Football

[SS4]

It's certainly a good idea but for a fast game such as football (noting also that the stereotypical fan is somewhat lazy and impatient) 45 seconds is too far. Cut it to 20, and then restrict its use to only those you have mentioned (so none of this "is it a corner or isn't it" malarkey; there just isn't the time for that), and you have a system that Blatter and others should finally be willing to accept. And also introduce the hawk-eye -esque thing that can determine whether the ball crossed the line or not, but again think carefully about when it is used - only for goals I feel...

Back to the original point though, and SS4's post:



Red cards yes, but penalties? A firm, unbiased and consistent referee, if such folk still exist, would know to give a penalty on account that any given offence is a genuine foul in any part of the pitch; there is of course no difference in criteria as to what constitutes a foul. Essentially intervening everyone time someone tries to win a penalty in a controversial manner would needlessly and excessively slow the game. Other the other hand though, what we/they could look at introducing is a new rule that states that any potential penalty situations are allowed to continue until the ball is cleared from the area (i.e. at least 40 yards from the centre of the goal mouth, or the edge of the pitch if nearer), and at that point play is stopped to adjudicate on the situation at hand; if the penalty should not have been awarded, a indirect free kick occurs from wherever the ball ended up (or the applicable set-piece if it went off), and if it should have been awarded, then it is awarded - unless a goal has been scored. There could also be a time-lag of 20 seconds (deliberately chosen to match my suggestion above), at which point play is stopped by default and the indirect free kick or penalty approach is taken there and then.

Having said all that though, it's probably too complicated for most fans, pundits, players and staff to understand...

That seems fair. The issue being dependent on fair refs but, in their defence, I'll admit they make very few mistakes - except when teams from Manchester are involved

Hm - what about when a red card offence was missed and only seen on TV. The logic of what you say might suggest the game should be replayed

The video ref could be asked to take a look at it. Obviously we cannot be sure that the video ref will call it correctly either but he has a higher chance of doing so.
Agreed on your previous assessment of players though.

 

[Minilad]

Video Technology. No thanks.
I could have it for goal line debates, did the ball cross the line, but really how often does this really happen. What I couldn't have is video replay for judgement calls.
Personally I am happy how it is. I am comfortable knowing the game is refereed by a human and all the flaws humans have. And lets face it if the refs made half the amount of mistakes players and managers make we really would be up the creek.
A message to all the people who moans about refs. You try it. You ref a game and see how you get on. I can guarantee you would balls it up left right and centre. Hell most football fans don't even know the laws of the game properly. What gets my goat is pundits in a nice warm studio telling us how bad refs are. well if they are bad when you hung up your boots why didn't you take up refereeing then. Because its easier to watch a dozen replays in super slow motion to come to the decision than put your reputation on the line every week.
Are refs any worse now than 20 years ago. No. Just watched closer

 

[Ivo]

IMHO, there is one massive problem with the use of video technology - the players. In Rugby (as you would have seen at the weekend), the players accept the ruling of the Video Official and get on with the game; the same is usually true in Cricket. With the present behaviour of footballers, I cannot see that happening. I believe there would be more "crowding" of the referee, as they tried to persuade him to argue with the video ref - "you were there, you saw it".
Of course, it doesn't help when "managers" see fit to rubbish the officials (see, eg, http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/16898880). That is as much cheating as writhing around on the ground. So, IMHO, is the now almost automatic appeal against a red card. Players take their lead from their boss, and so long as the bosses are saying that the officials can be challenged, the players will too. Even if video evidence were allowed, the amount of argument on MOTD about incidents suggests that decisions would rarely be clear cut.
Incidentally, I was delighted to see the decision of the video ref in one of the weekend rugby internationals - "The evidence is inconclusive, I cannot award a try". Honesty, and (of course) accepted by everyone.

There are two clear "halves" to this post, with the last two lines being the second "half". But if I might bring them together for a moment, suppose such a decision was made in football? "The evidence is inconclusive, I cannot award a goal."

Within mere seconds, everyone on the losing side, including substitutes and manager, would be runnig on to the pitch in disgust! It is this kind of thing that gives football a bad name - and influences the younger fans who then decide it is OK to fight authority so viciously. (Note the parallels between this and video games like GTA, and also the modern attitude both of and towards many older childen and teenagers.)

I'm reminded of a very well-known phrase that surely could not describe the difference between football and rugby any better:

Football is a gentlemen's game played by hooligans. Rugby is a hooligan's game played by gentlemen.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Football is a gentlemen's game played by hooligans. Rugby is a hooligan's game played by gentlemen.

Rugby the game with eye-gouging and fake blood in order to be subbed?

