just before his attempt to be re-elected as FIFA boss for yet another term), Sepp Blatter has stated that "trials will take place in the coming season giving managers / coaches the right to an " appeal against a wrong decision " to be decided by the match officials to see if the appeal is correct or not.

 

The highly embarrasing miss in the 2010 World Cup when Frank Lampards "goal " was disallowed when it clearly crossed the line (before the German keeper retrieved it) was a prime example.

The introduction of goal-line cameras has gone someway to solving the problem, but far more serious incidents occur in games every week that don't just rely on the ball crossing the line, or not.

 

Saints have already been a victim of the antiquated system that presently exists when Graziano Pellé recently had a "good goal " wrongly ruled out for offside. I saw it and so did everyone else who watched the game on TV. Fortunately-on this occasion -it didn't affect the final result, but many times before such occurances have cost teams points and sometimes even losing the match.

 

Let's hope that in future we can see proper results coming from the use of modern technology and not an unsighted match official.

 

Of course it can work against us as well, but I'd prefer to see a correct decision everytime - even if it does go against us occasionally. At least the truth will prevail.

[david in sweden]

......and about ****ing time !

 

This has been a sore point with me and millions of fans who watch a game (especially on TV) and see "perfectly good goals " ...disallowed or not even given....because of some refereeing error.

IMO.. There are few things that irk more than seeing goals disallowed / not allowed when millions of people see the true situation.. but the ref.(s) have missed it.

 

This type of TV replay has been in many sports for decades past - at last Football will be dragged kicking and screaming into 21st century now that we have the technology to give us the correct answer.

 

In an attempt to placate his many critics, (and just before his attempt to be re-elected as FIFA boss for yet another term), Sepp Blatter has stated that "trials will take place in the coming season giving managers / coaches the right to an " appeal against a wrong decision " to be decided by the match officials to see if the appeal is correct or not. (one appeal per half).

 

The highly embarrasing miss in the 2010 World Cup when Frank Lampards "goal " was disallowed when it clearly crossed the line (before the German keeper retrieved it) was a prime example.

The introduction of goal-line cameras has gone someway to solving that particular problem, but far more serious incidents occur in games every week that don't just rely on the ball crossing the line, or not.

 

Saints have already been a victim of the antiquated system that presently exists when Graziano Pellé recently had a "good goal " wrongly ruled out for offside. I saw it (on TV) and so did everyone else who watched the game. Fortunately-on this occasion -it didn't affect the final result, but many times before such occurances have cost teams points and sometimes even losing the match.

 

Let's hope that in future we can see proper results coming from the use of modern technology and not an unsighted match official.

 

Of course it can work against us as well, but I'd prefer to see a correct decision everytime - even if it does go against us occasionally. At least the truth will prevail.

Edited 8 September, 2014 by david in sweden

[Batman]

next thing, the game will be split into 4 quaters

[Saint Rees]

Like this idea. Disallowing goals is just as important too though, David Silva offside at Man City away springs to mind (I know it didn't affect the result but this has to be one of the most ridiculous decisions I've seen). Hopefully it all works out well

[the saint in winchester]

TV replay at the time would be fine, like in the tennis, but if we are talking about over-ruling a decision the next day, then that would never work.

[ALWAYS_SFC]

such a good topic it needs two threads;)

[Saint Mikey]

Like this idea. Disallowing goals is just as important too though, David Silva offside at Man City away springs to mind (I know it didn't affect the result but this has to be one of the most ridiculous decisions I've seen). Hopefully it all works out well

 

One of the worst decisions I've seen is Fonte getting a pen v Brighton despite clearly being outside the area.

[farawaysaint]

Not a fan of this at all, what makes football attractive is the flowing nature I don't want the stop start nature of other sports.

[Wade Garrett]

Just have referees who aren't biased towards the big sides.

[Beckenham Saint]

 

Are we getting Thread replays, too?

[ALWAYS_SFC]

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?51720-Sepp-Blatter-considers-quot-review-of-decsions-quot#.VA3PqWPnfNo

[Ohio Saint]

Great news!

[Minsk]

The one thing I would like to see reviewed and action taken on is simulation; especially the rolling around as if they've been shot trying to get an opposition player sent of, when they were barely (if at all) touched. Such play-acting should be punished with a retrospective 3 match ban if proved by cameras, IMO.

[Ohio Saint]

Terrible news!

[KingdomCome]

Good idea, and past time to introduce it. No doubt some will see it as interfering unnecessarily, but I see no problem with it. Limited to once per half it'll not interfere significantly. Hopefully ensure a fairer outcome on a number of occasions. More often than not the review will turn on something that has led to a natural stop in play (throw in - goal - offside - foul). If it doesn't the ref just needs to be made aware of the appeal (buzz on his watch for example) and he decides when play can stop to review.

