Sepp Blatter considers "review of decsions"

[Rut]

The only change I'd like to see is for each ground to have a big electronic clock. It starts at 45:00 and counts down to 0:00

 

It is one blokes job to stop it when there is an injury, a sub, a goal etc.

 

When it hits 0:00 the game ends.

 

The ref wouldn't have to think about the time and it would stop fake injuries. Roll about all you want mate. The clock is stopped.

[Gemmel]

So explain to me what your proposal is then, if I've got it wrong. On that basis you haven't provided a working alternative scenario, just cried that the current system is "unfair".

 

And

 

I'm sure I put in there that an option would be that play continues until ball is dead for strikers clean through....

 

Anyway as you have highlighted the current system is unfair and with your flippant "And" as if who cares. Well it looks as though, to some extent it will be addressed, which will p!ss you off.......

 

AND

[KingdomCome]

So explain to me what your proposal is then, if I've got it wrong. On that basis you haven't provided a working alternative scenario, just cried that the current system is "unfair".

 

And

 

Why not give the ref a watch that will vibrate when a review is called by the manager. The ref will then decide on an appropriate point to pause the game. If a team are bearing down on goal 1 on 1 with the keeper, the ref would probably decide to wait and see what happens with that first.

 

Edit: didn't see Gemmel's earlier points, mic'd up 4th official would work in the same way.

Edited 9 September, 2014 by KingdomCome

[david in sweden]

Hold on, let me get this straight - you are suggesting a system, where a team can be 1-0 up in the FA Cup final, 91st minute and attacking, they lose the ball and the opposition break very quickly and look like they could be clear through - the team 1-0 up are able to use one of their remaining "appeals" and have the game stopped/brought back, while it is "reviewed". All their players get back in position, have a good breather and are ready to see out their 1-0 win. It doesn't work.

 

iF i CAN HOP IN HERE, FELLA'S........It does seem that almost every fan on this thread has created their own scenario to prove / disprove if this is viable.

 

I've watched the interview twice, and at best S.Blatter wasn't very clear himself about how it would work, and I suspect it was a good idea that (finally) came to him when he woke up one morning last week.

It obviously needs to be carefully considered and put in to practice in a real match situations to analyse its practicality. He suggested (maybe) a trial in the forthcoming U20 Championships in N.Z. ???

 

In real terms the people who make the appeal will be the bench (manager / coach)...but the initiative would surely only react to serious incidents on the field and the players do that naturally.

.....when players closeby a handball incident in penalty area, or feel they've had a goal " disallowed " incorrectly, " they appeal ". Nothing wrong with that. The goal-line cameras do a good job-don't they?

 

Players see these things first hand (no pun intended)... and would appeal instinctively, whereas those who " dive " might be booked ....instead of having " conned " the ref. into giving a penalty.

 

Being caught off side (rightly or wrongly) stops the game anyway and the action is pulled back. I don't think anyone could call for an appeal on offside... (unless a goal / penalty may have resulted from it).

 

Acccording to SB's he suggests, the ref. would analyse and decide if he should alter his decision ...AFTER the incident with the action.....had " naturally come to a stop" ??? (goal/ corner/ free kick / etc,)

 

Of course we won't know until FIFA come out with some rules or guidelines, but it must be worth some serious consideration.

Edited 9 September, 2014 by david in sweden

[david in sweden]

The only change I'd like to see is for each ground to have a big electronic clock. It starts at 45:00 and counts down to 0:00

 

It is one blokes job to stop it when there is an injury, a sub, a goal etc.

 

When it hits 0:00 the game ends.

 

The ref wouldn't have to think about the time and it would stop fake injuries. Roll about all you want mate. The clock is stopped.

 

 

in theory (the ref.) stops one of his watches automatically when such situations occur. Only now, it's the fourth official who's responsible for that task, but the ref. can (and occasionally does) over-ride him.

[Whitey Grandad]

....but (Whitey)....you are remembering that it's the player's standing position - when the ball is kicked - and not where he is when he receives it.

 

Thankfully now, players who are not involved in the play can be standing in an offside position, as long as they are deemed not to be interfering with play.