 

[Zoe]

There are two clear "halves" to this post, with the last two lines being the second "half". But if I might bring them together for a moment, suppose such a decision was made in football? "The evidence is inconclusive, I cannot award a goal."

Has this been done in 1966 England may not have won the World Cup.

 

[Minilad]

Rugby the game with eye-gouging and fake blood in order to be subbed?

But its OK because they call the ref sir. Laughable double standards

 

[Oswyntail]

But its OK because they call the ref sir. Laughable double standards

I don't believe so. The shock that went through rugby with "bloodgate" was because such things don't happen on a regular basis. And at least the game does have standards.

 

[Ivo]

Has this been done in 1966 England may not have won the World Cup.

Very true - but if video technology had existed in the 60s we would have won 2-1 for the same reason. Was there not a marginal handball claim (as committed by West Germany) in the build up to their late equaliser?

Rugby the game with eye-gouging and fake blood in order to be subbed?

But its OK because they call the ref sir. Laughable double standards

The two of you aren't particularly interested in rugby are you?

Yes, this kind of thing does happen. But what is effectively cheating (or at least oushing the rules as close to the limit as is reasonably permissible) happens in most sports to some degree or another. And at least calling the referee "Sir" instead of something like "Scouse s***" shows a degree of respect, even if the players don't agree with it - such an act is a good example to the public.

Football just takes it too far; you need only look at all the diving videos in this thread to know as much. And to that point, isn't diving (and attacking the ref) even possible on some video games; I believe PES 2011 is along of them? I highly doubt that such problems can occur in cricket and rugby simulators. Even my mother knows which players are likely to dive; a few years ago she would always refer to Drogba as "Diving Drogba".

As Top Gear fans may remember, one Mr Dallaglio once referred to the Premiership as "the Andrex Premiership" - very soft and needlessly expensive.

Another anti-football statement here. Most rugby players aren't sissies that go slapping their opponents' faces in unnecessary arguments (much less in major Finals). Isn't that right Mr Drogba?

I don't believe so. The shock that went through rugby with "bloodgate" was because such things don't happen on a regular basis. And at least the game does have standards.

Very true. And this is a significant difference between the two sports - when severe things like "Bloodgate" come along, it is a shock to the world of rugby. In football, it is perfectly normal.

 

[Zoe]

Football just takes it too far; you need only look at all the diving videos in this thread to know as much. And to that point, isn't diving (and attacking the ref) even possible on some video games; I believe PES 2011 is along of them? I highly doubt that such problems can occur in cricket and rugby simulators.

What would be done in a controversial situation like Italy vs Australia at the 2006 World Cup though? 8 seconds of the game remaining and Italy get a penalty which Totti scores to win the match with the last kick of the game. Had that penalty been denied then Italy could have ended up losing the match and so not won the World Cup that year.

 

[EM2]

IMO, we don't need video technology but we do need goaline technology. But it must be near instant.
Video cameras and analysis aren't enough, because of players blocking sightlines etc.
So, it needs to be some kind of sensor arrangement, like Hawkeye.
Whole of the ball over the whole of the line = goal.

 

[Ivo]

Enough of this debate now. Some potentially serious news relating to one Mr Capello, from the BBC:

Fabio Capello may have breached his contract with the FA

England coach Fabio Capello may have breached his contract by publicly criticising the Football Association's decision to oust John Terry as captain.

Former FA executive director David Davies told the BBC the FA was taking "the matter very seriously".

Terry, 31, was stripped of the armband pending his trial in July over alleged racial abuse of QPR's Anton Ferdinand.

On Sunday, Capello said to Italy's state broadcaster RAI he "absolutely" did not agree with the decision.

Capello, whose first game in charge was on 6 February, 2008 against Switzerland, is set to meet FA chairman David Bernstein this week, but it is understood that the Italian is keen to remain in charge for Euro 2012, which takes place in Poland and Ukraine this summer.

Davies, who left the FA a year and a half before Capello was hired, added: "There is strong leadership now at the FA from [chairman] David Bernstein.

"Last week, he wasn't slow to take things forward and he may not be slow to do so now."

[click the link above for more]

 

[Minilad]

I don't believe so. The shock that went through rugby with "bloodgate" was because such things don't happen on a regular basis. And at least the game does have standards.

But thuggish behaviour does happen on a regular basis. And thats where the double standards come in. Yes footballers might dive and backchat but you rarely see outright violence on a football pitch.
Its all cheating really but the rugger buggers like to think they have the moral high ground

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Just seen this on Facebook:

No income tax, no VAT,
No points last week off Man City.
The future's bleak, he's looking pale...
Harry Redknapp's off to jail.

