Blatter sorry for disallowed goal

[Easy 10]

Did anyone hear Adrian Durham last night on TalkShite? He was trying to argue against ALL forms of technology "destroying the very fabric of our game." Which in his bizarre World included not wanting goal-line technology which unlike Rugby is a chip in the ball that will issue a bleep to the refs wristwatch within 0.5 secs of crossing the goal-line.

Now I think is a good time to have a quick straw poll amongst those of us on this thread who have had differing views on technology.

Does anyone have a problem with the chip in the ball for goal-lines? Personally, I can't even imagine a coherant argument against that.

Chip in the ball?

The ball Lampard scored with was chipped, and that didn't bloody help did it.

But yes, absolutely. I have no issue whatsoever with goalline technology being brought in, whether that be a chip in the ball or some form of Hawkeye system. As long as we are ONLY talking about line-calls for goalline decisions, to determine whether or not the ball crossed the goalline. Nothing else.

I think Durhams agrument (I heard some of it on the way home) was that it was the thin end of the wedge, and once you use technology for goalline calls, it'll spread to other decisions.

Then DUNDERHEADS like "Goughie" reaffirm this fear when he blunders in and says "Lets use technology ONLY for incidents inside t' box, cos thats the BUSINESS end, like". With no thought or ideas whatsoever about how to actually implement it and structure the game around it.

 

[Pavilionaire]

That article by Martin Samuel about England's main problem being a lack of football nous is SPOT ON.

 

[Easy 10]

As per usual from Samuel.

 

[Pavilionaire]

There are so few English players with a good football brain. Hargreaves is definitely one, Ledley King's another one but after that I'm struggling...

 

[Mellotron]

Imagine if that had happened with the "Hand of God" that while Shilts was charging at the lino claiming handball, there had been a big Videotron screen showing him punch it into the net.

Perfect example. Easy, you keep going on about there being RIOTING etc but which scenario do you think would be more likely to cause a RIOT?

A> Maradona handballs the goal into the net, the goal is initially given despite mass appeals from the England players/fans and the Argentinian fans being happy, but maybe a bit sheepish. Then the ref - after seeing the replay WHILE the Argentina players are celebrating - reverses the situation. BOTH sides can see JUSTICE is done, and no need for anyone to riot.

or

B> Same initial outcome as above. As the Argentina players are celebrating, a CLEAR handball is shown on the screens inside the ground and to the MILLIONS watching at home. Obviously the England players expect the ref to overturn the clearly wrong decision, yet due to the f***ing PIGHEADED stance to the rules, the goal that EVERYONE ON THE PLANET KNOWS IS NOT A GOAL is given.

Now, here's the quiz question - which of the above is more likely to cause a riot, with possible injuries to both sets of fans and almost certainly death threats for the ref, or worse?

I don't question the fact that what everyone is suggesting will be VERY difficult to implement, but you mention a "utopia where there are no refereeing mistakes" as if it's a bad thing. What absolute bollocks, we want football to be as pure and just as possible, surely? So there can be as little debate as possible that "the best team won".

The final myth to bust - "without dodgy decisions we'd have nothing to talk about" - again, absolute bowl of locks. So no one in sports with proper refereeing ever talks about anything ever? OK then. So we'd stop talking about the other 100,000 things that make up football.

 

[Easy 10]

Forget A or B - the simple answer is - DON'T SHOW THE BLOODY REPLAYS ON GIANT SCREENS IN THE STADIUM ! This does seem to be a relatively new idea, being as they don't do this on the big screens in the Premier League (as far as I know they just show the game "live").

Having giant screen video replays for the crowd to see and judge incidents at the same time as officials is just a crazy idea that has to be binned. Immediately.

 

[Gritt23]

Forget A or B - the simple answer is - DON'T SHOW THE BLOODY REPLAYS ON GIANT SCREENS IN THE STADIUM ! This does seem to be a relatively new idea, being as they don't do this on the big screens in the Premier League (as far as I know they just show the game "live").

Having giant screen video replays for the audience to judge incidents at the same time as officials is just a crazy idea that has to be binned. Immediately.

Good thinking in the immediate short-term, but unfortunately technology inevitably overtakes that. How long before the majority of the crowd have seen the replays on their phone within seconds regardless of what the Big Screen is showing?

I reckon we have until the next World Cup before that is the case. What do you do then, ban mobiles from the ground?