.....(although exceptions can be: (for example) ...deliberately unsighting the goalkeeper).

 

The parts of the body (that maybe offside have been stated)...like "handball" has to be deliberate hand-to-ball and not ball-to-hand, likewise the shoulder is not considered offside, but the upper arm is.

 

Hi David,

 

In Helsingborg now

 

Don't forget that I and others in here are qualified referees and have been through these discussions several times before. Yes, you're right, it's when the ball is kicked that matters but no part of the arms is considered. Any other part of the body can be offside such as the nose, knee, foot.

[Lorne Malvo]

More sterilisation of the game. Hope it doesn't go through. Drama will be hard to come by soon enough in football.

 

I guess the plebs cheering when the ref puts the magic white line on the ground will make up for it though.

[The Majestic Channon]

Hi David,

 

In Helsingborg now

 

Don't forget that I and others in here are qualified referees and have been through these discussions several times before. Yes, you're right, it's when the ball is kicked that matters but no part of the arms is considered. Any other part of the body can be offside such as the nose, knee, foot.

 

Not far from me..don't forget to visit Helsingör too

[Sour Mash]

Why not give the ref a watch that will vibrate when a review is called by the manager. The ref will then decide on an appropriate point to pause the game. If a team are bearing down on goal 1 on 1 with the keeper, the ref would probably decide to wait and see what happens with that first.

 

Edit: didn't see Gemmel's earlier points, mic'd up 4th official would work in the same way.

 

 

What if that 'appropriate point' is the opposition scoring a goal? Half the crowd go mad celebrating, turns out the ref has called it back for an infringement that happened 5 mins before.

[Sour Mash]

iF i CAN HOP IN HERE, FELLA'S........It does seem that almost every fan on this thread has created their own scenario to prove / disprove if this is viable.

 

I've watched the interview twice, and at best S.Blatter wasn't very clear himself about how it would work, and I suspect it was a good idea that (finally) came to him when he woke up one morning last week.

It obviously needs to be carefully considered and put in to practice in a real match situations to analyse its practicality. He suggested (maybe) a trial in the forthcoming U20 Championships in N.Z. ???

 

In real terms the people who make the appeal will be the bench (manager / coach)...but the initiative would surely only react to serious incidents on the field and the players do that naturally.

.....when players closeby a handball incident in penalty area, or feel they've had a goal " disallowed " incorrectly, " they appeal ". Nothing wrong with that. The goal-line cameras do a good job-don't they?

 

Players see these things first hand (no pun intended)... and would appeal instinctively, whereas those who " dive " might be booked ....instead of having " conned " the ref. into giving a penalty.

 

Being caught off side (rightly or wrongly) stops the game anyway and the action is pulled back. I don't think anyone could call for an appeal on offside... (unless a goal / penalty may have resulted from it).

 

Acccording to SB's he suggests, the ref. would analyse and decide if he should alter his decision ...AFTER the incident with the action.....had " naturally come to a stop" ??? (goal/ corner/ free kick / etc,)

 

Of course we won't know until FIFA come out with some rules or guidelines, but it must be worth some serious consideration.

 

 

As I explained earlier, there is no workable solution, no matter how many people think it 'might be a good idea'.

[Ohio Saint]

As I explained earlier, there is no workable solution, no matter how many people think it 'might be a good idea'.

 

Oh! That's it then I suppose. Close the thread.

[Whitey Grandad]

Not far from me..don't forget to visit Helsingör too

 

We're going down to Malmö and over the Øresund bridge and then the Storebælt bridge to Sønderborg, I know some people there from when I used to do a lot of work for them. Apart from buying the giant horse the other reason for coming was to go over these bridges. We would gave stated around longer but I need to get back for the Newcastle game.

[OldNick]

I still don't believe that replays always get the right decision. You only have to watch MoTD and you get different opinions of its a penalty.

