Dave Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Anyone care to comment on this painfully obvious solution to the debate on how many times it should be used in a match, or if it'll slow down the match? Anyone? Anyone at all? I'll give you 10 dollars for a verbal response. This 'we need to find a way to stop it slowing the game down' and 'how many times should they be able to appeal?' thing is pissing me right off. HAVE AN OFFICIAL WATCHING THE TV AND ALLOW THEM TO BE CONSULTED WHEN THE REFEREE IS UNSURE, OR SAID OFFICIAL IS CERTAIN THE REFEREE HAS MADE A MISTAKE! Define 'mistake' in absolute terms. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segun Oluwaniyi Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 no way sendings off or penalties should be reviewable, Shak. Would be equivalent of making holding penalty reviewable in NFL. These are judgement calls. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Challenges for goals, or disallowed goals. Manager has to point out what he thinks went wrong i.e a handball, offsides, etc. If he's right, then they move on from there. And would you limit it to 1 per team? What if there was 1 more seriously dodgy incident then challenges allowed? The argument would start all over again wouldn't it? As soon as a manager has an unsuccesful appeal, he has no further right to challenge. This way managers will be very careful about appealing something, knowing that getting it wrong could cost them huge later on in the game. Also, only certain things would be reviewable. Balls over the line for a goal, penalties, sendings off. Only the major decisions that change the course of a game dramatically. Problem is though, that you could have one incident where the manager thinks he has a right to challenge. But he is in the little box thing he has to stand in on the touchline so he is not level with play. So he appeals because from his viewpoint he thinks he is right, but it turns out he is wrong. Then the ref misses a handball like the one last night, and the other team score. And we end up having this discussion again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shak Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 no way sendings off or penalties should be reviewable, Shak. Would be equivalent of making holding penalty reviewable in NFL. These are judgement calls. Which goes back to my point about clear evidence. Some penalties/sendings off are clearly the wrong decision. Ronaldo against Bolton last year, for example, would be reversed because it was absolutely clearly the wrong call. Whereas Rooney against Arsenal this year, which I though wasn't a penalty at all, would still be a penalty because its kind of open to interpretation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Village Idiot Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 I think the way to go is having a video ref that buzzes the main ref when something that has a direct bearing on the match is misjudged (goal in offside, ball goes over the line and the ref miscalls it, etc...i'm hesitant on penalties/dives since there's a big deal of judgement in those). Ref then goes over, checks the video and decides if he rectifies his previous decision or not. The important thing, though, is that the ref still has the last call. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shak Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Challenges for goals, or disallowed goals. Manager has to point out what he thinks went wrong i.e a handball, offsides, etc. If he's right, then they move on from there. And would you limit it to 1 per team? What if there was 1 more seriously dodgy incident then challenges allowed? The argument would start all over again wouldn't it? As soon as a manager has an unsuccesful appeal, he has no further right to challenge. This way managers will be very careful about appealing something, knowing that getting it wrong could cost them huge later on in the game. Also, only certain things would be reviewable. Balls over the line for a goal, penalties, sendings off. Only the major decisions that change the course of a game dramatically. Problem is though, that you could have one incident where the manager thinks he has a right to challenge. But he is in the little box thing he has to stand in on the touchline so he is not level with play. So he appeals because from his viewpoint he thinks he is right, but it turns out he is wrong. Then the ref misses a handball like the one last night, and the other team score. And we end up having this discussion again. That's on the manager then. Managers shouldn't just be challenging shit for the sake of it, hoping for the best because they think a call might have been wrong. They have their challenge, and they damn well better be sure it's going to be successful when they use it because they could have an absolute whopper go against them later in the game if not. Most games should have no challenges at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Anyone care to comment on this painfully obvious solution to the debate on how many times it should be used in a match, or if it'll slow down the match? Anyone? Anyone at all? I'll give you 10 dollars for a verbal response. This 'we need to find a way to stop it slowing the game down' and 'how many times should they be able to appeal?' thing is pissing me right off. HAVE AN OFFICIAL WATCHING THE TV AND ALLOW THEM TO BE CONSULTED WHEN THE REFEREE IS UNSURE, OR SAID OFFICIAL IS CERTAIN THE REFEREE HAS MADE A MISTAKE! So would the ref have to stop the game while the video ref is watching the incident again? At the most it would be like the ref consulting the linesman, at best the official and the ref would have headsets. If it came to a replay, I would expect it to be something that was highly contentious and highly pivotal. A dubious goal, penalty, sending off, offside (only if not given) or corner, and more importantly would be at the referees descretion (allowing them to remain authorative). Linesmen will inform the ref if they've seen something the ref hasn't, that's why they're there to make offside calls. I dont see any harm in an official watching a TV and being given the same authority as the linesman to inform the ref. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Village Idiot Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Anyone care to comment on this painfully obvious solution to the debate on how many times it should be used in a match, or if it'll slow down the match? Anyone? Anyone at all? I'll give you 10 dollars for a verbal response. This 'we need to find a way to stop it slowing the game down' and 'how many times should they be able to appeal?' thing is pissing me right off. HAVE AN OFFICIAL WATCHING THE TV AND ALLOW THEM TO BE CONSULTED WHEN THE REFEREE IS UNSURE, OR SAID OFFICIAL IS CERTAIN THE REFEREE HAS MADE A MISTAKE! So would the ref have to stop the game while the video ref is watching the incident again? Clubs would start having their own people watch the TV feed and wire the manager when they see something to challenge. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Anyone care to comment on this painfully obvious solution to the debate on how many times it should be used in a match, or if it'll slow down the match? Anyone? Anyone at all? I'll give you 10 dollars for a verbal response. This 'we need to find a way to stop it slowing the game down' and 'how many times should they be able to appeal?' thing is pissing me right off. HAVE AN OFFICIAL WATCHING THE TV AND ALLOW THEM TO BE CONSULTED WHEN THE REFEREE IS UNSURE, OR SAID OFFICIAL IS CERTAIN THE REFEREE HAS MADE A MISTAKE! So would the ref have to stop the game while the video ref is watching the incident again? At the most it would be like the ref consulting the linesman, at best the official and the ref would have headsets. If it came to a replay, I would expect it to be something that was highly contentious and highly pivotal. A dubious goal, penalty, sending off, offside (only if not given) or corner, and more importantly would be at the referees descretion (allowing them to remain authorative). Linesmen will inform the ref if they've seen something the ref hasn't, that's why they're there to make offside calls. I dont see any harm in an official watching a TV and being given the same authority as the linesman to inform the ref. So say the ball might have gone over the line. Goalkeeper acts like it hasn't and boots it downfield, meanwhile video ref is rewinding and rewatching the incident and decides the ball did cross the line. Other team goes on from the keeper's kick and scores. Ref then blows, and says the first goal should have counted, and the second goal doesn't. It would be mayhem. OR The ball may have gone over the line. Video ref tells ref to stop the game while he checks. We all stand around and wait, as the game is stopped and time is added on at the end. Ends up the ball hasn't gone over the line. Needless stop and minutes wasted checking a video. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Anyone care to comment on this painfully obvious solution to the debate on how many times it should be used in a match, or if it'll slow down the match? Anyone? Anyone at all? I'll give you 10 dollars for a verbal response. This 'we need to find a way to stop it slowing the game down' and 'how many times should they be able to appeal?' thing is pissing me right off. HAVE AN OFFICIAL WATCHING THE TV AND ALLOW THEM TO BE CONSULTED WHEN THE REFEREE IS UNSURE, OR SAID OFFICIAL IS CERTAIN THE REFEREE HAS MADE A MISTAKE! So would the ref have to stop the game while the video ref is watching the incident again? At the most it would be like the ref consulting the linesman, at best the official and the ref would have headsets. If it came to a replay, I would expect it to be something that was highly contentious and highly pivotal. A dubious goal, penalty, sending off, offside (only if not given) or corner, and more importantly would be at the referees descretion (allowing them to remain authorative). Linesmen will inform the ref if they've seen something the ref hasn't, that's why they're there to make offside calls. I dont see any harm in an official watching a TV and being given the same authority as the linesman to inform the ref. So say the ball might have gone over the line. Goalkeeper acts like it hasn't and boots it downfield, meanwhile video ref is rewinding and rewatching the incident and decides the ball did cross the line. Other team goes on from the keeper's kick and scores. Ref then blows, and says the first goal should have counted, and the second goal doesn't. It would be mayhem. OR The ball may have gone over the line. Video ref tells ref to stop the game while he checks. We all stand around and wait, as the game is stopped and time is added on at the end. Ends up the ball hasn't gone over the line. Needless stop and minutes wasted checking a video. OK, well considering you're laying a worse case scenario on me, lets go through it one step at a time. In such a unique and unlikely scenario that sequence of events would happen. Ball goes over line, ref isn't sure. He makes the call whether to consult the official or not. Or... the official who may have seen for definite from his angle (watching TV) whether the ball crossed the line or not can inform the ref in exactly the same way that the linesmen can. In the end the referee still makes the call, just like he does now, he just has one extra person in his ear with another view. Also, the official would not tell the ref to stop the game, they would only intervene if they were certain the ball had crossed the line, in the same way a linesman would. If the ref is not sure then he can consult the official for their input, again, just like they can with a linesman. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Spaceman Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Ireland are out. Maybe they should consider why they didn't win their group outright. Aye, I guess it's cos the refs jewed them over every other game. Nowt to do with them being very fucking average, of course. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shak Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Ireland are out. Maybe they should consider why they didn't win their group outright. Aye, I guess it's cos the refs jewed them over every other game. Nowt to do with them being very fucking average, of course. Winning a group with the world champions should have been pretty easy alright, that's a really not shite at all point you've made there to be sure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Anyone care to comment on this painfully obvious solution to the debate on how many times it should be used in a match, or if it'll slow down the match? Anyone? Anyone at all? I'll give you 10 dollars for a verbal response. This 'we need to find a way to stop it slowing the game down' and 'how many times should they be able to appeal?' thing is pissing me right off. HAVE AN OFFICIAL WATCHING THE TV AND ALLOW THEM TO BE CONSULTED WHEN THE REFEREE IS UNSURE, OR SAID OFFICIAL IS CERTAIN THE REFEREE HAS MADE A