Video Technology (Again)

[Lighthouse]

I'll just move this up here.

 

Will a cup final being heavily influenced by a fairly obvious (on the replay) offside decision be enough to spark debate within the powers that be?

 

Should it? Was today just part of the entertainment of the game? Taking our Saints hats off, did that decision add to the spectacle, from a neutral POV?

[angelman]

Possibly not. But if the boot was on the other foot, Man U score, it ruled off and Saints go on to win, then I would have thought that there would be more chance.

[Whitey Grandad]

I'll just move this up here.

 

Will a cup final being heavily influenced by a fairly obvious (on the replay) offside decision be enough to spark debate within the powers that be?

 

Should it? Was today just part of the entertainment of the game? Taking our Saints hats off, did that decision add to the spectacle, from a neutral POV?

 

I'm not in favour of television taking more control. In my opinion it should be a spectator and not a participator.

 

Having said that, this decision was as poor as it gets at this level. As an ex-referee myself I instinctively follow a forward's movement to look for offside and there was nothing in that move yesterday that look even borderline to me. The official himself (Stuart Burt) will be mortified by his mistake and will suffer for it but that's no good to Saints now.

[Wes Tender]

I'm not in favour of television taking more control. In my opinion it should be a spectator and not a participator.

 

Having said that, this decision was as poor as it gets at this level. As an ex-referee myself I instinctively follow a forward's movement to look for offside and there was nothing in that move yesterday that look even borderline to me. The official himself (Stuart Burt) will be mortified by his mistake and will suffer for it but that's no good to Saints now.

 

Why should it not be any good for Saints or indeed for football if the rules are changed as a result of this sort of glaring error from the officials? As you yourself readily admit, the official was incompetent with that decision, which effectively changed the outcome of the match. Whatever happened to the benefit of the doubt being given to favour the striker? It really is long overdue for technology to be introduced to make these decisions correctly, or the game is damaged every time an injustice occurs like this one and fans believe that they have been treated unfairly, or even that there is bias in favour of the glory plastic teams. The game is run by dinosaurs and it is about time that they brought the game up to date.

[Whitey Grandad]

Why should it not be any good for Saints or indeed for football if the rules are changed as a result of this sort of glaring error from the officials? As you yourself readily admit, the official was incompetent with that decision, which effectively changed the outcome of the match. Whatever happened to the benefit of the doubt being given to favour the striker? It really is long overdue for technology to be introduced to make these decisions correctly, or the game is damaged every time an injustice occurs like this one and fans believe that they have been treated unfairly, or even that there is bias in favour of the glory plastic teams. The game is run by dinosaurs and it is about time that they brought the game up to date.

 

'Benefit of the doubt' is no longer in the Laws, he is either offside or he isn't.

 

We've been over this whole debate many times before so I'm not going to get too involved today. Offside is very difficult to judge on TV in most circumstances but yesterday was obvious even to the naked eye. This official also made several other mistakes during he game but they didn't have the same obvious unjust result. If you're going to interfere in one decision then you have to do it in every other one too. You can't just pick the one you don't like.

 

I also blame TV for ruining the game over the last decade or so. The ridiculous amounts of money have distorted it as a sporting competition. The game yesterday was decided by the obscene amounts of money that Man Utd can afford to pay. We now have the cult of the superstar player and hyped-up manager who has to play-act in front of the cameras.

 

Football is the King of Sports and I don't want to see it ruined any more by big business TV.

Edited 27 February, 2017 by Whitey Grandad

[Pass the Dutchie]

With the score 1-1, Zoet saved a close-range header from the Feyenoord defender Jan-Arie van der Heijden in the 82nd minute, but as he clutched the ball to his chest a screen on the referee Bas Nijhuis’s wrist lit up. Nijhuis looked down, saw the word “goal” flashing on the screen and awarded the Dutch league leaders the winning goal in a 2-1 victory. The result on Sunday brought Feyenoord within reach of their first league title since 1999 and likely ended the two-times defending champions PSV’s title aspirations.

 

“This is seriously ****ed up,” Zoet told the Dutch broadcaster NOS.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/feb/27/psv-goalkeeper-goal-line-technology-feyenoord

[Wes Tender]

'Benefit of the doubt' is no longer in the Laws, he is either offside or he isn't.

