Blatter sorry for disallowed goal

[Easy 10]

Because the attacking player has dived

Guess where I am going next, it may have the effect of reducing diving, I guarantee that Ronaldo wouldn't like TV technology, now wouldn't that be a good thing!

Yes, cos thats always the SOLE reason for an incorrect penalty decision isn't it. A dive.

Once again, you want TV to sort out all the obvious stuff, but have no answers to the marginal decions which are often every bit as diffiicult to call after half a dozen replays.

Its still just an INTERPRETATION ffs.

 

[simmo]

Yes, cos thats always the SOLE reason for an incorrect penalty decision isn't it. A dive.

Once again, you want TV to sort out all the obvious stuff, but have no answers to the marginal decions which are often every bit as diffiicult to call after half a dozen replays.

Its still just an INTERPRETATION ffs.

How many more times do I have to say it.

Doubt over the on field decision, go with the original decision.

 

[simmo]

Until you apperciate or acknowledge the fundemental difference between football and cricket, theres no point arguing the toss over this.

Cricket is a series of separate deliveries which result in short, defined "bursts" of action for each one of those separate deliveries. Once the result of one particular delivery has run its course, it allows for a review (if necessary) BEFORE the game recommences with the next delivery.

Football is a game which flows until the ball goes out of play, or there is a foul. It is not separated by deliveries. One single passage of play can potentially carry on for minutes at a time without interruption (you seen Brazil lately ?)

One of these sports has a "natural break" to enable a review of an incident. The other one does not, and if the ball has not gone dead, would require an interruption in play to be physically IMPOSED on it by the officials in order to review a decision - thus altering the passage of the game.

If you were determined to have these video reviews then of course its possible to pull play back and review a decision when the ball eventually goes dead - but by then, any MANNER of drastic things could have happened. A goal could be scored. A player could incur a red card. A penalty might have been awarded.

Are you happy for that kind of carnage, in order to go back to a TV monitor which MIGHT by the way just uphold the original decision ??

What about rugby (union and league) then, doesn't that in theory have the same flow as football and no bursts (a la cricket) of action, yet they use the TV official.

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

Well rugby is a game that flows and you often see the ref and players quite happy to wait until the video ref has been consulted as to who's fouled who, or whether a player has been pushed into touch before he grounds for a try, or whether a ball has been touched down legally.

........

The video replay in Rugby Union is only used, at the ref's request btw, to determine whether a try should be allowed, by which time play has stopped and will be restarted via a kick-off (if a try is given), 5m scrum or drop out. Hence, there's already a natural break in the play here, as there is in cricket where the replay is used for run-outs etc.

 

[Easy 10]

How many more times do I have to say it.

Doubt over the on field decision, go with the original decision.

What about rugby (union and league) then, doesn't that in theory have the same flow as football and no bursts (a la cricket) of action, yet they use the TV official.

Simmo. Can you please just describe exactly how you would introduce TV replays in football in order to check or alter a decision ? In particular when the ball HAS NOT yet gone "dead" ?

I'm talking about the mechanics of it. The process.

 

[simmo]

This is painful.

Your ideas about getting the right decision are at the cost of a continuous game of football, and yes football does flow despite what you think.

The more you put your ideas across, the more I realise how unworkable more and more of them are. At the start of this, I was 'generally' against TV interference. Now you've convinced me to be 'firmly' against it.

How does checking whether a goal should be allowed or not, a penalty be allowed or not, or checking if a sending off be allowed or not effect the flow of a game of football. The TV official only draws it to the attention of the ref if he has made an utter cock up the game flows otherwise.

Nearly every time one of these things happen the game stops in any case. A goal is scored, teams celebrate. A player is sent off he has to do the walk, and a penalty is awarded someone has to put the ball on the spot. It will barely effect the flow at all, sure a video ref seeing something like Lampards shot will have to stop the game but that can be done in the time it takes for a TV replay to be shown (which should be 1/2 seconds nowadays I guess). What it would do is it will make (the two) farces like Sunday much much rarer.

 

[Easy 10]

You're still not really thinking this through simmo.
You're chucking out a half-baked "solution" without fully considering the process or the potential side effects or other issues it will throw into the equation.

 

[simmo]

Simmo. Can you please just describe exactly how you would introduce TV replays in football in order to check or alter a decision ? In particular when the ball HAS NOT yet gone "dead" ?

I'm talking about the mechanics of it. The process.

Ok, A TV ref watches the game, he is miked up to the on field ref.

He watches the whole game and he has the right to draw to the referees attention any major cock up's he has made concerning, whether a goal should be allowed or not, a penalty be allowed or not, or checking if a sending off be allowed and that TV evidence has showed he is clearly wrong. The TV ref has no say on more minor decisions such as corners free kicks goal kicks etc. to keep the game flowing.

In this day an age a TV company if it wants I reckon can get a replay onto the screen within a few seconds (I think it is FIFA that tells them not to put them up too quick because it makes their officials look the amateurs that they actually are!)