[OldNick]

 

Acccording to SB's he suggests, the ref. would analyse and decide if he should alter his decision ...AFTER the incident with the action.....had " naturally come to a stop" ??? (goal/ corner/ free kick / etc,)

 

Of course we won't know until FIFA come out with some rules or guidelines, but it must be worth some serious consideration.

imagine the chaos if while they are waiting for a natural break, that the oppo go to the other end and score!!

[September Saint]

A shame this review wasn't around when he announced ......"Qatar!"

[SaintRobbie]

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 agree. I love the debate, as Arry once said, it balances out over a season. Hate goal line technology, extra linesmen and this is just more unnecessary technology. This free kick spray is unnecessary too.

 

Football is a human game, played by people. It should be the same game kids can play in the park or men play in the best stadiums in the world.

 

Referees decision should be final.... And we should enjoy the injustices and debate. It's part of the game. It's what makes it the greatest game in the world.

[SarniaSaint]

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

 

Just like you cant decide foul or no foul, penalty or no penalty by TV. These are subjective decisions by the referee and guess what the decision wont change.

[SarniaSaint]

I agree. I love the debate, as Arry once said, it balances out over a season. Hate goal line technology, extra linesmen and this is just more unnecessary technology. This free kick spray is unnecessary too.

 

Football is a human game, played by people. It should be the same game kids can play in the park or men play in the best stadiums in the world.

 

Referees decision should be final.... And we should enjoy the injustices and debate. It's part of the game. It's what makes it the greatest game in the world.

 

Good post Robbie. IMO FIFA have ruined the sport, Havelange and now Blatter are/were as corrupt as hell.

 

Maybe time for Europe to go it alone after all Europe is the base of the sport not Africa or Asia.

 

Just my opinion

[The9]

The only change I'd like to see is for each ground to have a big electronic clock. It starts at 45:00 and counts down to 0:00

 

It is one blokes job to stop it when there is an injury, a sub, a goal etc.

 

When it hits 0:00 the game ends.

 

The ref wouldn't have to think about the time and it would stop fake injuries. Roll about all you want mate. The clock is stopped.

 

Who is the one bloke?

 

How is it determined how the clock counts - eg does it stop for throw-ins? What, ALL of them? Every time, even when they take a quick one? How about when the ball goes out of the ground? Where's the defining line?

 

I played in one match with a clock counting down on a Soccer Tour, no-one stopping it, just counting down. Suffice to say, the USA had never seen such skilled time-wasting and such commitment to hoofing the ball as far from the pitch and going down with minor knocks as Southampton University FC showed that day, once we'd gone 3-1 up. We also did a goal celebration based on the YMCA dance, but that's by the by.

[krissyboy31]

The only decision I'm interested in Blatter reviewing is his decision to run again!!

[St_Tel49]

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.

The clock does not stop for a throw in even if it takes 40 seconds. It would for a decision review. As someone else said we could be in the ground for 2 hours watching a 90 minute game. One or 2 decision reviews per team per half should be the absolute maximum. And the fact remains that players make many more poor decisions or actions than referees yet it is the referee's decision that "changed the game".

[farawaysaint]

Koeman supports this idea in the pre-match press conference but then he is a manager so he would

[david in sweden]

The clock does not stop for a throw in even if it takes 40 seconds. It would for a decision review.

As someone else said we could be in the ground for 2 hours watching a 90 minute game.

One or 2 decision reviews per team per half should be the absolute maximum.

And the fact remains that players make many more poor decisions or actions than referees yet it is the referee's decision that "changed the game".

 

I wasn't suggesting the clock was stopped for throw-ins., of course it's not... but when natural " stoppages " occur in the play - nothing else is happening either, and that eats into the 90 mins-playing time.

 

Some people seem to be suggesting that a review after an "appeal " would take up lots of time......I can't see that, it would take no longer than the time a corner, or placed free kick does, and if needs to the extra stoppage for " an appeal " might be added into the time after 90 mins. Perhaps it'll mean we get 94 mins.....instead of 93 ?

 

With a TV monitor by the pitchside, incidents can be easily reviewed in seconds (as it is at present for fans watching the game on TV at home / pub).