 

We've been over this whole debate many times before so I'm not going to get too involved today. Offside is very difficult to judge on TV in most circumstances but yesterday was obvious even to the naked eye. This official also made several other mistakes during he game but they didn't have the same obvious unjust result. If you're going to interfere in one decision then you have to do it in every other one too. You can't just pick the one you don't like.

 

I also blame TV for ruining the game over the last decade or so. The ridiculous amounts of money have distorted it as a sporting competition. The game yesterday was decided by the obscene amounts of money that Man Utd can afford to pay. We now have the cult of the superstar player and hyped-up manager who has to play-act in front of the cameras.

 

Football is the King of Sports and I don't want to see it ruined any more by big business TV.

 

I bow to your professional knowledge regarding the rules of the game. Benefit of the doubt might not be part of the laws, but it sure as hell applies to the World stars that populate the glory teams, as MLT astutely observed and most neutral fans would agree. Gabbiadini, relatively unknown striker playing for unfashionable minnows Southampton scores, goal disallowed by incompetent lino. Same goal scored by Ibrahimovic/Rooney/Costa/Sanchez and goal stands. Unfashionable team's defender pulls glory team player's shirt in the box = penalty. Smalling does it wearing a Man Utd shirt, he can do it all day long with impunity.

 

I agree with you that the obscene amounts of money sloshing about in modern day football have ruined it. From the governing authorities prostituting the game to the media so that a match can be held on any day at whatever time is dictated to attract the best financial return, to the growing financial importance to a club that attaches to winning a major trophy. To advancing a club even one place higher up the table, or avoiding relegation. Achieving promotion by the difference made by a single point for or against a team because of incompetent refereeing.All these factors now make a difference of millions of pounds to a club. But so long as it doesn't damage the World brands that are the likes of Man U, Chelski, The Arse, City or Scousehampton, there will not be the clamour to make changes to modernise the game to make it fairer to all.

[Saint_Ash]

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/feb/27/psv-goalkeeper-goal-line-technology-feyenoord

The keeper holds the ball behind the goal line and because there was nothing else he could do the goal shouldn't be given? Strange rant from him there.

[Pass the Dutchie]

The keeper holds the ball behind the goal line and because there was nothing else he could do the goal shouldn't be given? Strange rant from him there.

 

Probably just honestly expressing his feelings of frustration about how he could have gotten away with it, if not for the technology. Which is, of course, exactly why I'd like to see more of it.

[FriendlySaint]

Sports like Rugby and Cricket have been much better and fairer because of technology.

 

Anyone that follows cricket closely will agree that it is infuriating to see a game with no DRS and have a player given not out when plumb lbw..and then got on to make a big score or match winning contribution…

 

I find it ridiculous that the sport with the most money in it, and the most on the line, refuses to use technology.

 

We got robbed in the final and still some of you don't want technology. In my view those that don't want technology have never played a sport at a high level, or never been a die hard fan. Having been both I want technology for offsides and something like 2 video challenges per team per game. It is important the better team wins. The officials shouldn't be able to influence the game so hugely. Cricket (with DRS) and rugby have it right.

[Whitey Grandad]

Sports like Rugby and Cricket have been much better and fairer because of technology.

 

Anyone that follows cricket closely will agree that it is infuriating to see a game with no DRS and have a player given not out when plumb lbw..and then got on to make a big score or match winning contribution…

 

I find it ridiculous that the sport with the most money in it, and the most on the line, refuses to use technology.

 

We got robbed in the final and still some of you don't want technology. In my view those that don't want technology have never played a sport at a high level, or never been a die hard fan. Having been both I want technology for offsides and something like 2 video challenges per team per game. It is important the better team wins. The officials shouldn't be able to influence the game so hugely. Cricket (with DRS) and rugby have it right.

 

It's ruined rugby with all the stoppages and it robbed us of that victory against South Africa when the video was inconclusive. The game is now all stop/start and I can't watch it any more. Technology in cricket is not infallible either. That snickometer often gives a false impression. Offsides in football are not easy to decide with any accuracy. That howler on Sunday didn't need technology, it just needed an official who was up to his job.

[richardc]

do what they do in Cricket and allow each team two chances to question the decision

[Lighthouse]

It's ruined rugby with all the stoppages and it robbed us of that victory against South Africa when the video was inconclusive. The game is now all stop/start and I can't watch it any more. Technology in cricket is not infallible either. That snickometer often gives a false impression. Offsides in football are not easy to decide with any accuracy. That howler on Sunday didn't need technology, it just needed an official who was up to his job.