The moment that he contacts the onfield ref the whistle is blown and the game stops and the correct decision is made, any football for the few seconds after the TV refered incident is not relevant.

 

[Monsieur Le Plonk]

Ok, A TV ref watches the game, he is miked up to the on field ref.

He watches the whole game and he has the right to draw to the referees attention any major cock up's he has made concerning, whether a goal should be allowed or not, a penalty be allowed or not, or checking if a sending off be allowed and that TV evidence has showed he is clearly wrong. The TV ref has no say on more minor decisions such as corners free kicks goal kicks etc. to keep the game flowing.

In this day an age a TV company if it wants I reckon can get a replay onto the screen within a few seconds (I think it is FIFA that tells them not to put them up too quick because it makes their officials look the amateurs that they actually are!)

The moment that he contacts the onfield ref the whistle is blown and the game stops and the correct decision is made, any football for the few seconds after the TV refered incident is not relevant.

Sorry to hang on your coat tails here Simmo but this is EXACTLY the way I see it.

 

[beorhthelm]

How does checking whether a goal should be allowed or not, a penalty be allowed or not, or checking if a sending off be allowed or not effect the flow of a game of football. The TV official only draws it to the attention of the ref if he has made an utter cock up the game flows otherwise.

Nearly every time one of these things happen the game stops in any case.

because it is always that cut and dry? how often do we see multiple angles with the TV pundits 4 hours after the game and they STILL cannot decide? Nearly everytime? so we only refer to TV if the game has stopped? or we stop after every incident.

Rugby pace is a lot slower and its limited only to determining if the ball has crossed when the ref thinks theres a reasonable probablity it has: ie when theres attempted try. the ball hasnt been released and kicked up the other end, its a dead ball. just cannto be compared.

 

[simmo]

because it is always that cut and dry? how often do we see multiple angles with the TV pundits 4 hours after the game and they STILL cannot decide? Nearly everytime? so we only refer to TV if the game has stopped? or we stop after every incident.

Rugby pace is a lot slower and its limited only to determining if the ball has crossed when the ref thinks theres a reasonable probablity it has: ie when theres attempted try. the ball hasnt been released and kicked up the other end, its a dead ball. just cannto be compared.

My goodness how many more times do I have to say this. Doubt over the on field decision, go with the original decision.

Sometimes as in the Lampard and Tevez incidents there is no doubt!

 

[Easy 10]

Ok, A TV ref watches the game, he is miked up to the on field ref.

He watches the whole game and he has the right to draw to the referees attention any major cock up's he has made concerning, whether a goal should be allowed or not, a penalty be allowed or not, or checking if a sending off be allowed and that TV evidence has showed he is clearly wrong. The TV ref has no say on more minor decisions such as corners free kicks goal kicks etc. to keep the game flowing.

In this day an age a TV company if it wants I reckon can get a replay onto the screen within a few seconds (I think it is FIFA that tells them not to put them up too quick because it makes their officials look the amateurs that they actually are!)

The moment that he contacts the onfield ref the whistle is blown and the game stops and the correct decision is made, any football for the few seconds after the TV refered incident is not relevant.

Right, I'm going to have to chuck some examples out then because you're still not really defining how this will work.

A player is tackled in the box and goes down. The referee waves play on as he believes the challenge was perfectly fair, the defending team clear the ball and the game continues.

The TV ref looks at the incident, see's from the replay that the defender got absolutely nothing on the ball and that clearly a penalty SHOULD have been awarded for the foul.

What happens next ? (Bearing in mind the game at this point is still continuing, and ANYTHING could have happened)

 

[simmo]

Right, I'm going to have to chuck some examples out then because you're still not really defining how this will work.

A player is tackled in the box and goes down. The referee waves play on as he believes the challenge was perfectly fair, the defending team clear the ball and the game continues.

The TV ref looks at the incident, see's from the replay that the defender got absolutely nothing on the ball and that clearly a penalty SHOULD have been awarded for the foul.

What happens next ? (Bearing in mind the game at this point is continuing)

TV ref contacts the onfield ref, whistle is blown, penalty awarded. The correct decision is given. What is wrong with that?

 

[Easy 10]

TV ref contacts the onfield ref, whistle is blown, penalty awarded. The correct decision is given. What is wrong with that?

Overrulling EVERYTHING else thats happened up until the point, you'd allow play to go on until the TV ref has had a chance to rewind and review it, so he can decide ? And then go back and give the penalty ?

What if by then someone else has gone and scored ?
What if by then someone has been sent off ?
What if, in fact, it WASN'T a clear-cut penalty at all, but merely down to someone elses (the TV refs) different interpretation of that incident ? Is he definitely gong to be right ? Is it ALWAYS so clear-cut ?
What ELSE is the TV ref missing during the game while he sits there deliberating over the penalty incident ?

 

[simmo]

Overrulling EVERYTHING else thats happened up until the point, you'd allow play to go on until the TV ref has had a chance to rewind and review it, so he can decide ? And then go back and give the penalty ?