Edited 11 September, 2014 by david in sweden

[SarniaSaint]

I wasn't suggesting the clock was stopped for throw-ins., of course it's not... but when natural " stoppages " occur in the play - nothing else is happening either, and that eats into the 90 mins-playing time.

 

Some people seem to be suggesting that a review after an "appeal " would take up lots of time......I can't see that, it would take no longer than the time a corner, or placed free kick does, and if needs to the extra stoppage for " an appeal " might be added into the time after 90 mins. Perhaps it'll mean we get 94 mins.....instead of 93 ?

 

With a TV monitor by the pitchside, incidents can be easily reviewed in seconds (as it is at present for fans watching the game on TV at home / pub).

 

So who reviews? The referee on his own? the referee and the other 3 officials? all the of them and the 2 managers/coaches? I would say yeah at least 300 seconds and the original decision will still stand.

 

Maybe its time we had commercial breaks at every throw in, corner, substitution ec.

[Whitey Grandad]

I wasn't suggesting the clock was stopped for throw-ins., of course it's not... but when natural " stoppages " occur in the play - nothing else is happening either, and that eats into the 90 mins-playing time.

 

Some people seem to be suggesting that a review after an "appeal " would take up lots of time......I can't see that, it would take no longer than the time a corner, or placed free kick does, and if needs to the extra stoppage for " an appeal " might be added into the time after 90 mins. Perhaps it'll mean we get 94 mins.....instead of 93 ?

 

With a TV monitor by the pitchside, incidents can be easily reviewed in seconds (as it is at present for fans watching the game on TV at home / pub).

 

But who would provide the video snippets for that monitor? It would have to be an independent FA group of officials, and in some cases EUFA or even FIFA.

[The9]

I wasn't suggesting the clock was stopped for throw-ins., of course it's not... but when natural " stoppages " occur in the play - nothing else is happening either, and that eats into the 90 mins-playing time.

 

Some people seem to be suggesting that a review after an "appeal " would take up lots of time......I can't see that, it would take no longer than the time a corner, or placed free kick does, and if needs to the extra stoppage for " an appeal " might be added into the time after 90 mins. Perhaps it'll mean we get 94 mins.....instead of 93 ?

 

With a TV monitor by the pitchside, incidents can be easily reviewed in seconds (as it is at present for fans watching the game on TV at home / pub).

 

What about the times the ball gets hoofed over the stand?

 

How low down do these reviews go? Does the Football League have the facilities to deliver the same? Why should getting the decisions right in a mid-table end of season Premier League match be more important than getting the decisions right in a League Two relegation battle?

[david in sweden]

What about the times the ball gets hoofed over the stand?

 

How low down do these reviews go? Does the Football League have the facilities to deliver the same? Why should getting the decisions right in a mid-table end of season Premier League match be more important than getting the decisions right in a League Two relegation battle?

 

Ball hoofed over the stand???.....AS it is now, that's just a corner, or goal-kick (as the case may be). I don't think the ref. would stop either of his watches for that - would he ?...it's part of the game.

 

The issue that many still can't grasp is that ..." stopping the game for an appeal " (after the incident), need be no more costly (time-wise)...than the time it takes to take a corner or free kick.

 

thats' one situation that he did discuss and suggest an answer .......that it might only apply to televised games, or where the game is being filmed. (doesn't mean it has to be M of D or Sky - does it?

...if there are no cameras then it's obviously not possible, but as every Prem. side has installed goal-line technology already this is surely just the next step. You might say it's not fair on lower league sides and those who aren't being filmed by someone, but if you take that to the " Nth degree ", then it's also tough for those playing Parks football, or a group of kids playing with coats for goalposts and no linesmen.

 

Reasonably speaking, it's obviously designed for matches for teams that have reached the highest level of the game and where title-winning ..or (perhaps) relegation are the more important issues.

 

The bland statement that " it evens itself out over the season " is rubbish....it rarely does. Some teams have complained that they've gone all season without ever being awarded a penalty, and there was a time ...not so long ago when Man. Utd went 7 seasons without EVER having a penalty awarded against them (at Old Trafford) - can you believe that ?