 

[Easy 10]

Good thinking in the immediate short-term, but unfortunately technology inevitably overtakes that. How long before the majority of the crowd have seen the replays on their phone within seconds regardless of what the Big Screen is showing?

I reckon we have until the next World Cup before that is the case. What do you do then, ban mobiles from the ground?

I think its a bit of a leap from showing a replay of a controversial goal or incident on a giant jumbotron screen to an entire stadium full of people, to compare that with a few geeks sitting there who are for some reason watching the match on their iPhone.

We're getting away from the point a little though. Football will have itself some far more serious underlying problems when crowds start rioting over refereeing decisions, whether its been seen on a reply or not. Any twat who kicks off over that is not going to be "placated" by having a video replay carefully explained to them.

 

[Gritt23]

I think its a bit of a leap from showing a replay of a controversial goal or incident on a giant jumbotron screen to an entire stadium full of people, to compare that with a few geeks sitting there who are for some reason watching the match on their iPhone.

What is geeky technology today is the norm tomorrow.

No, I don't think people will be watching the whole match, but if you know the Jumbo Tron won't show controversial replays, then as soon as it doesn't replay a goal, then if your phone is set up to show you replays, you are going to reach for it then aren't you.

They don't show replays on the main screen at the cricket if they are controversial, but when they don't show them, you KNOW it's possibly a wrong call, so you scurry to a screen that is showing it. It becomes a knee-jerk reaction when you know you can see something controversial. When that becomes generally available on my phone, I'll have it, you'll have it and Chris will have had it for months!!

My point is, your solution of not showing it on the Big Screen works today, but it's days are numbered.

 

[Easy 10]

So we're now saying that "important decisions" (whatever multiple criteria we decide THAT must encompass) must now be reviewed by an official using video replays, for fear of fans rioting if the refs have got something wrong ?

Stop the game. I want to get off.

 

[Gritt23]

Nope, didn't say that.

I've said that we have a potential problem where the whole ground has seen the decision is wrong (incl the officials in that Argentina vs Mexico game) even before the game has restarted, and yet we must carry on as if no-one knows it was wrong.

That was a ridiculous scenario, and we shouldn't just ignore it.

 

[Mellotron]

No, I was responding to your point that people would riot MORE if TV replays were used - ie if justice was done MORE - which was illogical.

I agree that IF we aren't going to use technology, we HAVE to ban screens from the ground, however it is definitely backwards thinking in the long term, and holding out on the inevitable.

I have a feeling you won't like football in 5-10 years time.

 

[Tooting Gull]

That article by Martin Samuel about England's main problem being a lack of football nous is SPOT ON.

That is very true, although the downside when they all have their own ideas on tactics is easily seen with the Dutch. They DO have football nous, from a young age and are empowered in all sorts of ways.

But invariably for them it all goes tits up when some bright spark starts questioning the manager in the middle of a big tournament, and the whole thing implodes. I notice Van Persie is saying today he shouldn't have been substituted, just before a huge game for the country.

Maybe it's a happy medium we're looking for between the English thickies who are only capable of following orders, and the Dutch player-tacticians.

 

[Simster]

Maybe it's a happy medium we're looking for between the English thickies who are only capable of following orders, and the Dutch player-tacticians.

In other words, be a bit more like GERMANY.

 

[Easy 10]

No, I was responding to your point that people would riot MORE if TV replays were used - ie if justice was done MORE - which was illogical.

Again though, you're making the assumption that a TV replay will clear an incident up, without question and with no room for argument or doubt. Not EVERY controversial call is as blindingly obvious as the Lampard "goal", or the Tevez offside. What you are calling justice isn't always as clear cut as that, which is why opening the door to using TV replays for decisions is so inherently frought with pitfalls.

If you end up (for example) chalking off a goal that was initially awarded, because someone in front of a screen has seen something he thinks should rule it out - and thousands of people at the game disagree - then you're going to have yourself a situation. THATS my point.

 

[Easy 10]

Nope, didn't say that.

I've said that we have a potential problem where the whole ground has seen the decision is wrong (incl the officials in that Argentina vs Mexico game) even before the game has restarted, and yet we must carry on as if no-one knows it was wrong.

That was a ridiculous scenario, and we shouldn't just ignore it.

