Blatter sorry for disallowed goal

[Gritt23]

if a team is good enough, it won't NEED these supposedly "perfect" TV decisions being made

I honestly haven't seen anyone say TV Replays would be perfect.

It would just be better informed, and in the case of the Tevez goal, it would avoid that ridiculous farce.


Btw, what's your take on the Zidane sending off 4 years ago? Was that not TV replays coming in by the backdoor, as it was perfectly clear to me that neither the ref, nor the assistant saw that headbutt.

 

[Easy 10]

The ref certainly didn't see it, and as it was the 4th official (not the linesman) that he went over to, it was obviously the TV replay that got Zidane rightly sent off.

But once again, its always these extreme, bizarre examples that have to be trotted out to try to justify bringing in TV replays to help make decisions on everything. The Lampard goal, the Tevez goal, the Zidane headbutt - yes, these things happen and they should be picked up by officials there and then. Human error means that sometimes on these rare occasions they're not, but that simply does not justify major wholesale changes to the game of football as we know it.

People seem to think it'd simply be a case of someone glancing at a screen, letting the ref know the decision, and the game carrying on from there. Job done. If only it were that straightforward then yes, using TV replays all through the game would be great. But when you stop to think it through, you begin to realise the complications and the new rules that would have to be brought in to properly accomodate it - and for those small number of decisions that sometimes need correcting, for me it just ain't worth it.

 

[simmo]

The ref certainly didn't see it, and as it was the 4th official (not the linesman) that he went over to, it was obviously the TV replay that got Zidane rightly sent off.

But once again, its always these extreme, bizarre examples that have to be trotted out to try to justify bringing in TV replays to help make decisions on everything. The Lampard goal, the Tevez goal, the Zidane headbutt - yes, these things happen and they should be picked up by officials there and then. Human error means that sometimes on these rare occasions they're not, but that simply does not justify major wholesale changes to the game of football as we know it.

People seem to think it'd simply be a case of someone glancing at a screen, letting the ref know the decision, and the game carrying on from there. Job done. If only it were that straightforward then yes, using TV replays all through the game would be great. But when you stop to think it through, you begin to realise the complications and the new rules that would have to be brought in to properly accomodate it - and for those small number of decisions that sometimes need correcting, for me it just ain't worth it.

These "bizarre" incidents happen pretty regularly nowadays I can think of 4 straight of the top of my head at this World Cup alone, Lampards shot, Tevez goal, USA disallowed late winner against Slovenia and Kaka's sending off against Ivory Coast (where TV showed that the ref wasn't even looking at the incident and basically just guessed at what he should give ha, ha).

The World Cup is becoming a joke because a) the officials are desperately poor and b) replays shows within seconds to billions some of their poor decisions.

TV evidence should be used to overturn absurd decisions that the whole world can see and the upshot is that it can send sides crashing out of a World Cup that they have waited 4 years to participate in.

I bet there will be (at least) one more bizarre incident (i.e in real terms poor officiating) before the end of the tournament, the World Cup is the biggest sporting event in the world without parallel, it should be a well operated smooth tournament yet it looks utterly amateurish and shambolic compared to other sports.

Decisions like the ones against England and Mexico (whom both were hard done by and whom both lost) could have been overturned by another ref looking at a TV replay and making the correct decision in seconds and it really is a simple as that. I really have no idea why people are getting their knickers in a twist about it so much, Blatter hang your head in shame.

 

[Easy 10]

Simmo, its not "as simple as that". You keep saying it is, but really, honestly, when you fully think things through properly, its not simple at all.

There's nothing new to say on the matter now though, I think we've exhausted the subject and we'll never reach a consensus on it.

 

[beorhthelm]

anyone who thinks its simple clearly hasnt watched Rugby or Cricket and and waited for a minute for the decision to come back. in the case of Cricket it really doesnt matter (some might say it adds some suspence), in Rugby its for try line only. it just wont work in football, beyond automated goal line signals, or for retrospective punishment/corrections.

The examples being used are ALL due to poor officials. Thats what needs to be addressed. implimenting technology to fix that will just mean its a different official making errors.

 

[simmo]

Simmo, its not "as simple as that". You keep saying it is, but really, honestly, when you fully think things through properly, its not simple at all.

There's nothing new to say on the matter now though, I think we've exhausted the subject and we'll never reach a consensus on it.

Ok I wasn't on NSC yesterday (looks like I missed an interesting day!) and have picked up again on this deabte.

Also it is that simple if you don't think about it too hard and come up with scenarios in your head that might never ever happen at all and just say Mr Ref you watch that game on TV, look at the replays and put right the injusticies that we can all see.

Your right we will never agree, but one thing I will state is this will happen. I think after the Mexico fiasco especially, I think it will be inevitable in the end (probably after Blatter has left FIFA).

