Blatter sorry for disallowed goal

[The Large One]

No, football is bloody BRILLIANT.

It's because it's so maddening and imperfect and frustrating and controversial that I absolutely love it. For a start, NSC would be quiet without these foibles.

Bollocks to perfection, this is a HUMAN game, with human skill, human passion and human error - not a robot's game, controlled and driven by machines.

 

[Gritt23]

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.

Absolutely agree with that. retrospective punishments should have been in YEARS ago.

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.

Yes again. However, if you could help the team that was on the receiving end of the dive then why not? As I said, if the penalty has been wrongly awarded, then the game has stopped anyway. How long before we have a game where a replay is shown on a screen of a foul that was a clear dive? Same as the Tevez goal, the whole crowd and the officials can see it was a blatant dive, but the officials are still forced to let the players step up a take the penalty, even though they KNOW it was a dive.

If that's the World Cup Final, I'm sure Ronaldo would still take his ban from the next set of Euro Quallies, without a worry.

 

[Gritt23]

No, football is bloody BRILLIANT.

It's because it's so maddening and imperfect and frustrating and controversial that I absolutely love it. For a start, NSC would be quiet without these foibles.

Bollocks to perfection, this is a HUMAN game, with human skill, human passion and human error - not a robot's game, controlled and driven by machines.

But that's the point, it wouldn't ever become perfect, because there will always be decisions made on opinions. TV Replays wouldn't make it a debate-free robotic game. It would just rule out some of the worse travesties in the game.

Do you honestly think it would stop people debating things in football? TV Replays won't sign players, pick players, decide on formations ...... honestly, you think it would end debates?

 

[Easy 10]

Yes again. However, if you could help the team that was on the receiving end of the dive then why not? As I said, if the penalty has been wrongly awarded, then the game has stopped anyway. How long before we have a game where a replay is shown on a screen of a foul that was a clear dive? Same as the Tevez goal, the whole crowd and the officials can see it was a blatant dive, but the officials are still forced to let the players step up a take the penalty, even though they KNOW it was a dive.

If that's the World Cup Final, I'm sure Ronaldo would still take his ban from the next set of Euro Quallies, without a worry.

Well if the we're saying the technology is there now, and you're getting selective on what decisions they are allowing refs to make, then you might just as well go the whole hog and do away with referee's on the pitch completely then. Just have it monitored by someone in the stands with a TV screen and a buzzer.

Seriously - whats the point of having a ref on the pitch at all, if all the "big" calls are taken away from him just in case he makes an error ? If we are wanting this perfect future utopia where no referreeing mistakes ever, ever happen, then surely the logical step is to take away the ref and do the whole thing via the TV monitors. Have the decisions given over the tannoy.

At least the players will have nobody to surround.

 

[beorhthelm]

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!

you have to keep on saying it until you explain how or who will decide when "there is no doubt" in a consistant manner, without which the process is unworkable. in the minds of the officials there may have been doubt, but their original on field decision was carried...

 

[simmo]

you have to keep on saying it until you explain how or who will decide when "there is no doubt" in a consistant manner, without which the process is unworkable. in the minds of the officials there may have been doubt, but their original on field decision was carried...

I think the phrase, beyond reasonable doubt is good enough, it is good enough in the legal world and that is much more important.

i.e if it is beyond reasonable doubt on TV evidence that what has happened is contradictory to the ref's original decision then it is reversed and the correct decision is made within a matter of seconds. If not the original decison stands.

 

[Little Piggy]

Here's a scenario, not entirely unrealistic series of events I don't think.

England v Portugal. Ronaldo gets into the box, Terry takes him down and the ball pings sideways into the hands of James. Roars from the portuguese fans for a penalty, the ref waves it away as it looks like that greasy bastard is diving again. While the Portuguese are moaning, James HOOFS it up the field into the gangly legs of Crouch, who quickly spins around and knocks it in the net. England rejoices, 1-0, tails up, ready to finish them off.

Portugal kick off... Whistle blows. Whats this? Turns out that Ronaldo was fouled. Score reverts to 0-0, penalty to Portugal.

You can stick that game up your arse, I don't want any part of it.

 

[folkestonesgull]

Here's a scenario, not entirely unrealistic series of events I don't think.

