Guest firetotheworks Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 It's tough on the Irish but they shouldn't be whinging about a replay. At the end of the day, it's a game and the result at 90 minutes can't be turned over because a ref decision is found to be incorrect. That principle should be sacrosanct. Video replays aren't practical because so many decisions involve matters of opinion as much as matters of fact. Replays don't always clarify matters at all. You could say that this particular one was blatant, but then you'd end up arguing about the definition of 'blatant' when it comes to other decisions. How is that any different to a referee's decision? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 It's tough on the Irish but they shouldn't be whinging about a replay. At the end of the day, it's a game and the result at 90 minutes can't be turned over because a ref decision is found to be incorrect. That principle should be sacrosanct. Video replays aren't practical because so many decisions involve matters of opinion as much as matters of fact. Replays don't always clarify matters at all. You could say that this particular one was blatant, but then you'd end up arguing about the definition of 'blatant' when it comes to other decisions. How is that any different to a referee's decision? It isn't. That's my point. The value of video replays in other sports is that they can sort out questions of fact eg was a batsman out of his crease. All you'd end up doing in football most of the time is replacing one subjective opinion with another. It wouldn't sort out an argument. It would escalate it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mantis Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 It's tough on the Irish but they shouldn't be whinging about a replay. At the end of the day, it's a game and the result at 90 minutes can't be turned over because a ref decision is found to be incorrect. That principle should be sacrosanct. Video replays aren't practical because so many decisions involve matters of opinion as much as matters of fact. Replays don't always clarify matters at all. You could say that this particular one was blatant, but then you'd end up arguing about the definition of 'blatant' when it comes to other decisions. How is that any different to a referee's decision? Technology works in many other sports, unfortunately Football is falling behind the times. Christ, the replay would in most cases only need to be used a couple of times max per game. Ref's aren't going to ask for a replay every 5 minutes or they would be criticised more than they are already for not being able to get decisions right. It pisses me off when people say 'the game would be stopped every two minutes'. That is just horseshit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segun Oluwaniyi Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 The whole idea of Henry being a "cheater" is ludicrous, imo. Henry and people who dive, etc. or no more cheaters than players who commit illegal tackles or get caught offside. They have done something that violates the rule of football, and it is up to the referee to make the decision and see that their team is penalised for their actions. I am with Henry on this. Ask the referee. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Plus do you really want the game stopped all the time for "video" replays? I certainly don't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnypd Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 It's tough on the Irish but they shouldn't be whinging about a replay. At the end of the day, it's a game and the result at 90 minutes can't be turned over because a ref decision is found to be incorrect. That principle should be sacrosanct. Video replays aren't practical because so many decisions involve matters of opinion as much as matters of fact. Replays don't always clarify matters at all. You could say that this particular one was blatant, but then you'd end up arguing about the definition of 'blatant' when it comes to other decisions. How is that any different to a referee's decision? It isn't. That's my point. The value of video replays in other sports is that they can sort out questions of fact eg was a batsman out of his crease. All you'd end up doing in football most of the time is replacing one subjective opinion with another. It wouldn't sort out an argument. It would escalate it. i disagree, largely because with a replay you see it over and over again from different angles and at a slowed down pace. the problem with a ref is that something happens in an instant, often through blocked bodies and so on, and there is no chance to see it again. With things such as a player handling the ball or it going over the line, there is a definite objective judgement to be made so it would improve these decisions - whereas a foul is more subjective and wouldn't help as much. However i oppose video replays in-game as it would detract from the spontaneousness of football. a better idea would be refs behindor along the goal to watch goal mouth incidents and they'd step in to disallow goals. i wouldnt want to get into a situation where you regularly have to wait for a goal to be confirmed though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mantis Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Plus do you really want the game stopped all the time for "video" replays? I certainly don't. Why would it need to be stopped all the time? How many times do they use the video in rugby? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Plus do you really want the game stopped all the time for "video" replays? I certainly don't. Why would it need to be stopped all the time? How many times do they use the video in rugby? So what would you limit video decisions for? Offsides? Handballs? Whether a ball has gone over the line? Pulling and pushing in the box? Fouls? Where do you draw the line? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Plus do you really want the game stopped all the time for "video" replays? I certainly don't. Why would it be used all the time? It would be used by the 4th official when the referee isn't sure. No less of a stop than for consulting the linesman or when a player gets treatment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizero Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Plus do you really want the game stopped all the time for "video" replays? I certainly don't. Why would it need to be stopped all the time? How many times do they use the video in rugby? So what would you limit video decisions for? Offsides? Handballs? Whether a ball has gone over the line? Pulling and pushing in the box? Fouls? Where do you draw the line? I'd limit it to questionable balls over the line, and/or massive complaints from players which a faulty decision may have gone against leading to a goal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 It's tough on the Irish but they shouldn't be whinging about a replay. At the end of the day, it's a game and the result at 90 minutes can't be turned over because a ref decision is found to be incorrect. That principle should be sacrosanct. Video replays aren't practical because so many decisions involve matters of opinion as much as matters of fact. Replays don't always clarify matters at all. You could say that this particular one was blatant, but then you'd end up arguing about the definition of 'blatant' when it comes to other decisions. How is that any different to a referee's decision? It isn't. That's my point. The value of video replays in other sports is that they can sort out questions of fact eg was a batsman out of his crease. All you'd end up doing in football most of the time is replacing one subjective opinion with another. It wouldn't sort out an argument. It would escalate it. I dont understand this logic at all. Surely a 4th official who can watch a replay can look at it, make a decision and inform the ref in the same way a linesman can. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Plus do you really want the game stopped all the time for "video" replays? I certainly don't. Why would it need to be stopped all the time? How many times do they use the video in rugby? In rugby league it's all the fucking time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Plus do you really want the game stopped all the time for "video" replays? I certainly don't. Why would it need to be stopped all the time? How many times do they use the video in rugby? In rugby league it's all the fucking time. We would end up having football games that take as long as American Football games with all the whinging foreigners and Man U players questioning every blooming decision that went their way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Plus do you really want the game stopped all the time for "video" replays? I certainly don't. Why would it need to be stopped all the time? How many times do they use the video in rugby? In rugby league it's all the f***ing time. Aye, but half the time the ball is underneath 20 players ffs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segun Oluwaniyi Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Plus do you really want the game stopped all the time for "video" replays? I certainly don't. Why would it need to be stopped all the time? How many times do they use the video in rugby? In rugby league it's all the f***ing time. We would end up having football games that take as long as American Football games with all the whinging foreigners and Man U players questioning every blooming decision that went their way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Plus do you really want the game stopped all the time for "video" replays? I certainly don't. Why would it need to be stopped all the time? How many times do they use the video in rugby? In rugby league it's all the f***ing time. We would end up having football games that take as long as American Football games with all the whinging foreigners and Man U players questioning every blooming decision that went their way. What? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Plus do you really want the game stopped all the time for "video" replays? I certainly don't. Why would it need to be stopped all the time? How many times do they use the video in rugby? In rugby league it's all the f***ing time. We would end up having football games that take as long as American Football games with all the whinging foreigners and Man U players questioning every blooming decision that went their way. Fucking hell, you've excelled yourself. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
junkhead Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 whinging foreigners, i'm telling you Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Plus do you really want the game stopped all the time for "video" replays? I certainly don't. Why would it need to be stopped all the time? How many times do they use the video in rugby? In rugby league it's all the f***ing time. We would end up having football games that take as long as American Football games with all the whinging foreigners and Man U players questioning every blooming decision that went their way. Fucking hell, you've excelled yourself. Give over. The likes of Drogba etc need to man up. Bloody wimps. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coco Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Why not have it like American Football? Each team is allowed to ask for 1 review (or "challenge") in a half. If there is indisputable proof that the decision is wrong it's overturned, if not, the game goes on... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
junkhead Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Why not have it like American Football? Each team is allowed to ask for 1 review (or "challenge") in a half. If there is indisputable proof that the decision is wrong it's overturned, if not, the game goes on... because it's fucking stupid.. another couple of refs is ok imo.. no need for technology and shit Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coco Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Why not have it like American Football? Each team is allowed to ask for 1 review (or "challenge") in a half. If there is indisputable proof that the decision is wrong it's overturned, if not, the game goes on... because it's fucking stupid.. another couple of refs is ok imo.. no need for technology and shit Exactly what is stupid about being able to go to a video ref at most, 4 times in a match? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Why not have it like American Football? Each team is allowed to ask for 1 review (or "challenge") in a half. If there is indisputable proof that the decision is wrong it's overturned, if not, the game goes on... because it's fucking stupid.. another couple of refs is ok imo.. no need for technology and shit Exactly what is stupid about being able to go to a video ref at most, 4 times in a match? What if there is a 5th incident that can't be referred to the video ref that changes the outcome of a match. Nowt will have changed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shak Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Plus do you really want the game stopped all the time for "video" replays? I certainly don't. Why would it need to be stopped all the time? How many times do they use the video in rugby? So what would you limit video decisions for? Offsides? Handballs? Whether a ball has gone over the line? Pulling and pushing in the box? Fouls? Where do you draw the line? I'd limit it to questionable balls over the line, and/or massive complaints from players which a faulty decision may have gone against leading to a goal. You'd have players over-appealing far too much then. In theory I'm for video refereeing, but they need to find a way to ensure that the average game isn't being stopped for a review more than once or twice in the 90 minutes. Best way is that a manager has one challenge he can make to a referee's ruling per game. A soon as he challenges something and gets it wrong, he's got no more right to send things to the video ref. Managers also aren't allowed any access to replay on the sideline, so the mistake will need to be very blatant. Also, the video ref can only overturn something if it's absolutely clear beyond any doubt that the wrong call was made. Anything that has any sort of question mark over it, the call stays the same. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segun Oluwaniyi Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Challenges are absolutely rubbish in the NfL, and I'm convinced they'd be terrible in football. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.f2d92e50efb89579ccca9ca610dd29c6.jpg)
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