It was indeed a ridiculous scenario, it was a mistake to have shown it on the big screen and that was acknowledged by FIFA. That won't be happening again for the forseeble.

 

[Mellotron]

Again though, you're making the assumption that a TV replay will clear an incident up, without question and with no room for argument or doubt. Not EVERY controversial call is as blindingly obvious as the Lampard "goal", or the Tevez offside. What you are calling justice isn't always as clear cut as that, which is why opening the door to using TV replays for decisions is so inherently frought with pitfalls.

If you end up (for example) chalking off a goal that was initially awarded, because someone in front of a screen has seen something he thinks should rule it out - and thousands of people at the game disagree - then you're going to have yourself a situation. THATS my point.

But 99% of the time it's going to be a more informed decision, and therefore 99% of the time, a BETTER decision than an on field one. So...we know it would be BETTER than the current state of affairs.

I don't know what level I would intervene at and at what I wouldn't. But there are (surely) people being paid a lot of money to investigate how these technologies could be persued?

 

[Mellotron]

If you end up (for example) chalking off a goal that was initially awarded, because someone in front of a screen has seen something he thinks should rule it out - and thousands of people at the game disagree - then you're going to have yourself a situation. THATS my point.

How is that any different (in terms of "having yourself a situation") to a ref on pitch chalking off a goal that thousands at the game disagree with? The only difference is the off pitch ref has a far better view, and far more informed decision. There would still be disagreements - far less than there are now but still some - but we would give ourselves the best possible chance of getting decisions right, and I come back to an earlier point:

When millions of pounds and potentially hundreds of jobs can be lost on these decisions (ie it's not just a bit of fun anymore, like it or not football is HUGE business nowadays), the decision made HAS to be as informed as possible.

 

[Easy 10]

But 99% of the time it's going to be a more informed decision, and therefore 99% of the time, a BETTER decision than an on field one. So...we know it would be BETTER than the current state of affairs.

That is a complete assumption. You can't put an arbitrary "99% of the time" figure on it at all.

Decisions on pushing and shoving in the box, was it ball to hand or hand to ball, sliding tackles where there may or may not be a slight touch on the ball, was there enough contact on the player or was it a complete dive - these are often all MARGINAL decisions, and boil down to an interpretation.

Some are more obvious than others of course, but to blithely say it'll be called absolutely spot-on 99% of the time is nonsense. Fans and pundits have argued and disagreed over replays for YONKS and failed to agree on it.

If you go with the on-field one, you can rely on it being an HONEST decision. It might not always be correct, but you know that he's had ONE look at it, and thats his call. And most of the time they do get it right. Thats the price we pay to stop the game being broken up by TV replays, in this ludicrous and doomed pursuit of the infallible.

 

[Easy 10]

How is that any different (in terms of "having yourself a situation") to a ref on pitch chalking off a goal that thousands at the game disagree with? The only difference is the off pitch ref has a far better view, and far more informed decision. There would still be disagreements - far less than there are now but still some - but we would give ourselves the best possible chance of getting decisions right, and I come back to an earlier point:

When millions of pounds and potentially hundreds of jobs can be lost on these decisions (ie it's not just a bit of fun anymore, like it or not football is HUGE business nowadays), the decision made HAS to be as informed as possible.

f*** the money and the business and the jobs, thats just an ugly side effect of how bloated and twisted beyond all recognition the game has become nowadays. I don't want to see legislation brought in just to pander to that. I don't give a rats arse about someones balance sheet being affected by a refereeing decision - if a team is good enough, it won't NEED these supposedly "perfect" TV decisions being made - and someone will ALWAYS have to be on the wrong end of the decision one way or the other anyway.

As for a ref on the field disallowing a goal - yes, annoying as it can be, people generally accept the decision and allow everyone to get on with it. Like everyone else, he's seen it once and made his call.

However, if the call is made by someone viewing it on a screen, he'd better be damned sure he's 100% SPOT ON about it and that nobody would disagree with his decision (be it a foul, a hand ball, awarding a pen or disallowing a goal) - because UNLIKE the guy on the pitch, he hasn't got the very valid excuse of only seeing it once in real-time. Getting it wrong from a TV replay is a whole different ball-game to an honest mistake made by the ref during the game. And again, right or wrong will always boil down to the officials interpretation / opinion of the incident. Thats no different whether its viewed live or on a replay.