 

If there's enough evidence in the review to overturn then do so, if not then the original decision stands. Easy.

[KingdomCome]

Terrible news!

 

:lol:

[Sour Mash]

Not a fan of this at all, what makes football attractive is the flowing nature I don't want the stop start nature of other sports.

Exactly this. The suggestion that Blatter is involved in the idea sums it up!

[hypochondriac]

Hope his health fails soon so he can't have another term.

[September Saint]

Not certain about this. Could slow/disrupt the game. Perhaps a fixed term trial in one or two leagues with people keeping an open mind.

What could help fairness is retrospective punishment for diving and other forms of cheating.

[Hatch]

long overdue,

 

now that the technology is available to make it happen within seconds.

 

We would probably waste it on a throw in decision near the half way line though.

[igsey]

Not a fan of this at all, what makes football attractive is the flowing nature I don't want the stop start nature of other sports.

 

I hope you don't make a habit of watching Spanish football then.

[broken spoke]

there are many ways in that it could be included, without effecting the flow of the game... but u know they are going to choose the wrong one...

[farawaysaint]

I hope you don't make a habit of watching Spanish football then.

 

[ratio_decidendi]

More credible decisions from officials? Yes, I'm on board even if it means stubbing the natural flow of the game which is, by the way, already quite stop start (especially if you're playing against a Tony Pulis side).

 

I'm more concerned about other potential consequences of this system. How will it impact the viewing of the game on TV i.e. will it be an excuse for networks to throw in more commercials? Could the system lead to even more controversial decisions?

 

These are only possibilities, but I'm sure I'm not that only one that's cynical about Sepp Blatter and FIFA.

[Whitey Grandad]

......and about ****ing time !

 

This has been a sore point with me and millions of fans who watch a game (especially on TV) and see "perfectly good goals " ...disallowed or not even given....because of some refereeing error.

IMO.. There are few things that irk more than seeing goals disallowed / not allowed when miiions of people see the real situation and the ref.(s) have missed it.

 

This type of TV replay has been in many sports for decades past - at last Football will be dragged kicking and screaming into 21st century now that we have the technology to give us the correct answer.

 

In an attempt to placate his many critics, (and just before his attempt to be re-elected as FIFA boss for yet another term), Sepp Blatter has stated that "trials will take place in the coming season giving managers / coaches the right to an " appeal against a wrong decision " to be decided by the match officials to see if the appeal is correct or not.

 

The highly embarrasing miss in the 2010 World Cup when Frank Lampards "goal " was disallowed when it clearly crossed the line (before the German keeper retrieved it) was a prime example.

The introduction of goal-line cameras has gone someway to solving the problem, but far more serious incidents occur in games every week that don't just rely on the ball crossing the line, or not.

 

Saints have already been a victim of the antiquated system that presently exists when Graziano Pellé recently had a "good goal " wrongly ruled out for offside. I saw it and so did everyone else who watched the game on TV. Fortunately-on this occasion -it didn't affect the final result, but many times before such occurances have cost teams points and sometimes even losing the match.

 

Let's hope that in future we can see proper results coming from the use of modern technology and not an unsighted match official.

 

Of course it can work against us as well, but I'd prefer to see a correct decision everytime - even if it does go against us occasionally. At least the truth will prevail.

 

Don't agree David mate. TV dominates the sport too much already. When people say that they want a review then what they are really saying is that they want the decision changed. Pellè was actually offside.

 

By the way, I'm actually in Sweden at the moment in Örebro with my missus. We spent last night in Mora and this morning we bought at large Dalahästar.

[The Cat]

All I'd like to see is retrospective punishment for diving and nasty fouls, even if the ref did see it.

 

What sort of decisions will be reviewed? Every throw in, and goal kick? No thanks, I'd rather not spend 2.5 hours in the ground watching a 90 minute game. The less time I have to spend with other football fans the better.

[Goatboy]

Cool idea.

We should also have a league table for Refs so we can statistically determine the biggest bellends. Top of the wrongers should be placed in goal butt naked at the end of the season, and all the players who feel hard done by should have 5 free shots a them with one of those really stingy five-a-side balls.

Oh, and Sepp Blatter is a galloping pr*ck.

[simo]

It's a joke one man should make the decision as he sees it in real time , but they should be able to explain their decision post match!

[sadoldgit]

Hope his health fails soon so he can't have another term.

 

Charming. Are you the guy who said I hope you die soon to Branfoot by any chance?

[Avenue Saint]

Hope his health fails soon so he can't have another term.

What is the matter with you? Do you never learn you nasty nasty piece of work.

[ozzmeister]

Not a fan of this at all, what makes football attractive is the flowing nature I don't want the stop start nature of other sports.

