Blatter sorry for disallowed goal

[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.

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.

Again it would ONLY be implemented when it IS obvious what the call should be, because the TV ref - who can see much better than the on pitch ref and is therefore a far far FAR better judge or correctness and fairness - deems it to be so.

 

[Gritt23]

I'm with you Simmo.

It's utter madness that we are all watching Argentine vs Mexico, when EVERYONE in the ground and at home has seen the goal should not stand because it was on the replay screen. Even the officials have seen it, and all BEFORE the game restarts, and yet nothing can be done, they must all carry on knowing that the goal should not stand.

That just can't be right for the game. Of course it's tricky to gt the ruling right with regard to play being stopped to check a decision, but if it meant we end up with more correct decisions, then I'm all for us trialling it.

 

[Mellotron]

I'm with you Simmo.

It's utter madness that we are all watching Argentine vs Mexico, when EVERYONE in the ground and at home has seen the goal should not stand because it was on the replay screen. Even the officials have seen it, and all BEFORE the game restarts, and yet nothing can be done, they must all carry on knowing that the goal should not stand.

That just can't be right for the game. Of course it's tricky to gt the ruling right with regard to play being stopped to check a decision, but if it meant we end up with more correct decisions, then I'm all for us trialling it.

Spot on. I don't know exactly what the right way is, but something has to be done because it is genuinely getting embarrassing, football is getting miles behind other sports in this respect and it is basic stuff.

 

[Easy 10]

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).

Who decides whats "obvious" and what isn't then ?

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?"

2 or 3 seconds for something thats miles over the line perhaps.
An "obvious" dive though ? Bearing in mind the TV official has to be certain ? Its easy to say "if in doubt leave it", but the pressure will be on him to spot these massively OBVIOUS ones and make a call on it.

I'm sorry, I just cannot ever see a straightforward way to work this out.

 

[34064 Fighter Command]

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

I don't think you can award a 12 yard penalty in the usual sense of the word here, if there is a difference of opinion. A different kind of ' set play ' has to be invented that reflects the ambiguity, how about a one -on -one from the half-way line, one forward against one defender, other players not allowed inside the half until the defender is beaten. Bit like the kind of competition used on 'Superstars' in the '70's and '80's but a defender replaces the goalie. But if the defender brings the forward player down or handles professionally he is sin binned ( say 20 minutes ) and the forward can't score ( that way the attacking side retain some advantage even though they are denied a scoring opportunity ). This put the onus on the defender to try and tackle legally.

Each team can only nominate one player (prior to kick-off) to enact this play. If your player has been sin binned and another ' set play ' takes place, tough, it's a free dribble and score into an open net.

Effectively the play is brought back and replayed 'fairly' in a gladatorial style.

It has to be something that evens the chances of the goal being scored, whereas the standard penalty gives a goalie little or no chance.

 

[Easy 10]

I'm with you Simmo.

It's utter madness that we are all watching Argentine vs Mexico, when EVERYONE in the ground and at home has seen the goal should not stand because it was on the replay screen. Even the officials have seen it, and all BEFORE the game restarts, and yet nothing can be done, they must all carry on knowing that the goal should not stand.

That just can't be right for the game. Of course it's tricky to gt the ruling right with regard to play being stopped to check a decision, but if it meant we end up with more correct decisions, then I'm all for us trialling it.

I was waiting for you to chirp up on this

 

[Monsieur Le Plonk]

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.

That is accepted by most which is why video ref ONLY comes in to play on balls over the goalline, checking penalties given when the attacker may have dived and those straight red cards where an opponent has feigned near death in order to get an opponent sent off.
If you dont narrow it down then it would, as you say, be unworkable.

 

[Mellotron]

Who decides whats "obvious" and what isn't then ?

The TV ref, who can see much better than the on pitch ref, so in a better place to judge any decisions, really.

2 or 3 seconds for something thats miles over the line perhaps.
An "obvious" dive though ? Bearing in mind the TV official has to be certain ? Its easy to say "if in doubt leave it", but the pressure will be on him to spot these massively OBVIOUS ones and make a call on it.