 

[Easy 10]

Also it is that simple if you don't think about it too hard and come up with scenarios in your head that might never ever happen at all and just say Mr Ref you watch that game on TV, look at the replays and put right the injusticies that we can all see.

If you honestly think it's that simple to incorporate TV replays for what could potentially end up being dozens of separate incidents and decisions during a football match, and everyone would just happily accept the revised decisions, then good luck to you.

Me, I can't see any way of doing it that wouldn't completely and permanently RUIN the game as a spectacle.

 

[simmo]

If you honestly think it's that simple to incorporate TV replays for what could potentially end up being dozens of separate incidents and decisions during a football match, and everyone would just happily accept the revised decisions, then good luck to you.

Me, I can't see any way of doing it that wouldn't completely and permanently RUIN the game as a spectacle.

Dozens, where do you get this figure dozens from, I think you have an overactive imagination. How many contentious issues are there in a game involving a goal (allowed or not), a sending off (allowed or not), a penalty (allowed or not). One, two max a game I would have said, a lot of the time zero and the TV ref only gets involved when there is a glaring error, if there is no error he has no communication with the onfield ref at all and the game goes on.

 

[Easy 10]

Dozens, where do you get this figure dozens from, I think you have an overactive imagination. How many contentious issues are there in a game involving a goal (allowed or not), a sending off (allowed or not), a penalty (allowed or not). One, two max a game I would have said, a lot of the time zero and the TV ref only gets involved when there is a glaring error, if there is no error he has no communication with the onfield ref at all and the game goes on.

The thin end of the wedge, my friend.
Do you honestly think that once they start using TV replays to make decisions, its going to stop at just the odd contencious incident here and there ? Once they START down this road of TV replays, then you can be absolutely certain there'll be calls to have more and more "crucial" decisions reviewed and analysed.

Almost any minor occurrence can affect a game or lead to a goal. Was that tackle in the build-up to the goal a foul ? Did the ball go into touch before it was crossed ? Wasn't there a shove back there ? Hang on, wasn't he interfering with play ? Oi ref, check the replay, he had hold of his shirt....

It'd be ENDLESS

 

[simmo]

The thin end of the wedge, my friend.
Do you honestly think that once they start using TV replays to make decisions, its going to stop at just the odd contencious incident here and there ? Once they START down this road of TV replays, then you can be absolutely certain there'll be calls to have more and more "crucial" decisions reviewed and analysed.

Almost any minor occurrence can affect a game or lead to a goal. Was that tackle in the build-up to the goal a foul ? Did the ball go into touch before it was crossed ? Wasn't there a shove back there ? Hang on, wasn't he interfering with play ? Oi ref, check the replay, he had hold of his shirt....

It'd be ENDLESS

Only in your brain would it be endless, it doesn't have to be in the real world. Corners/Free Kicks/Throw ins for e.g are not crucial decsions, there is a lot more football to be played to score a goal after an award of a (incorrect or otherwise) free kick (queue the inevitable question about what if the free kick is right on the edge of the box) corner or throw in.

Only game breaking decisions need to be checked, goals, sending offs and penalties and if these rules are set down before hand and both sides know this, what is the problem?

You keep on giving scenarios and situations that you dream up, it really is pointless doing that, each situation is different, with it's own set of unique circumstances. A ref with a TV replay of any incident will be able to have a better view of what the correct decision would be and can either confirm or in some cases overturn a glaringly obvious mistake of an on field ref. With the assistance of TV replays he would get those decisions I guess correct 99% of the time, however, whatever percentage it is it would be it would always be a higher percentage than refs such as those that that were in charge of the England and Mexico games, offer, because a TV ref would only have to overturn those that they got obviously wrong.

 

[Danny-Boy]

He isn't right though is he? He wants goal line technology only.

What happens if someone knocks the ball in with his hand? We all know about that including the Irish.

He didn't actually SCORE the goal with his hand, unlike Maradona. He just controlled it, then scored.

Would be interested to know whether FIFA are going to look at what takes place ON the field of play, not merely whether the balls ends up OFF it or not.

 

[Danny-Boy]

These "bizarre" incidents happen pretty regularly nowadays I can think of 4 straight of the top of my head at this World Cup alone, Lampards shot, Tevez goal, USA disallowed late winner against Slovenia and Kaka's sending off against Ivory Coast (where TV showed that the ref wasn't even looking at the incident and basically just guessed at what he should give ha, ha).

The World Cup is becoming a joke because a) the officials are desperately poor and b) replays shows within seconds to billions some of their poor decisions.

They're obviously not being bribed - sorry PAID - enough then...

 

[Easy 10]

Only in your brain would it be endless, it doesn't have to be in the real world. Corners/Free Kicks/Throw ins for e.g are not crucial decsions, there is a lot more football to be played to score a goal after an award of a (incorrect or otherwise) free kick (queue the inevitable question about what if the free kick is right on the edge of the box) corner or throw in.