What if by then someone else has gone and scored ?
What if by then someone has been sent off ?
What if, in fact, it WASN'T a clear-cut penalty at all, but merely down to someone elses (the TV refs) different interpretation of that incident ? Is he definitely gong to be right ? Is it ALWAYS so clear-cut ?
What ELSE is the TV ref missing during the game while he sits there deliberating over the penalty incident ?

Oh my goodness how long did it take to realise after seeing the TV replay that Tevez was offside and Lampard's shot was over the line, one second was it. Any doubt go with the on field decision, clear cut error reverse it and make it right.

Concerning this

What if, in fact, it WASN'T a clear-cut penalty at all, but merely down to someone elses (the TV refs) different interpretation of that incident ? Is he definitely gong to be right ? Is it ALWAYS so clear-cut ?

In your original question to me you said it was a definite penalty now you are saying it is not, you cannot change the scenario that is ridiculous!

If you had said it wasn't so clear cut go with the on field decision as I have said consistently all the way through.

 

[Mellotron]

Overrulling EVERYTHING else thats happened up until the point, you'd allow play to go on until the TV ref has had a chance to rewind and review it, so he can decide ? And then go back and give the penalty ?

What if by then someone else has gone and scored ?
What if by then someone has been sent off ?
What if, in fact, it WASN'T a clear-cut penalty at all, but merely down to someone elses (the TV refs) different interpretation of that incident ? Is he definitely gong to be right ? Is it ALWAYS so clear-cut ?
What ELSE is the TV ref missing during the game while he sits there deliberating over the penalty incident ?

Easy with things like the Tevez and Lampard incidents it would take 2 or 3 seconds, 5 seconds absolute max.

If it is the correct decision the players would have no grounds to be annoyed.

 

[Easy 10]

Oh my goodness how long did it take to realise after seeing the TV replay that Tevez was offside and Lampard's shot was over the line, one second was it. Any doubt go with the on field decision, clear cut error reverse it and make it right.

Concerning this

What if, in fact, it WASN'T a clear-cut penalty at all, but merely down to someone elses (the TV refs) different interpretation of that incident ? Is he definitely gong to be right ? Is it ALWAYS so clear-cut ?

In your original question to me you said it was a definite penalty now you are saying it is not, you cannot change the scenario that is ridiculous!

If you had said it wasn't so clear cut go with the on field decision as I have said consistently all the way through.

I can absolutely change the scenario, because your system has to be TESTED - not just for the ones that are clearly a foot over the line, or 5 yards offside, but the multitude of OTHER contencious calls that happen during a game.

As I've said before, how "clear cut" the decision is and whether its worthy of review is HIGHLY subjective and will turn into an issue in itself. The Lampard and Tevez ones were indeed horrifically obvious, but how many games do you see where there is, on the face of it what LOOKS like an obvious decision but is actually highly debatable ? You are still working under the assumption that the person reviewing the incident is always going to call it absolutely RIGHT, with not an element of doubt.

Like I've said, once you open that door a little crack for video replays, you won't be able to close it. Be very careful what you wish for - it would end up taking over, and would be foremost in the minds of the players, fans and officials every time something conencious happens. You honestly think everyone would happily just accept the on-field decisions when they know someone else can change it ?

For christs sake get real.

 

[Easy 10]

Easy with things like the Tevez and Lampard incidents it would take 2 or 3 seconds, 5 seconds absolute max.

If it is the correct decision the players would have no grounds to be annoyed.

To be clear - its not the amount of time it would take thats the main problem .Its HOW you stop the game, WHEN you stop the game, and the subsequent consequences of that, ie the stoppage of play, and the result if the video call is upheld or overruled.

Can we please accept that not EVERYTHING will be as instantly bloody obvious as the Lampard/Tevez incidents. There are any number of hugely controversial incidents that this would be called into play for to sort out, and its not always immediately obvious what the call should be.

 

[Mellotron]

To be clear - its not the amount of time it would take thats the main problem .Its HOW you stop the game, WHEN you stop the game, and the subsequent consequences of that, ie the stoppage of play, and the resulot if the video call is upheld or overruled.

Can we please accept that not EVERYTHING will be as instantly bloody obvious as the Lampard/Tevez incidents. There are any number of hugely controversial incidents that this would be called into play for to sort out, and its not always immediately obvious what the call should be.

And Simmo has said TIME AND AGAIN he is only dealing with the OBVIOUS incidents, of which there have been about 6 or 7 or maybe more in this World Cup (2 disallowed goals for USA off the top of my head).

 

[Mellotron]

To be clear - its not the amount of time it would take thats the main problem .Its HOW you stop the game, WHEN you stop the game, and the subsequent consequences of that, ie the stoppage of play, and the result if the video call is upheld or overruled.

You stop the game by blasting the whistle TWO TO THREE SECONDS after the incident when you have been informed of the CORRECT decision.

If that's not a main problem, stop using it as a reason not to implement technology. You said "what if someone else scored down the other end etc?"