Why does he have to be 100000% certain? How's it any different to the on pitch ref? He has to make decisions without being certain, this way we have another ref much more able to see what's right and what isn't. It would clearly cut down on mistakes massively, at the cost of about 20 seconds extra per game.

I'm sorry, I just cannot ever see a straightforward way to work this out.

I'm just saying something has to be done, because you have to agree that the Mexico v Argies game was utterly embarrassing for the sport as a whole, no?

 

[seagulls4ever]

What's all this about different interpretations of offside? Technology would lead to better interpretations. Surely that's a good thing?

If any technology is implemented, however, it shouldn't go too far. It should never be used for throw-ins, corners, etc because obviously that would slow the game down far too much.

 

[Easy 10]

I don't think you can award a 12 yard penalty in the usual sense of the word here, if there is a difference of opinion. A different kind of ' set play ' has to be invented that reflects the ambiguity, how about a one -on -one from the half-way line, one forward against one defender, other players not allowed inside the half until the defender is beaten. Bit like the kind of competition used on 'Superstars' in the '70's and '80's but a defender replaces the goalie. But if the defender brings the forward player down or handles professionally he is sin binned ( say 20 minutes ) and the forward can't score ( that way the attacking side retain some advantage even though they are denied a scoring opportunity ). This put the onus on the defender to try and tackle legally.

Each team can only nominate one player (prior to kick-off) to enact this play. If your player has been sin binned and another ' set play ' takes place, tough.

Effectively the play is brought back and replayed 'fairly' in a gladatorial style.

It has to be something that evens the chances of the goal being scored, whereas the standard penalty gives a goalie little or no chance.

Mmm.
Or if we're going 'gladatorial style', how about we have two platforms that rise up out of the turf, and the two players involved in the incident don crash helmets and pads, and bash away at each other with oversized foam hammers until one of them is toppled from the platform ?

If the 'attacker' prevails then the goal is awarded. If the 'defender' prevails, then its a goal kick.

A fair and sensible solution that will resolve the issue in no time at all.

 

[Gritt23]

I'm sorry, I just cannot ever see a straightforward way to work this out.

Do you regularly watch any sports that use a TV replay system?

The sports I watch that have it are pretty stop / start, so they are very well suited to it, but Rugby would offer similar challenges to football, and yet they use it.


It's not going to alleviate all mistakes, as we can all sit there watching replay after replay and still not agree, but there are plenty that would get cleared up.

There was a Portugese player the other week who threw himself to the floor without even being touched, and he was on a yellow. If TV Replays meant arseholes like that who are ruining our game get sent off, then for that reason alone TV Replays would get my vote.

 

[pasty]

There was a Portugese player the other week who threw himself to the floor without even being touched, and he was on a yellow. If TV Replays meant arseholes like that who are ruining our game get sent off, then for that reason alone TV Replays would get my vote.

But then there's the problem. When do you stop the game for something like that? Everytime someone "falls" over?

By all means introduce restrospective punishment via tv replays for diving and other cheating, but to monitor it in game would be nigh on impossible to achieve.

 

[Gritt23]

But then there's the problem. When do you stop the game for something like that? Everytime someone "falls" over?

By all means introduce restrospective punishment via tv replays for diving and other cheating, but to monitor it in game would be nigh on impossible to achieve.

But he's trying to stop the game, he's want to win a penalty. If he fools the ref, he's in trouble, if the ref isn't fooled, he's in trouble, so why dive?

Simples.

 

[Easy 10]

That is accepted by most which is why video ref ONLY comes in to play on balls over the goalline, checking penalties given when the attacker may have dived and those straight red cards where an opponent has feigned near death in order to get an opponent sent off.
If you dont narrow it down then it would, as you say, be unworkable.