England v Portugal. Ronaldo gets into the box, Terry takes him down and the ball pings sideways into the hands of James. Roars from the portuguese fans for a penalty, the ref waves it away as it looks like that greasy bastard is diving again. While the Portuguese are moaning, James HOOFS it up the field into the gangly legs of Crouch, who quickly spins around and knocks it in the net. England rejoices, 1-0, tails up, ready to finish them off.

Portugal kick off... Whistle blows. Whats this? Turns out that Ronaldo was fouled. Score reverts to 0-0, penalty to Portugal.

You can stick that game up your arse, I don't want any part of it.

If you reversed the situation though...

Why is that unfair anyway? The only thing it is is fair - a penalty was given away, it should be taken. much like if a striker goes clean through and scores, the crowd goes wild and then the lino raises a late flag and the ref disallows it.

I stick with my earlier comment that the only link should be from a video ref to the match ref and therefore all decisions come through the match ref, who decides whether to overall or not. It would need to be tested though and I am not sure of the exact limits that should be applied, again tests would be needed to see how it works in practic.

 

[Easy 10]

Here's a scenario, not entirely unrealistic series of events I don't think.

England v Portugal. Ronaldo gets into the box, Terry takes him down and the ball pings sideways into the hands of James. Roars from the portuguese fans for a penalty, the ref waves it away as it looks like that greasy bastard is diving again. While the Portuguese are moaning, James HOOFS it up the field into the gangly legs of Crouch, who quickly spins around and knocks it in the net. England rejoices, 1-0, tails up, ready to finish them off.

Portugal kick off... Whistle blows. Whats this? Turns out that Ronaldo was fouled. Score reverts to 0-0, penalty to Portugal.

You can stick that game up your arse, I don't want any part of it.

Well APPARENTLY we'd know within 3 seconds whether it should've been a penalty or not.

I'm with you squire. It'd reduce the game to farce, and probably cause a riot.

 

[Easy 10]

I think the phrase, beyond reasonable doubt is good enough, it is good enough in the legal world and that is much more important.

i.e if it is beyond reasonable doubt on TV evidence that what has happened is contradictory to the ref's original decision then it is reversed and the correct decision is made within a matter of seconds. If not the original decison stands.

But in the legal world, you have to have a full-blown court case with evidence presented to a jury and cross-examined by lawyers in order to establish whether or not there is "reasonable doubt".

Whreas you're relying on a bloke in a booth watching the TV replays, and coming up with a decision there and then as to (a) whether the refs decision was iffy and warrants erviewing, and then (b) what that decision should have been.

I love the way you believe the correct decision will always and quite simply be arrived at within a couple of seconds, and everyone will be perfectly happy.

 

[beorhthelm]

i.e if it is beyond reasonable doubt on TV evidence that what has happened is contradictory to the ref's original decision then it is reversed and the correct decision is made within a matter of seconds.

how many seconds? 2? 5? 10? how about in the pressure of deciding in 3 seconds the TV official isnt sure and gives it the wrong way? how far have we progressed now?

really the only way technology can help with certainty in football is with line decisions which can be automatic.

if there is any place for TV replays its with retrospective cards/bans for diving/harsh tackles which need to be removed from the game.

either way, we still end up with multi-teir rules for different levels of competition, somthing im not keen on and i believe the principle behind the current stalemate on the issue.

 

[Easy 10]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/worldcup2010/article-1290667/MARTIN-SAMUEL-If-England-brain-dangerous.html

"For once, and about 10 years too late, Sepp Blatter, the FIFA president, has got something right. Football needs goal-line technology, but not video replays. Goal-line technology would have informed referee Jorge Larrionda that Frank Lampard’s shot was over the line. Video replays, with the restart issues and conflicting judgment calls, would create as many problems as they solved"

Thank you Martin Samuel.

 

[pasty]

Here's a scenario, not entirely unrealistic series of events I don't think.

England v Portugal. Ronaldo gets into the box, Terry takes him down and the ball pings sideways into the hands of James. Roars from the portuguese fans for a penalty, the ref waves it away as it looks like that greasy bastard is diving again. While the Portuguese are moaning, James HOOFS it up the field into the gangly legs of Crouch, who quickly spins around and knocks it in the net. England rejoices, 1-0, tails up, ready to finish them off.