 

Certain players seem to be "experts at winning penalties"...when it fact what they should get is a yellow card for diving.

At least a replay would show the reality of it, and not left to the ref 's "guess" .when he's trailing 20 yards behind the play.

Edited 12 September, 2014 by david in sweden

[Sour Mash]

Ball hoofed over the stand???.....AS it is now, that's just a corner, or goal-kick (as the case may be). I don't think the ref. would stop either of his watches for that - would he ?...it's part of the game.

 

The issue that many still can't grasp is that ..." stopping the game for an appeal " (after the incident), need be no more costly (time-wise)...than the time it takes to take a corner or free kick.

 

thats' one situation that he did discuss and suggest an answer .......that it might only apply to televised games, or where the game is being filmed. (doesn't mean it has to be M of D or Sky - does it?

...if there are no cameras then it's obviously not possible, but as every Prem. side has installed goal-line technology already this is surely just the next step. You might say it's not fair on lower league sides and those who aren't being filmed by someone, but if you take that to the " Nth degree ", then it's also tough for those playing Parks football, or a group of kids playing with coats for goalposts and no linesmen.

 

Reasonably speaking, it's obviously designed for matches for teams that have reached the highest level of the game and where title-winning ..or (perhaps) relegation are the more important issues.

 

The bland statement that " it evens itself out over the season " is rubbish....it rarely does. Some teams have complained that they've gone all season without ever being awarded a penalty, and there was a time ...not so long ago when Man. Utd went 7 seasons without EVER having a penalty awarded against them (at Old Trafford) - can you believe that ?

 

Certain players seem to be "experts at winning penalties"...when it fact what they should get is a yellow card for diving.

At least a replay would show the reality of it, and not left to the ref 's "guess" .when he's trailing 20 yards behind the play.

Apologies if I missed you explain it, but can you just outline a workable, practical, beneficial plan for at which point in time the game is stopped and who's call it is for when the game should be stopped and a decision contested?

[Whitey Grandad]

[quote=david in sweden;2049879

 

Certain players seem to be "experts at winning penalties"...when it fact what they should get is a yellow card for diving.

At least a replay would show the reality of it, and not left to the ref 's "guess" .when he's trailing 20 yards behind the play.

 

Modern refs are usually quicker than the players at keeping up with play.

 

Edit: I've just noticed that my ipad had put 'modem' instead of 'modern'. When were talking about too much technology in football that's quite appropriate.

Edited 12 September, 2014 by Whitey Grandad

[sunrise]

The only thing that jurassic **** should be considering is his retirement.

[david in sweden]

Apologies if I missed you explain it, but can you just outline a workable, practical, beneficial plan for at which point in time the game is stopped and who's call it is for when the game should be stopped and a decision contested?

 

Again I go back to Blatter's interview, and those very few comments he made about the idea. He didn't come up with a fool proof solution.....the thought that the " appeal " would be carried out as soon as the "incident " and the ball was "dead " (i.e. goes out of play). However, even at present, play can be stopped and called back... if a player goes down and suffers a head injury, for example.

 

As I read it ....a dubious penalty shout would obviously be grounds for "an appeal ". Certainly when I'm watching a computer-streamed game, it takes only seconds for them to replay an incident.

 

Who would make the decision?, Obviously the manager / coach has responsibility to make the call, but; he, the players would react first and many of the fans, too - don't you think ?

 

A disallowed goal would seem to be a fairly obvious call. Why was it disallowed?.. offside can be confirmed by cameras, interfering with play is not always a good reason - unless it's properly confirmed.

 

As the ball is " dead " as soon as the ball goes over the goal line...if it does - it's a goal - the existing goal-line cameras would confirm that. No reason for an appeal in that case.

 

I don't think it would intefere with the game as much as some peopel are suggesting. It's just another dead ball interuption , like the many throw-ins, corners and free-kicks that occur in a normal game.

 

Serious injury stoppages are often much longer -and the approaprite time is added to the game.

[Whitey Grandad]

I hate the very thought of it. It just isn't cricket.

[SarniaSaint]

I hate the very thought of it. It just isn't cricket.