MISTAKE! So would the ref have to stop the game while the video ref is watching the incident again? At the most it would be like the ref consulting the linesman, at best the official and the ref would have headsets. If it came to a replay, I would expect it to be something that was highly contentious and highly pivotal. A dubious goal, penalty, sending off, offside (only if not given) or corner, and more importantly would be at the referees descretion (allowing them to remain authorative). Linesmen will inform the ref if they've seen something the ref hasn't, that's why they're there to make offside calls. I dont see any harm in an official watching a TV and being given the same authority as the linesman to inform the ref. So say the ball might have gone over the line. Goalkeeper acts like it hasn't and boots it downfield, meanwhile video ref is rewinding and rewatching the incident and decides the ball did cross the line. Other team goes on from the keeper's kick and scores. Ref then blows, and says the first goal should have counted, and the second goal doesn't. It would be mayhem. OR The ball may have gone over the line. Video ref tells ref to stop the game while he checks. We all stand around and wait, as the game is stopped and time is added on at the end. Ends up the ball hasn't gone over the line. Needless stop and minutes wasted checking a video. OK, well considering you're laying a worse case scenario on me, lets go through it one step at a time. In such a unique and unlikely scenario that sequence of events would happen. Ball goes over line, ref isn't sure. He makes the call whether to consult the official or not. Or... the official who may have seen for definite from his angle (watching TV) whether the ball crossed the line or not can inform the ref in exactly the same way that the linesmen can. In the end the referee still makes the call, just like he does now, he just has one extra person in his ear with another view. Also, the official would not tell the ref to stop the game, they would only intervene if they were certain the ball had crossed the line, in the same way a linesman would. If the ref is not sure then he can consult the official for their input, again, just like they can with a linesman. Any thoughts on this Blef and Dave? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Why are you addressing me? You never answered my question. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Why are you addressing me? You never answered my question. Oh yeh, shit. Well, like I said, it would be the official telling the ref like the linesmen could. Obviously the linesman makes a decision whether to inform the ref of something based on what they've seen. The same would apply to the official watching the TV. Using last night as an example, the ref consulted the linesmen who saw nothing, meanwhile the official has seen the replay and tells the ref it was definitely a handball. I know this is a perfect scenario and there'll be some conjecture, but imo there'll be a hell of a lot less, without the speed of a match suffering at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Team A shoots, the ball hits the crossbar, and bounces on the goal line (according to the ref, but in reality it was in, which can be showed on a replay). Play goes on for a minute with team A keeping a bit of pressure, and there's even a penalty call for hand ball that's not given. The ball eventually ends up with Team B's goalkeeper. He spots his quick striker at the centre line, only just onside with no defenders around, and kicks a perfect kick towards him. He collects the ball, and is clean through on goal, but at the last minute he's brought down by a terrible tackle from one of the full backs in Team A. Ref calls for a pen and a straight red. The striker ends up being injured and out for two months. Would we just forget everything that's happened after the initial incident should we introduce video replays? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shak Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 If Swedish people weren't such blind cunts we wouldn't be having this conversation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Btw, having seen it properly today, I take back that it wasn't a horrible decision. The linesman should have seen it, and the guy who was off side even touched the ball. Wankers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segun Oluwaniyi Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 If Swedish people weren't such blind c***sIf Irish people could occasionally finish some of their chances we wouldn't be having this conversation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 If Swedish people weren't such blind c***sIf Irish people could occasionally finish some of their chances we wouldn't be having this conversation. They did finish one of their chances yesterday Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shak Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Most of the Nigeria current 11 will have died from old age by the time the WC actually takes place, pointless them going. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 At least they're good enough to be there Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segun Oluwaniyi Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Most of the Nigeria current 11 will have died from old age by the time the WC actually takes place, pointless them going. Come on, man. Enough venom. Do what's natural. Support the Green and White. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 How come a country which doesn't even agree to share our national currency is provoking so much defensive reaction on their behalf by our members? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
merlin Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 How come a country which doesn't even agree to share our national currency is provoking so much defensive reaction on their behalf by our members? A good point, Big Tron - I have NO brief for the Irish in that way, but this is football and SUPPOSED to be above politics(NOT that it is...!). I have said before that the Game's rulers don't want technology because they are more interested in having a chance to influence the outcome of games which will bring them more revenue ; its a no-brainer in this case, because more French fans will be able to afford tickets to SA than Irish..also, the French have a big say inside both FIFA and UEFA. Remember some of the refereeing in South Korea/Japan 02..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now