 

Yet it happens every week.

[bazza]

It might be an old age thing but I don't want to see the scope of video replays being widened. I'm quite happy with just goal line technology. (It should have been brought in years ago.)

[shurlock]

It might be an old age thing but I don't want to see the scope of video replays being widened. I'm quite happy with just goal line technology. (It should have been brought in years ago.)

 

Offsides are the logical extension of goal line technology. They are far more clearcut and easy to resolve than other refereeing decisions.

[bazza]

Offsides are the logical extension of goal line technology. They are far more clearcut and easy to resolve than other refereeing decisions.

 

To a certain degree, although there's still a subjective element to many of these decisions ie The interfering with play question. Not for me.

[Lighthouse]

To a certain degree, although there's still a subjective element to many of these decisions ie The interfering with play question. Not for me.

 

That bit is up to the judgement of the referee and will always be up for debate. For something as black and white as being beyond the last man though, like Gabbi on Sunday or that mental David Silva goal against us a few years ago, it should be used.

 

If there's any doubt, the goal should stand. The offside decision was brought in to stop goal hanging, having someone like Zigic or Crouch standing in the 6 yard box for 90 minutes. We shouldn't be disallowing goals because someone's knee 'might' be an inch past the last man.

Edited 2 March, 2017 by Lighthouse

[Minsk]

I bow to your professional knowledge regarding the rules of the game. Benefit of the doubt might not be part of the laws, but it sure as hell applies to the World stars that populate the glory teams, as MLT astutely observed and most neutral fans would agree. Gabbiadini, relatively unknown striker playing for unfashionable minnows Southampton scores, goal disallowed by incompetent lino. Same goal scored by Ibrahimovic/Rooney/Costa/Sanchez and goal stands. Unfashionable team's defender pulls glory team player's shirt in the box = penalty. Smalling does it wearing a Man Utd shirt, he can do it all day long with impunity.

 

I agree with you that the obscene amounts of money sloshing about in modern day football have ruined it. From the governing authorities prostituting the game to the media so that a match can be held on any day at whatever time is dictated to attract the best financial return, to the growing financial importance to a club that attaches to winning a major trophy. To advancing a club even one place higher up the table, or avoiding relegation. Achieving promotion by the difference made by a single point for or against a team because of incompetent refereeing.All these factors now make a difference of millions of pounds to a club. But so long as it doesn't damage the World brands that are the likes of Man U, Chelski, The Arse, City or Scousehampton, there will not be the clamour to make changes to modernise the game to make it fairer to all.

 

Sports like Rugby and Cricket have been much better and fairer because of technology.

 

Anyone that follows cricket closely will agree that it is infuriating to see a game with no DRS and have a player given not out when plumb lbw..and then got on to make a big score or match winning contribution…

 

I find it ridiculous that the sport with the most money in it, and the most on the line, refuses to use technology.

 

We got robbed in the final and still some of you don't want technology. In my view those that don't want technology have never played a sport at a high level, or never been a die hard fan. Having been both I want technology for offsides and something like 2 video challenges per team per game. It is important the better team wins. The officials shouldn't be able to influence the game so hugely. Cricket (with DRS) and rugby have it right.

 

Excellent posts.

 

Not only would I like to see more technology used (in many cases it wouldn't hold up the game at all, eg Gabbiadini's goal) I would also like to see a retrospective board used in order to punish clear acts of cheating, such as players feigning injury, etc.

[Saint Troy]

It's ruined rugby with all the stoppages and it robbed us of that victory against South Africa when the video was inconclusive. The game is now all stop/start and I can't watch it any more. Technology in cricket is not infallible either. That snickometer often gives a false impression. Offsides in football are not easy to decide with any accuracy. That howler on Sunday didn't need technology, it just needed an official who was up to his job.