 

I think this idea has benefit but also needs to be regulated in a sense that you cant appeal against every decison, if so you'll have managers who just appeal just on the off chance an error may have been made - in this instance I agree this would stop the flowing nature of the game.

 

What I'd like to see if a limit of the number of calls you can make in again. In tennis (and possibly in cricket) dont they have a maximum number of appeals they can make per match - may be as low as two. This means that managers will only call this if they are VERY sure an injustice has been made. This keeps the game flowing and actually adds a further element of entertainment to the fans watching (I always like watching the halk eye appeals at Wimbledon).

[david in sweden]

Not a fan of this at all, what makes football attractive is the flowing nature I don't want the stop start nature of other sports.

 

whilst I agree with your point,

I have often timed " stoppages " in games and the average throw-in can easily take upto 20 secs., a corner - usually around 45 secs. and free-kicks can take min.1 minute often longer.......

Not to mention the obvious stoppages for injuries, bookings etc.

 

As we are used to regular " stops " like that throughout a game... it shouldn't take so long to look at a TV monitor and make a decision.

Edited 8 September, 2014 by david in sweden

[david in sweden]

Don't agree David mate. TV dominates the sport too much already.

 

When people say that they want a review then what they are really saying is that they want the decision changed.

 

Pellè was actually offside.

 

By the way, I'm actually in Sweden at the moment in Örebro with my missus. We spent last night in Mora and this morning we bought at large Dala hästar.

 

 

Reply;

1) "dominates the sport?....thank goodness we have it....I don't get to SMS nearly as often as I'd like to. TV coverage of a game shows a lot of action / replays, though not the atmosphere sadly.

 

2) for review....I mean " review ". I feel more satisfied when I can see if a player was offside, was " really " fouled, or IF a goal was in or not.

 

3) Pelle off side? . Admitedly, it looked close but the TV commentator (s) on my channel were fairly convinced he wasn't.

 

 

SWEDEN : Bit of rain about in Stockholm, but clearer weather on the way Wed. / Thursday. 20 deg.+

[SarniaSaint]

Honestly don't see how this could work.

In the NFL you can challenge a decision but not all and that always happens after the play when the game is stopped. and you aren't allowed unlimited challenges. Lose the challenge and you lose 15 yards (I think). So tell me how that will work in soccer (sorry I had to say that word LOL).

 

Blatter is a senile fool IMHO

[Barry the Badger]

Honestly don't see how this could work.

In the NFL you can challenge a decision but not all and that always happens after the play when the game is stopped. and you aren't allowed unlimited challenges. Lose the challenge and you lose 15 yards (I think). So tell me how that will work in soccer (sorry I had to say that word LOL).

 

Blatter is a senile fool IMHO

 

Much the same as it does in Rugby I'd imagine. Wait for play to stop, review the decision, give the decision. It's not that complicated really.

[Viking Saint]

Honestly don't see how this could work.

In the NFL you can challenge a decision but not all and that always happens after the play when the game is stopped. and you aren't allowed unlimited challenges. Lose the challenge Another win tight one by 5 runs we made 193-4 hundred for me they made 188-3 some good death bowling seen us home only one more to go now can I have your vote for player of year pleaseand you lose 15 yards (I think). So tell me how that will work in soccer (sorry I had to say that word LOL).

 

Blatter is a senile fool IMHO

 

Blatter is behind only Juan Antonio Samaranch as the most bent sporting official ever!!

Edited 8 September, 2014 by Viking Saint

[Viking Saint]

Much the same as it does in Rugby I'd imagine. Wait for play to stop, review the decision, give the decision. It's not that complicated really.

 

In the Rugby Premiership last season, the ball was in play less than 50% of the time with a restart through scrum or line out every 75 seconds on average.....it's a game that lends itself to breaks in play for TMO referrals....I think football is a little too fluid for it tbh and wouldn't be suited to regular breaks for referrals ...only my opinion of course....

[The Majestic Channon]

......and about ****ing time !

 

This has been a sore point with me and millions of fans who watch a game (especially on TV) and see "perfectly good goals " ...disallowed or not even given....because of some refereeing error.

IMO.. There are few things that irk more than seeing goals disallowed / not allowed when millions of people see the true situation.. but the ref.(s) have missed it.

 

This type of TV replay has been in many sports for decades past - at last Football will be dragged kicking and screaming into 21st century now that we have the technology to give us the correct answer.

 

In an attempt to placate his many critics, (and just before his attempt to be re-elected as FIFA boss for yet another term), Sepp Blatter has stated that "trials will take place in the coming season giving managers / coaches the right to an " appeal against a wrong decision " to be decided by the match officials to see if the appeal is correct or not. (one appeal per half).