Only game breaking decisions need to be checked, goals, sending offs and penalties and if these rules are set down before hand and both sides know this, what is the problem?

You keep on giving scenarios and situations that you dream up, it really is pointless doing that, each situation is different, with it's own set of unique circumstances. A ref with a TV replay of any incident will be able to have a better view of what the correct decision would be and can either confirm or in some cases overturn a glaringly obvious mistake of an on field ref. With the assistance of TV replays he would get those decisions I guess correct 99% of the time, however, whatever percentage it is it would be it would always be a higher percentage than refs such as those that that were in charge of the England and Mexico games, offer, because a TV ref would only have to overturn those that they got obviously wrong.

Corners/ free kicks / throw-ins CAN turn out to be crucial decisions if apparently the WRONG decision was made to award it, and a goal results. This is my point, if you bring it in, you're not going to have TV replays limited or isolated to obvious bad calls like the Lampard incident - once its brought in, it'd get extended and eventually used for bloody EVERYTHING, you can bet your right bollock on it.

Apart from all that, I've STILL not seen a cohesive, simple, consistant way presented of halting a game mid-flow to analyse these incidents to see whether the original decision needs changing or not.

 

[simmo]

Corners/ free kicks / throw-ins CAN turn out to be crucial decisions if apparently the WRONG decision was made to award it, and a goal results. This is my point, if you bring it in, you're not going to have TV replays limited or isolated to obvious bad calls like the Lampard incident - once its brought in, it'd get extended and eventually used for bloody EVERYTHING, you can bet your right bollock on it.

There is a lot more football to be played before a goal is scored from any of those scenarios, it is up to the defending side to deal with the ensuing (incorrectly awarded or otherwise) corner or free kick successfully (which they should defend successfully more times than not) if both sides know this before hand, there is no issue. There is no need for any incidents apart from game breakers (goals/pens/sending offs) to be refered.

Apart from all that, I've STILL not seen a cohesive, simple, consistant way presented of halting a game mid-flow to analyse these incidents to see whether the original decision needs changing or not.

How about by the ref blowing his whistle to stop the game (it's novel but it may catch on) after he has been told to do so by the TV official after he has seen a replay in all of a few seconds and advises him that a big mistake has been made. They communicate via the ear pieces that they all have.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

Dozens, where do you get this figure dozens from, I think you have an overactive imagination. How many contentious issues are there in a game involving a goal (allowed or not), a sending off (allowed or not), a penalty (allowed or not). One, two max a game I would have said, a lot of the time zero and the TV ref only gets involved when there is a glaring error, if there is no error he has no communication with the onfield ref at all and the game goes on.

How many times would they be appealing for pens if it was possible, practically every time anyone got in the box and every corner I would have thought, with shirt-pulling, diving etc. I think I said to you before, I am all for it for some things, but I can't yet see how to do it.

 

[Easy 10]

There is a lot more football to be played before a goal is scored from any of those scenarios, it is up to the defending side to deal with the ensuing (incorrectly awarded or otherwise) corner or free kick successfully (which they should defend successfully more times than not) if both sides know this before hand, there is no issue. There is no need for any incidents apart from game breakers (goals/pens/sending offs) to be refered.

So a "blatantly" wrong corner is awarded, or a "blatantly" wrong free kick, and that team scores from it...You still believe that after a few of those have popped in, that they won't start extending the TV replay decisions beyond the "game-breakers" as you call them ? Well I believe otherwise. Like I said, you're starting with the thin end of the wedge with all this.

How about by the ref blowing his whistle to stop the game (it's novel but it may catch on) after he has been told to do so by the TV official after he has seen a replay in all of a few seconds and advises him that a big mistake has been made. They communicate via the ear pieces that they all have.

IN HIS OPINION a big mistake has been made. Its just another opinion, seen from a different angle. So you're advocating halting the game (in the middle of a breakaway attack ?) for another look at it. Again (and I KEEP having to say this), its not always going to be as stone-wall as a Lampard jobbie, and what some will consider "blatant", others will have a different interpretation of. When you're talking penalty decisions, it can be very VERY difficult to determine intent. Offsides can be ambiguous. Handball can be tricky to call. The all-seeing eye in the stands is just as capable of making a duff call as the ref on the pitch, and then you've gone and stopped the game for it !

Also, I assume you're only going to have this brought in for the Premier League and World Cup Finals matches ? Being as they're the only ones which actually have multiple camera angles all over the place and immediate slo-mo playback facilities at the touch of a button. Your idea for replays ain't much good at places like Withdean, with one camera at the halfway line on a rickety scaffold. So straight away, you're imposing two-tiered double-standards on the refereeing of our game - and you're ok with that ?