 

Just shows how all of it is a matter of opinion. IMO rugby isnt made more stop start - just the stops are a little longer - yes this has an impact but its typically that the right decision is made. It makes great sporting events actually come to the right conclusion most of the time. Cup Finals being decided by a poor decision that has no grey area in it is stupid in this day and age. Its brilliant in cricket - yes technology is improving but so what - its better than there umpires can manage 99% of the time. It promotes a better attitude to officials doing a good job as well and highlights clearly when an official isnt doing a good job. It would make football more stop tart - no two ways about it but you can only fall in to two categories in my opinion - those that really have nothing negative to say about the fact we lost the cup final to a terrible decision and those that are pro technology - everthing else is is a bit hypocritical or naive to me. Its hard to know how to get it right i do admit that - the nature of football is different to the other sports mentioned i do agree with this. Why not wait till the ball goes dead and by that time you should have an answer - by the time the offside free kick was ready to be taken we wouldve been jogging back to the half way line 1-0 up! Appeals is an option too and IMO has other possible huge benefits - why not bring in 2 decision appeals and also bring in stronger protection for how players treat the referee - if ibrahimovic is happy to run 50 yrds to get Stephens sent off then lets see one of your appeals used, otherwise let the ref get on with his job or be booked. Someone dives and you know it but refs not sure - appeal and get them rightly booked / sent off - possibly a great vehicle for cleaning up parts of our game that are frankly embarrassing to a normal adult. "Purists" may not like it but life moves on and football needs to.

[richard]

That bit is up to the judgement of the referee and will always be up for debate. For something as black and white as being beyond the last man though, like Gabbi on Sunday or that mental David Silva goal against us a few years ago, it should be used.

 

If there's any doubt, the goal should stand. The offside decision was brought in to stop goal hanging, having someone like Zigic or Crouch standing in the 6 yard box for 90 minutes. We shouldn't be disallowing goals because someone's knee 'might' be an inch past the last man.

 

Although you are right that the rule was originally brought in to stop goal hanging, the fact that defenders rely on the rule's fair application means that you can't just always give the forward the advantage.

 

There are difficult decisions, and there are easy ones. The one in the final was an easy one and it should have been possible to get it right, whether using a video replay or the officials keeping up with the game.

[John Boy Saint]

Apparently FIFA and UEFA have a meeting at Wembley today to discuss video technology, pretty sure I heard than on South Today on Monday.

[Wes Tender]

That howler on Sunday didn't need technology, it just needed an official who was up to his job.

 

Unfortunately, despite it being a major final, neither the referee or the linesman were up to the job in that instance, which the technology would have shown in a matter of seconds. The match had stopped anyway for De Gea to have picked the ball out of the net and prepared to take the goal kick, so there would not have been much delay. Nothing is more galling than having a match changing decision go against you, only for the guy sat next to you with a smart phone tell you seconds later that a video replay proved the decision to be wrong.

[Lighthouse]

Although you are right that the rule was originally brought in to stop goal hanging, the fact that defenders rely on the rule's fair application means that you can't just always give the forward the advantage.

 

There are difficult decisions, and there are easy ones. The one in the final was an easy one and it should have been possible to get it right, whether using a video replay or the officials keeping up with the game.

 

With any foul (including offsides) the person committing the offense should always be given the benefit of the doubt. Innocent until proven guilty, as it were.

 

For offsides, give the attacker the advantage unless you are certain he was off.

For penalties, give the defender the advantage unless there was a definite foul on the attacker.

[Whitey Grandad]

Unfortunately, despite it being a major final, neither the referee or the linesman were up to the job in that instance, which the technology would have shown in a matter of seconds. The match had stopped anyway for De Gea to have picked the ball out of the net and prepared to take the goal kick, so there would not have been much delay. Nothing is more galling than having a match changing decision go against you, only for the guy sat next to you with a smart phone tell you seconds later that a video replay proved the decision to be wrong.

 

The referee was not at fault, he was not in a position to have a certain view on the matter, but the one on the line was clearly wrong. There was only a foot in it but even from up in the stands I couldn't see anything wrong wioth the goal. He was in the correct position but must have been watching another move. He also got some wrong later in the game and in those cases he was behind the play.

[Whitey Grandad]

With any foul (including offsides) the person committing the offense should always be given the benefit of the doubt. Innocent until proven guilty, as it were.

 

For offsides, give the attacker the advantage unless you are certain he was off.

For penalties, give the defender the advantage unless there was a definite foul on the attacker.

 

In practice that is the case. I'm sure that this official didn't have any doubts and thought it was offside, he certainly raised his flag immediately. I always used to take the view that if you have to think about it then it's not offside.