 

The highly embarrasing miss in the 2010 World Cup when Frank Lampards "goal " was disallowed when it clearly crossed the line (before the German keeper retrieved it) was a prime example.

The introduction of goal-line cameras has gone someway to solving that particular problem, but far more serious incidents occur in games every week that don't just rely on the ball crossing the line, or not.

 

Saints have already been a victim of the antiquated system that presently exists when Graziano Pellé recently had a "good goal " wrongly ruled out for offside. I saw it (on TV) and so did everyone else who watched the game. Fortunately-on this occasion -it didn't affect the final result, but many times before such occurances have cost teams points and sometimes even losing the match.

 

Let's hope that in future we can see proper results coming from the use of modern technology and not an unsighted match official.

 

Of course it can work against us as well, but I'd prefer to see a correct decision everytime - even if it does go against us occasionally. At least the truth will prevail.

 

No need for industrial language David

[Bermuda Saint]

VERY HAPPY. About time!, and it has been introduced like i was hoping , one appeal a half, it will put a lot of pressure on the coach and supporting staff, they will have to be fast with making an appeal, reviewing within seconds the foul, card, offside or any number of thing which might turn a game. The review guys are gonna get a big pay rise.

 

The coach will make the ultimate decision, appeal an offside that was overruled and then get a red card or good goal disallowed later in the half would be his cross to bare. But in an attempt at fairness, it is a good beginning.

 

I still see it being manipulated by corrupt refs that can always influence a game multiple times, rendering the one challenge per half useless. We have also seen instant replays on tight situation, that even at slow motion and watching several times, we are not sure. So I still expect a lot of controversy.

 

I wonder how long they will have to appeal once the ref has made a decision or lack of? can they make an appeal on calls (ref make a decision that you disagree with) and no calls (ref missed an incident that you disagreed with)?

 

I am looking forward to how this experiment works out. We cannot fight back the technology that is coming to all sports.

[niceandfriendly]

Giving a one appeal system like in cricket will not ensure every decision is correct. It will create absolute chaos.

 

Could be fun though.

[Deano6]

I'm a bit late to this thread, has anyone rolled out the "but Americans do it so it must be sh*t" line yet?

[andoru]

Not a fan of this at all, what makes football attractive is the flowing nature I don't want the stop start nature of other sports.

 

I believe the idea is to only allow a challenge during natural stoppages in play, not to allow managers to stop the game with the challenge. Assuming the challenges are for things like disallowed goals (or wrongly allowed goals), this wouldn't be an issue as the game would stop anyway. I can see some problems if managers are going to challenge for free kicks not given, as presumably the game would have continued and could do so for quite some time before the ball goes out of play. I'm in favour of the idea, but perhaps only for dubious goals and incidents inside the penalty box (e.g handballs).

[BG_Saint]

Blatter says "video reviews", all I hear is "commercial breaks"...

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[syd_barrett_saint]

About ****ing time, indeed.

[Redslo]

I propose these rules:

 

At each stoppage of play, the manager can request review of any one reviewable play that has occurred since the last stoppage of play. If play has been stopped by a goal that was not disallowed, no review is possible except of that goal. I would start simply and allow only off sides calls to be reviewable at first. Referees should be instructed to let play run on a bit following off sides calls to see if a goal occurs right away. If the game has stopped for an erroneous off sides call, the other team gets an indirect free kick.

[Whitey Grandad]

You can't judge offside by television.

[Whitey Grandad]

I believe the idea is to only allow a challenge during natural stoppages in play, not to allow managers to stop the game with the challenge. Assuming the challenges are for things like disallowed goals (or wrongly allowed goals), this wouldn't be an issue as the game would stop anyway. I can see some problems if managers are going to challenge for free kicks not given, as presumably the game would have continued and could do so for quite some time before the ball goes out of play. I'm in favour of the idea, but perhaps only for dubious goals and incidents inside the penalty box (e.g handballs).

 

You can't judge handball on television, that's a subjective decision by the referee, and you can't judge offside on TV either.

[andoru]

You can't judge handball on television, that's a subjective decision by the referee, and you can't judge offside on TV either.

 

I was discussing this very point over lunch. My thoughts are that you can see whether there was a handball or not, but that there would still be interpretation by the official. Managers would just have to accept that. At least they had a chance to look at it.

 

As for your point about offside, I'm afraid I don't get that at all. Offside is one of the easiest things to see with TV replay.

[andoru]

You can't judge offside by television.

 

Television is a lot more accurate than an individual running with a flag, trying to look at two places at once (where the ball is played from and where the intended receiver is at that exact moment).

[hasper57saint]

TV. Football programmes will turn into a 'Fat Sam' documentary twice a week. Imagine how MOD would use this were Fergie still in charge at Manure? Leave it as it is. Some decisions actually go our way. eg Morgans second from a non-corner last Saturday.