 

[Oswyntail]

But thuggish behaviour does happen on a regular basis. And thats where the double standards come in. Yes footballers might dive and backchat but you rarely see outright violence on a football pitch.
Its all cheating really but the rugger buggers like to think they have the moral high ground

Rugby is a violent game, and some aspects, such as rucking, may seem like thuggish behaviour. But it is usually within the laws and is acceptable. If you believe that the worst you see regularly on a soccer pitch is "dive and backchat", you are looking in the wrong place - either there is an appalling lack of skill at the top level, or there is malicious, intentional violence in just about every match. Sorry, though I wouldn't say that Rugby necessarily inhabits the moral high ground, Association Football usually lurks in the moral swamps.

 

[SS4]

Enough of this debate now. Some potentially serious news relating to one Mr Capello, from the BBC:



[click the link above for more]

Fair enough but what exactly are the FA going to do about it?

 

[Minilad]

Rugby is a violent game, and some aspects, such as rucking, may seem like thuggish behaviour. But it is usually within the laws and is acceptable. If you believe that the worst you see regularly on a soccer pitch is "dive and backchat", you are looking in the wrong place - either there is an appalling lack of skill at the top level, or there is malicious, intentional violence in just about every match. Sorry, though I wouldn't say that Rugby necessarily inhabits the moral high ground, Association Football usually lurks in the moral swamps.

Well I have never seen a footballer pick up a member of the opposition and throw him to the floor headfirst. Something that has happened on numerous occasions on a Rugby pitch. They even have a name for it. Spearing is it ?

I have never seen a footballer gouge another in the eye.

So you are saying thuggish behaviour is acceptable and within the rules. Sums up Rugby then to be honest

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Sorry, though I wouldn't say that Rugby necessarily inhabits the moral high ground, Association Football usually lurks in the moral swamps.

It was only this morning that someone accused me of "taking the high ground" and that was "infuriating" to a certain person. I am glad that the debate has spread outwards in a few directions since then. Your quote above is very well put indeed and written in a literary fashion that tells all.

This is a forum for debate....all points are valid as such. But I would say to this person...."Do not tell one party that their views are unwelcome, just because their views do not concur with the ones that you hold"... that is innate censorship.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

This is a forum for debate....all points are valid as such. But I would say to this person...."Do not tell one party that their views are unwelcome, just because their views do not concur with the ones that you hold"... that is innate censorship.

If that is me you are referring to, I do believe I never said that, I said all views are welcome, I have never said anything to the contrary: I believe it has been others saying that because they are older they shouldn't have to be educated, ergo making some views 'innate censorship'!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I I believe it has been others saying that because they are older they shouldn't have to be educated.... ergo making some views 'innate censorship'!

The words "grandmother" and "suck eggs" in an old saying, appear to ring a bell here......

 

[Ivo]

The words "grandmother" and "suck eggs" in an old saying, appear to ring a bell here......

You'll have to clarify that one. I haven't got the faintest idea what you're on about.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

You'll have to clarify that one. I haven't got the faintest idea what you're on about.

I certainly will..... look at the highlighted section of the quote in the posting to which I made reference to.

 

[balne-wonderer]

Rugby the game with eye-gouging and fake blood in order to be subbed?

I might add that you are describing Rugby Union.

Behaviour like that happens far far less in Rugby League.

 

[Robinson]

I see Kenny Dalglish is still adamant that Suarez should not have been banned...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/16918255

Sorry, Kenny, but you're on a stuck record now. Accept it and get on with it.

 

[Madge Wildfire]

Video Technology. No thanks.
I could have it for goal line debates, did the ball cross the line, but really how often does this really happen. What I couldn't have is video replay for judgement calls.
Personally I am happy how it is. I am comfortable knowing the game is refereed by a human and all the flaws humans have. And lets face it if the refs made half the amount of mistakes players and managers make we really would be up the creek.
A message to all the people who moans about refs. You try it. You ref a game and see how you get on. I can guarantee you would balls it up left right and centre. Hell most football fans don't even know the laws of the game properly. What gets my goat is pundits in a nice warm studio telling us how bad refs are. well if they are bad when you hung up your boots why didn't you take up refereeing then. Because its easier to watch a dozen replays in super slow motion to come to the decision than put your reputation on the line every week.
Are refs any worse now than 20 years ago. No. Just watched closer

I can understand this point of view, but it basically comes down to being happy with erroneous decisions.

It is also illogical because you admit that the referees are only human, and that humans make mistakes, but in many cases the technology is now in place to rectify some of those mistakes - but you don't want to use it.

This was exactly the same argument used in cricket to try and prevent the DRS system of challenging umpire's decisions "oh, it will expose bad umpiring and they are only human, and have to make split second decisions", but the reality turned out to be the opposite.