 

Defenders usually get the decision regarding goal kicks and throw ins if there's any uncertainty.

[Saint Troy]

The referee was not at fault, he was not in a position to have a certain view on the matter, but the one on the line was clearly wrong. There was only a foot in it but even from up in the stands I couldn't see anything wrong wioth the goal. He was in the correct position but must have been watching another move. He also got some wrong later in the game and in those cases he was behind the play.

 

Do we know if he consulted with the lino at all? If not then he is possibly also at fault

[Dark Munster]

Offside is very difficult to judge on TV in most circumstances

 

No it's not, most times it's pretty conclusive in replays.

 

You can't just pick the one you don't like.

 

It would only be applied automatically to major decisions (offside goals, penalties), which are few and far between. Throw in a couple of video challenges allowed per team, and you'd have just a few stoppages per match, which would be decided in seconds by a 4th official in a studio. Negligible time spent compared to free kicks, throw ins, and prima donnas rolling around on the ground.

 

Time for the dinosaurs to admit that video technology is needed in our game.

[DuncanRG]

No reason at all we can't review goals, because the game has already stopped whether they're given or not. You'd need a cut-off point where fouls in the build-up don't void a goal, but other than that I can't see any issues.

 

Penalties are a bit thornier, given the game can keep running all the way to the other end if one isn't given. But give captains the chance to challenge decisions and you'd cut down on diving too, I reckon, as no one would go to video replay for pens when they know they've dived.

Edited 2 March, 2017 by DuncanRG

[benjii]

What makes football stop start is the dismal fannying about over throw ins, set pieces, injuries etc. That is allowed to carry on for some unknown reason. A quick TV replay for goals and other key decisions would be a drop in the ocean and is obviously a good idea.

[danjosaint]

The referee was not at fault, he was not in a position to have a certain view on the matter, but the one on the line was clearly wrong. There was only a foot in it but even from up in the stands I couldn't see anything wrong wioth the goal. He was in the correct position but must have been watching another move. He also got some wrong later in the game and in those cases he was behind the play.

 

But he was, he wasn't seen communicating with the lino, Atkinson should've asked who scored the goal then corrected him that it was Gabbiadini not Bertrand, from a camera behind lino it looks like he can't actually see Gabbi at all as he's hidden by Smalling and only flagged for Bertie, this is where Atkinson should've interviened

[Sheaf Saint]

In practice that is the case. I'm sure that this official didn't have any doubts and thought it was offside, he certainly raised his flag immediately. I always used to take the view that if you have to think about it then it's not offside.

 

Defenders usually get the decision regarding goal kicks and throw ins if there's any uncertainty.

 

Watching back on the highlights, he raised his flag pretty much as soon as the ball was played forward. He didn't even wait to see who/if anybody made any contact with it. Even if, on watching back himself, he feels justified in the decision because of the argument about Bertrand being active, he should recognise the need for patience to see if the attacking team gain any advantage before stopping the game. Poor show all round really.

[Whitey Grandad]

But he was, he wasn't seen communicating with the lino, Atkinson should've asked who scored the goal then corrected him that it was Gabbiadini not Bertrand, from a camera behind lino it looks like he can't actually see Gabbi at all as he's hidden by Smalling and only flagged for Bertie, this is where Atkinson should've interviened

 

They are miked up so there doesn't need to be any obvious communication but I agree, there should have been something between them.

[Whitey Grandad]

Watching back on the highlights, he raised his flag pretty much as soon as the ball was played forward. He didn't even wait to see who/if anybody made any contact with it. Even if, on watching back himself, he feels justified in the decision because of the argument about Bertrand being active, he should recognise the need for patience to see if the attacking team gain any advantage before stopping the game. Poor show all round really.

 

Yes, it was a rash decision.

[Minsk]

Just heard on Sky News that they are going to trial a 'video lineman' system in next season's FA Cup. Good news, imo.

[Sour Mash]

No reason at all we can't review goals, because the game has already stopped whether they're given or not. You'd need a cut-off point where fouls in the build-up don't void a goal, but other than that I can't see any issues.

 

Penalties are a bit thornier, given the game can keep running all the way to the other end if one isn't given. But give captains the chance to challenge decisions and you'd cut down on diving too, I reckon, as no one would go to video replay for pens when they know they've dived.

it will kill the game. Imagine standing around for a couple of minutes at Anfield to see if Long's goal will count or not as something in the build up is being reviewed.