Portugal kick off... Whistle blows. Whats this? Turns out that Ronaldo was fouled. Score reverts to 0-0, penalty to Portugal.

You can stick that game up your arse, I don't want any part of it.

That scenario is easy and will never need video replays. Ronaldo is a greasy cheating diving cockjugglingthundercnut, so should never ever be awarded a penalty anyway

 

[sten_super]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/worldcup2010/article-1290667/MARTIN-SAMUEL-If-England-brain-dangerous.html

"For once, and about 10 years too late, Sepp Blatter, the FIFA president, has got something right. Football needs goal-line technology, but not video replays. Goal-line technology would have informed referee Jorge Larrionda that Frank Lampard’s shot was over the line. Video replays, with the restart issues and conflicting judgment calls, would create as many problems as they solved"

Thank you Martin Samuel.

It's worth noting that rugby, an example which has been pedalled in this thread a few times, only uses TV replays to determine the equivalent of goal line decisions; i.e. whether or not a try has been scored. It's not used in rugby for deciding penalty offences (although it is used to enact disciplinary measures after a game, which I would wholeheartedly support in football) or anything that occurs during a live period of play.

 

[Easy 10]

It's worth noting that rugby, an example which has been pedalled in this thread a few times, only uses TV replays to determine the equivalent of goal line decisions; i.e. whether or not a try has been scored. It's not used in rugby for deciding penalty offences (although it is used to enact disciplinary measures after a game, which I would wholeheartedly support in football) or anything that occurs during a live period of play.

Indeed.
Rugby and cricket ad-infinitum, but its never automatically followed that it would work in football. So many people call for video replays without fully considering exactly HOW it could be implemented without it involving a major overhaul of the game as we know it.

 

[Gritt23]

It's worth noting that rugby, an example which has been pedalled in this thread a few times, only uses TV replays to determine the equivalent of goal line decisions; i.e. whether or not a try has been scored. It's not used in rugby for deciding penalty offences (although it is used to enact disciplinary measures after a game, which I would wholeheartedly support in football) or anything that occurs during a live period of play.

But are they not goal-line decisions that are a damn sight more subjective that the goal line decisions in football. I seem to remember a try England scored (or didn'ts cored) in a World Cup Final that went to a video ref to decide and ponder the replays.

That is far more complicated an issue than the goal-line technology available to football, and far more of a delay.

 

[Easy 10]

But are they not goal-line decisions that are a damn sight more subjective that the goal line decisions in football. I seem to remember a try England scored (or didn'ts cored) in a World Cup Final that went to a video ref to decide and ponder the replays.

That is far more complicated an issue than the goal-line technology available to football, and far more of a delay.

I think you're referring to the World Cup Final against South Africa, where an Australian TV official had to deliberate on whether an England player had stepped out of play before planting the ball down for a try.

The game was held up for 3-4 minutes while he pondered it (and then predictably didn't give it). The video evidence was STILL inconclusive.

Yeah, I'd love that in football.

 

[sten_super]

But are they not goal-line decisions that are a damn sight more subjective that the goal line decisions in football. I seem to remember a try England scored (or didn'ts cored) in a World Cup Final that went to a video ref to decide and ponder the replays.

That is far more complicated an issue than the goal-line technology available to football, and far more of a delay.

Yes, and even then they don't necessarily get it right all of the time.

As others have said, in order to bring in proper video replays you'd have to introduce a massive amount of new rules, including completely changing the way that time is measured (you'd have to be able to 'stop the clock' like they do when making decisions in rugby union). In fact, you may as well rip up the rule book and start again. And for what; to improve the percentage of correct decisions made by refs from 90% to 95%?

 

[Gritt23]

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?

 

[Gritt23]

And for what; to improve the percentage of correct decisions made by refs from 90% to 95%?

I hear what you're saying I really do. I know there are serious issues to overcome on this one, but the problem is that the 5% improvement in decision-making that you are referring to is often some of the most high-profile incidents we get to see.

I go back to the Tevez goal the other night, when EVERYONE saw it was wrong even before the game re-started. That is damaging to the game having no course of redress. 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.

Technology has reached such a level that football just looks silly by sticking it's head in the sand and refusing to even discuss or trial it to see if there is a way we could make it work. Maybe it can't work, maybe it can, but I think the sport needs to give it a trial somewhere, somehow.