The majority of umpire's decisions have been proved to be absolutely correct, thus enhancing their reputations as quality decision makers, and they have not been pilloried for the occasional bad one, because the players know that their occasional mistakes can now be corrected quickly and forgotten about. It has probably made umpires even better than they were before.

So, my question is, why should this not be the same in football? Why not have a video ref in the stands who can talk to the on-field one via the radio link and tell him of things he has seen on monitors? Why not give the linesmen more ability to inform the ref of things they may have seen?

Surely, there ought to be support for getting more accurate decisions than we have at the moment?

I watched Liverpool v Spurs last night, and Gareth Bale seemed to have been tripped by Agger (I think) close to the touchline, but the replay showed that while the Liverpool player had swung a leg in Bale's direction, it made no contact with either the player or the ball, and yet Bale still went down in a heap and got a free kick out of it. He should really have had a yellow card.

 

[Minilad]

I can understand this point of view, but it basically comes down to being happy with erroneous decisions.

It is also illogical because you admit that the referees are only human, and that humans make mistakes, but in many cases the technology is now in place to rectify some of those mistakes - but you don't want to use it.

This was exactly the same argument used in cricket to try and prevent the DRS system of challenging umpire's decisions "oh, it will expose bad umpiring and they are only human, and have to make split second decisions", but the reality turned out to be the opposite.

The majority of umpire's decisions have been proved to be absolutely correct, thus enhancing their reputations as quality decision makers, and they have not been pilloried for the occasional bad one, because the players know that their occasional mistakes can now be corrected quickly and forgotten about. It has probably made umpires even better than they were before.

So, my question is, why should this not be the same in football? Why not have a video ref in the stands who can talk to the on-field one via the radio link and tell him of things he has seen on monitors? Why not give the linesmen more ability to inform the ref of things they may have seen?

Surely, there ought to be support for getting more accurate decisions than we have at the moment?

I watched Liverpool v Spurs last night, and Gareth Bale seemed to have been tripped by Agger (I think) close to the touchline, but the replay showed that while the Liverpool player had swung a leg in Bale's direction, it made no contact with either the player or the ball, and yet Bale still went down in a heap and got a free kick out of it. He should really have had a yellow card.

I probably don't want it because I am a bit old school when it comes to football. And for me there are too many questions about the way it will work to make it worthwhile. I am sure the technology is there but its the mechanics of the thing I am wary of.

I just don't think football lends itself to video replays in the same way that Cricket and other sports that use it are.

Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world and people make mistakes. Players do. Managers do. Chairmen do !!. Why do we think refs should be any different. You don't give the ball back to a player when he has missed an open goal and give him another go. And I am not convinced refs make that many mistakes anyway if I am honest. How many times do incidents get replayed over and over only to find the ref was right. Unfortunately too many people don't know the laws correctly and make the mistake of questioning decisions that have been made correctly (see Kompany's sending off)

I am sure some day soon video replay will come into the game. And when it does, for me, another bit of the soul of football will have died

 

[richw]

I am a rugby ref, and the rugby law book states the referee is the sole judge of fact, but may ask a pre appointed assistant their views on an incident

Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I believe Ice Hockey has limited video technology, for goals IIRC, and that is one of the fastest team sports going, so if they can use it there, why not in football?

Would it not be beyond the bounds of reality to have video technology when the ref isn't sure and play on as the ref sees fit. If the video comes back as the other way round, the clocks are reset and play goes back to that point, if not, it continues as it was. This would prevent much of the time wasting aspect. It would ofcourse rely on refs being honest about what they saw or didn't see.

As an example, a player's pass reaches the byline and another player claims to have kept it in, the opposition disagree, and the ref and assistants are not sure, the ref allows play to continue, but calls for video to decide. the home team go on to score a goal from it, but when the video comes back it shows the ball going out. The goal is ruled out, the elapsed time is added as injury time, or the clocks are put back, and play goes back to where the ball went off the pitch.

 

[SS4]

As an example, a player's pass reaches the byline and another player claims to have kept it in, the opposition disagree, and the ref and assistants are not sure, the ref allows play to continue, but calls for video to decide. the home team go on to score a goal from it, but when the video comes back it shows the ball going out. The goal is ruled out, the elapsed time is added as injury time, or the clocks are put back, and play goes back to where the ball went off the pitch.

Torres actually scoring would be unusual enough to call the video ref

 

[Ivo]

Torres actually scoring would be unusual enough to call the video ref

Torres doing anything (except diving) would be unusual enough to call the video ref...

 

[ole man]

Has the law changed in this country?
How can the FA take the captaincy off John Terry when he hasn't done anything, Fabio Capello has every right to complain it's his team and he DID decide who plays and who is captain.
Same old FA, spineless and run by out of date old people who should off walked away.