[Pass the Dutchie]

it will kill the game. Imagine standing around for a couple of minutes at Anfield to see if Long's goal will count or not as something in the build up is being reviewed.

 

Goal line technology (did the ball pass the line or not) is immediate, as far as I can tell. The ref's watch will signal if it's a goal or not. At the very least for this, I think it's a good idea. Offside and other issues may take some more looking into.

[Sour Mash]

Goal line technology (did the ball pass the line or not) is immediate, as far as I can tell. The ref's watch will signal if it's a goal or not. At the very least for this, I think it's a good idea. Offside and other issues may take some more looking into.

 

Agree, that's fine, although very rarely needed.

[nta786]

it will kill the game. Imagine standing around for a couple of minutes at Anfield to see if Long's goal will count or not as something in the build up is being reviewed.

 

Nope- it leads to the FAIREST Outcome.

 

Plus I think having video tech would be a really exciting moment- similar to how goal line tech is now.

Watch how in tennis some of the most exciting moments is whether the break point serve did touch the line, or in rugby whether the try has been scored, even in Cricket the atmosphere boosts a little bit when there is a decision to be made on an LBW.

 

Having a video referee would do wonders for football, need to take it out of the 20th century and adapt using the new tech available

[Sour Mash]

Nope- it leads to the FAIREST Outcome.

 

Plus I think having video tech would be a really exciting moment- similar to how goal line tech is now.

Watch how in tennis some of the most exciting moments is whether the break point serve did touch the line, or in rugby whether the try has been scored, even in Cricket the atmosphere boosts a little bit when there is a decision to be made on an LBW.

 

Having a video referee would do wonders for football, need to take it out of the 20th century and adapt using the new tech available

 

I assume you weren't in the away end at Liverpool. It'd kill the game.

[Lighthouse]

Another absolute farce involving Man Utd.

 

I'm so glad games are being decided like this.

[whelk]

Irony is TV could come to correct decision before Friend deliberates and gets it wrong. Don't slow down our beautiful game brigade should pay attention.

[simo]

United's goal almost a carbon copy of our "offside" goal last week !

[pluto]

Video tech is a awful idea and just simply erodes the game of football even further.

 

TV has killed football via skysports and BT and not forgetting journo scum.

 

Get the cameras out reduce live games stop the over scrutiny and its last rites.

[Sour Mash]

This is a great example of why video technology doesn't work.

 

No way you can be sure if Mings was deliberate on Ibrahimovic (I don't think it was), video refs would be still debating it now.

[trousers]

The main reason I'm in favour of video technology in football is because of how much it'll annoy those who don't want it.

[Saint Troy]

it will kill the game. Imagine standing around for a couple of minutes at Anfield to see if Long's goal will count or not as something in the build up is being reviewed.

 

Imagine standing around for two minutes and gabbiadinis goal being reviewed!

[Nordic Saint]

The main reason I'm in favour of video technology in football is because of how much it'll annoy those who don't want it.

 

You'll always gets some people who'll resits any from of progress. We'd all still be living in caves if everyone were like that.

 

It's made both rugby and cricket better games and it makes sense to have proper results rather than games decided by referees' mistakes and whims, which tend to go in favour of the 'bigger' team. It would take less time than the time currently wasted by players' arguments with refs. We can already see how well it's worked with decisions over whether goals were over the line or not.

[Nordic Saint]

Watford just scored from a move started by an obvious foul throw. The thrower's foot was a foot in front of the line

[Useful Idiot]

Don't know if anyone else watched the France vs Spain game, but the video referee stopped a goal being incorrectly awarded to France and reinstated one incorrectly ruled out for Spain.

 

As I had imagined, it broke the flow of the game for about 30 seconds during each incident, but the correct result was obtained and it built up a sense of anticipation over ref's final decision.

 

Overall, I think this would be really good for football.

[igsey]

Completely changed the outcome of yesterday's France-Spain game - France were disallowed one and Spain awarded one both by the video referee, and afterwards the France manager came out and said it was great to have the correct decisions awarded even though he was on the 'losing' side of both these decisions.

 

Can't come soon enough in my opinion - and the opinion on this seems fairly obviously divided along the young(er) vs old(er) lines.