 

So do I but some seem to think it will some how help the game (LOL) Time to close the thread so they can go back to Fantasy League or whatever its called )

[Sour Mash]

Again I go back to Blatter's interview, and those very few comments he made about the idea. He didn't come up with a fool proof solution.....the thought that the " appeal " would be carried out as soon as the "incident " and the ball was "dead " (i.e. goes out of play). However, even at present, play can be stopped and called back... if a player goes down and suffers a head injury, for example.

 

As I read it ....a dubious penalty shout would obviously be grounds for "an appeal ". Certainly when I'm watching a computer-streamed game, it takes only seconds for them to replay an incident.

 

Who would make the decision?, Obviously the manager / coach has responsibility to make the call, but; he, the players would react first and many of the fans, too - don't you think ?

 

A disallowed goal would seem to be a fairly obvious call. Why was it disallowed?.. offside can be confirmed by cameras, interfering with play is not always a good reason - unless it's properly confirmed.

 

As the ball is " dead " as soon as the ball goes over the goal line...if it does - it's a goal - the existing goal-line cameras would confirm that. No reason for an appeal in that case.

 

I don't think it would intefere with the game as much as some peopel are suggesting. It's just another dead ball interuption , like the many throw-ins, corners and free-kicks that occur in a normal game.

 

Serious injury stoppages are often much longer -and the approaprite time is added to the game.

So you're recommending a system whereby a defending coach/manager can stop an opposing team's attack in the dying seconds of a game but shouting for an appeal? Ridiculous system.

[The9]

Ball hoofed over the stand???.....AS it is now, that's just a corner, or goal-kick (as the case may be). I don't think the ref. would stop either of his watches for that - would he ?...it's part of the game.

 

Welcome to the new era of timewasting. They already did away with multi-ball because despite it being specifically designed to speed up the return of the ball to play, teams were somehow managing to use it to slow the match down when they were leading, so how many hoofs over the stand with no other ball readily available do you think we'd start seeing if there was no time recovered for it? I've already given the example of a team I was playing for blatantly wasting time due to a daft countdown clock (though in our defence we did play 2 games in one day the day before).

[david in sweden]

So you're recommending a system whereby a defending coach/manager can stop an opposing team's attack in the dying seconds of a game but shouting for an appeal? Ridiculous system.

 

NO !....either I'm not explaining it well enough, or ??....Play continues until there is a "goal " ..or a corner. We have both seen times when the ref. consults the linesman if he's unsure... (same prínciple)

 

Blatter said that the review of an appeal would be made after the action had finished. As it is now, the ref. can stop the game whenever he wants.

If there is an appeal (example) surely would have been when Krul punched Long on Saturday, the ref. can be called to make a review if the manager wants it.

 

At present the ref. often allows play to continue (in an advantage situation) but can call play back if he's not satisfied that it was an advantage to continue.

The ref. controls the game, not the manager, but he does reacts to an appeal, in the same way if a linesman attracted his attention. The time delay would be considerably shorter than many seem to suggest.

 

I'm not making up the rules... FIFA will, but I am surmising how it might work.. (obviously not well enough for you to understand my meaning.)

[david in sweden]

Modern refs are usually quicker than the players at keeping up with play.

 

well I'm sure that many (like you) are, but you must agree that we have both seen games where controversial actions; goals and penalties were / were not allowed because the ref. was nowhere near the action.

 

As a ref. don't you ever go home after a game not knowing if an incident was "actual " or not?. Games involving titles and relegation are won and lost because the ref. was unable to see the truth.

For me as a fan, there's nothing more annoying than sitting in front of the TV, and seeing an incident happen that radically affects the result of the game and the ref. misses it !

I'm sure the millions of other fans who see it must feel the same.

 

My arguement has always been the same. Given the access to the technology that already exists for other sports, why not use it.? Looking at Rugby, Ice Hockey and even Cricket..it doesn't take long to decide.

 

IMHO....respect for referees (amongst fans/ players) would improve, if they were able to make judgments that were 99% correct, instead of taking the abuse they must endure during/after matches.