Goalline decisions should be hawkeyed. That allows for no ambiguity.
Penalties and red cards are interpretations though. Whether they are correct or not boils down to an opinion, whether that be from the guy on the pitch or a guy watching a replay

I'm just saying something has to be done, because you have to agree that the Mexico v Argies game was utterly embarrassing for the sport as a whole, no?

Embarrassing ? Yes
Do I want to rip apart the fabric of the game in order to accomodate or impose video refereeing ? No

Football is bloody BRILLIANT as it is. No, its not perfect, it never will be. But by bringing in a video ref (and all the new laws to accomdate it) you're just swapping one imperfection for another. Despite the HYSTERIA over all this, the game is still bloody BRILLIANT, and I don't want to see it fundamentally altered just because of some incredibly RARE occurrences that just so happened to have occurred on the same day.

Its. Not. Broke.

 

[seagulls4ever]

I think if it is used it should only be used for decisions which are vital to the outcome of the game i.e. whether it crossed the line, whether or not a player is offside and fouls/handballs inside the box.

 

[Mellotron]

I think compared to how WELL officiated the likes of Tennis, Rugby and Cricket are, in terms of decisions made at the HIGHEST LEVEL, it is MILES behind and therefore a bit broken.

 

[seagulls4ever]

Goalline decisions should be hawkeyed. That allows for no ambiguity.
Penalties and red cards are interpretations though. Whether they are correct or not boils down to an opinion, whether that be from the guy on the pitch or a guy watching a replay



Embarrassing ? Yes
Do I want to rip apart the fabric of the game in order to accomodate or impose video refereeing ? No

Football is bloody BRILLIANT as it is. No, its not perfect, it never will be. But by bringing in a video ref (and all the new laws to accomdate it) you're just swapping one imperfection for another. Despite the HYSTERIA over all this, the game is still bloody BRILLIANT, and I don't want to see it fundamentally altered just because of some incredibly RARE occurrences that just so happened to have occurred on the same day.

Its. Not. Broke.

You can get a far better opinion of an incident when you watch it over a couple of times from different angles. When you have to make instant decisions there's always going to be errors made.

Even if it is not used domestically it should be used at the biggest tournaments because that's when the decisions matter the most. The league tends to even itself out over the course of a season in terms of decisions, whereas at the World Cup one dodgy decision and you could be out.

 

[Mellotron]

Quite. The fact it is INTERPRETATION doesn't make a bit of difference.

Millions upon millions of pounds and sometimes potentially hundreds of people's jobs can ride on these decisions. The MOST informed interpretation is needed.

 

[Gritt23]

Football is bloody BRILLIANT as it is.

Don't agree. Football is regularly frustrating, because games are decided too often by controversial decisions, and cheating. When it's contraversial because of someone's opinion, then I can take it, but when it's "controversial" as a polite way of saying "it was clearly wrong" then it's not bloody BRILLIANT at all.

The technology is such that football is just sticking it's head in the sand and not prepared to accept it needs to change. But it will change, because they can criticise the operators of the Videotrons all they like for showing replays that show up mistakes such as the Tevez goal, but how long beofre the majority of the crowd have seen the replay on their phone before the game kicks off again.

It will change, and typical of the modern game it will change when Sony offer FIFA a massive "sponsorship" cheque to be the electronic company that provide the technology Worldwide.

 

[Easy 10]

But he's trying to stop the game, he's want to win a penalty. If he fools the ref, he's in trouble, if the ref isn't fooled, he's in trouble, so why dive?

Simples.

This is where they should be clobbered by retrospective action, so he knows full well a panel will review every such incident, and if they decide it was a dive, then you're talking extensive bans and maHOOsive fines.

Doesn't help the team on the day of course, but if this was implemented strictly and properly, and a few high profile players got masssively clobbered because of it, then I think we would eventually see a culture change in the game whereby players would no longer attempt to conf the ref, for fear of the severe consquences from the video panel afterwards. Managers would not want to be losing their "stars" for 6 games, or whatever.

You're right, at the moment its win/win for the cheats as they're not being properly dealt with afterwards. Thats what needs changing.