 

[simmo]

So a "blatantly" wrong corner is awarded, or a "blatantly" wrong free kick, and that team scores from it...You still believe that after a few of those have popped in, that they won't start extending the TV replay decisions beyond the "game-breakers" as you call them ? Well I believe otherwise. Like I said, you're starting with the thin end of the wedge with all this.



IN HIS OPINION a big mistake has been made. Its just another opinion, seen from a different angle. So you're advocating halting the game (in the middle of a breakaway attack ?) for another look at it. Again (and I KEEP having to say this), its not always going to be as stone-wall as a Lampard jobbie, and what some will consider "blatant", others will have a different interpretation of. When you're talking penalty decisions, it can be very VERY difficult to determine intent. Offsides can be ambiguous. Handball can be tricky to call. The all-seeing eye in the stands is just as capable of making a duff call as the ref on the pitch, and then you've gone and stopped the game for it !

Also, I assume you're only going to have this brought in for the Premier League and World Cup Finals matches ? Being as they're the only ones which actually have multiple camera angles all over the place and immediate slo-mo playback facilities at the touch of a button. Your idea for replays ain't much good at places like Withdean, with one camera at the halfway line on a rickety scaffold. So straight away, you're imposing two-tiered double-standards on the refereeing of our game - and you're ok with that ?

Your right we are going on the same things over and over again and I am off soon so I won't reply to your reply this evening but yet again I will clarify a few points.

Where it is beyond reasonable doubt (and don't ask me to define what reasonable doubt is, you can't even specify that in a court of law as each indviduals interpretation of the phrase is different, because we are all after all human and have our own thoughts) that a glaring error has been made by the ref in a situation that is a game breaker (i.e goal/pen/sending off) it is actually utterly ridiculous that TV showing something to the contrary cannot be used so that the correct decision is made. The solutions is not perfect and as we are all human and we all mistakes from time to time and a TV ref may not even get it right all the time, but it would be a damn site better than the farces (and basic wrongs) we saw on Sunday.

Also what is this two tier nonsence, not all cricket games (when I go to Sussex sometimes they do sometimes they don't have TV replays) not all Tennis games, nor rugby games have it. It is a pointless argument, where you have the technology use it, where you don't don't, big deal.

In any case have a good evening!

 

[Easy 10]

Your right we are going on the same things over and over again and I am off soon so I won't reply to your reply this evening but yet again I will clarify a few points.

Where it is beyond reasonable doubt (and don't ask me to define what reasonable doubt is, you can't even specify that in a court of law as each indviduals interpretation of the phrase is different, because we are all after all human and have our own thoughts) that a glaring error has been made by the ref in a situation that is a game breaker (i.e goal/pen/sending off) it is actually utterly ridiculous that TV showing something to the contrary cannot be used so that the correct decision is made. The solutions is not perfect and as we are all human and we all mistakes from time to time and a TV ref may not even get it right all the time, but it would be a damn site better than the farces (and basic wrongs) we saw on Sunday.

PRECISELY. So straight away you're inevitably going to have glaring inconsistencies on when the TV replay is brought into play. Which in turn will lead to more even MORE argument and more controversy than we have now, because whether the incident was deemed worthy of a videa review or not will become an arguing point within itself ON TOP OF the actual incident.

Also what is this two tier nonsence, not all cricket games (when I go to Sussex sometimes they do sometimes they don't have TV replays) not all Tennis games, nor rugby games have it. It is a pointless argument, where you have the technology use it, where you don't don't, big deal.

In any case have a good evening!

I'm not bothered about cricket, or rugby, or tennis, and as has already been disected, those sports are more suited to accomodating video replays than football could ever be (its only used in a very limited line-call capacity in rugby and tennis anyway).

With football though, I kind of think it IS a big deal actually. Football is our National sport. We have 92 professional clubs in this country, and I believe that the game should follow the same set of refereeing protocals from the very top to the very bottom. Having a different set of refereeing rules for the Premier League from the rest of us (and you WILL need new rules to have this brought in), just strikes me as being fundamentally wrong.

Have a good evening yourself sir

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

3 words for Blatter.

f***
RIGHT
OFF

 

[beorhthelm]

Also what is this two tier nonsence, not all cricket games (when I go to Sussex sometimes they do sometimes they don't have TV replays) not all Tennis games, nor rugby games have it. It is a pointless argument, where you have the technology use it, where you don't don't, big deal.

okaaaay, so its fine for to use technology at say the Arsenal V Northampton 3rd round FA cup tie while not using it at the Northampton V Arsenal replay? that sums up the whole problem with the case "for", the inevitable inconsistancy.

the two teir issue is very relevent because in football every level plays to the same rule book. in other sports that not the case with special rules applied for tournements, club/international level, professional/amatuer, so TV ruling can be just as selective. thats half the debate, do we want that change in football, to have different rules at different levels, which technology inevitably brings?