Blatter sorry for disallowed goal

[simmo]

Again, fine in principal. But you've GOT to differentiate between an interpretation (a foul, a penalty, an offside, a red card), and a line call (did the ball cross the line or not).

A TV Official should never get involved in interpretations. His opinion of the incident might be different from the refs, but it doesn't necessarily make it automatically correct.

Line calls should be sorted out once and for all by the introduction of goalline technology.

Thats it.

Where there is doubt in intepretation, as in cricket, you go with the original on field decision. It is that simple.

But sometimes there is no doubt, Lampards goal, Tevez offside (I also think that offside is a line decision with the lines that they can put on the TV screens). These being so fundementally wrong make a mockery of the game.

 

[Monsieur Le Plonk]

So you're effectively taking any major decisions out of the referees hands - he will instead be relying on a call from the tellyref. Why give a penalty when the tellyref might then whisper "err...hang on a minute...", and then make him look silly by having to un-award it (what then ? a drop ball ?). More likely the ref will either just let an incident go, or ask for a call on it whilst on-the-hoof, and christ knows what else may have happened by then in that passage of play !

Or with a sending off - are we really saying the ref has to stand there consulting the tellyref for clearance before brandishing a red card ? All that says is that the ref isn't sure about the decision on whether it was a foul worthy of a red - and if he isn't sure, then his authority on that pitch is COMPLETELY undermined. "Its not me, its the guy in the box"

Don't you see - all this stuff sounds FINE in theory, until you start trying to apply it in a match situation. It will just cause so much more aggro than it solves.

But the ref is going to look silly anyway if he is blatantly wrong whether that be from the boos from the crowd or from the armchair supporter at home. We know refs make mistakes, they know they make mistakes - lets limit them for crikes sake.
Yes, I think that a red card could be cross referenced to make sure that the guy rolling round on the ground hasnt feigned his ailment hence leading to the ruining of a game to a greater extreme than quickly double checking. (It might stop some of the diving at the same time which, in my world, is almost enough reason in itself to use the technology.)

 

[Monsieur Le Plonk]

Sponsorship ?

"This goal was disallowed for you courtesy of Tesco. Every little helps...."

Or the officials sponsored by Access - Your flexible friends

 

[sten_super]

If you use this criteria

All the officials on the pitch officiate in exactly the same way as they do now but also you have a TV official has a right to draw the referee's attention to something he believes the on field officials have got fundementally wrong in a game, that will have a major bearing on the outcome (a goal allowed or not, a penalty allowed or not, a sending off made or not) so that the correct decision is made.

The TV official (via the mikes that they all wear) can draw the attention to the onfield ref that he made an incorrect decision in allowing a goal, and that the correct decision is a goal kick.

You said this earlier in response to my post as well, but IMO it wouldn't work.

For starters, how do you restart the game after a wrong decision has been corrected (e.g. a penalty awarded and then overturned by the video ref)? A drop ball in the penalty area??

Secondly, despite whatever you tell the refs, they are bound to avoid making decisions. The linesman is the most obvious example (he would never EVER give an offside decision when it was anything even vaguely approaching a difficult decision), but a there's a disincentive for the referee to ever stop play (because the current state of play cannot be replicated, thereby potentially the team that has possesion of the ball loses their advantage) when he can simply rely on a video ref to make decisions for him after the event.

 

[Pavilionaire]

The thing is we're not used to officials meeting to discuss and incident before a verdict is passed. This happens all the time in Amercian Football and Aussie Rules.

I believe that a 5th offical should be away from the fans and the touchline with a monitor, and that person should be available to be consulted at the referee's discretion on defined criteria such as red cards and penalties.

It seems that more than half of the red card decisions are appealed. This shows a lack of faith in officials, which is why I believe technology should also be used for red cards.

 

[Easy 10]

Where there is doubt in intepretation, as in cricket, you go with the original on field decision. It is that simple.

But sometimes there is no doubt, Lampards goal, Tevez offside (I also think that offside is a line decision with the lines that they can put on the TV screens). These being so fundementally wrong make a mockery of the game.

But with football the game carries on, it flows. With cricket, nothing happens again until the issue has been sorted one way or the other and the bowler can get on with the next delivery. Its an entirely different structure to the game which ALLOWS for the review of decisions. By its very nature, football just doesn't get that kind of opportunity, so logically the two cannot be compared.

And you say offside is a line call - its NOT always as straightforward as that, you are completely ignoring the "is he interfering with play" and "1st/2nd phase" aspects of it.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this, we are at polar opposites on this issue. You will never persuade me that TV replays for everything would be a good thing any more than you will accept my view that they shouldn't be used for anything.

Hawkeye for the goal-line is the only thing which could be simply and effectively introduced.

 

[Monsieur Le Plonk]

I believe that a 5th offical should be away from the fans and the touchline with a monitor, and that person should be available to be consulted at the referee's discretion on defined criteria such as red cards and penalties.

.

I think doing it that way round leaves you back at square one with a head strong ref very unlikely to consult any 5th official. Personally think it would have to be the 5th official pulling the ref up and not the other way round.

 

[Easy 10]

I think doing it that way round leaves you back at square one with a head strong ref very unlikely to consult any 5th official. Personally think it would have to be the 5th official pulling the ref up and not the other way round.

Well, you'll get both kinds. The 'headstrong' ones who are convinced they've got it right and don't want to consult anyone else, as in his mind he's already made the correct call.

Or the 'indecisive' ones, who will want to check every other bloody decision to make sure he's not made a cock-up.

And BOTH will have players and managers in their ear emploring them to check the damn telly official.

Night. Mare.

 

[simmo]

You said this earlier in response to my post as well, but IMO it wouldn't work.

For starters, how do you restart the game after a wrong decision has been corrected (e.g. a penalty awarded and then overturned by the video ref)? A drop ball in the penalty area??

Secondly, despite whatever you tell the refs, they are bound to avoid making decisions. The linesman is the most obvious example (he would never EVER give an offside decision when it was anything even vaguely approaching a difficult decision), but a there's a disincentive for the referee to ever stop play (because the current state of play cannot be replicated, thereby potentially the team that has possesion of the ball loses their advantage) when he can simply rely on a video ref to make decisions for him after the event.

Penalty given against the defending team that is overturned, drop ball at the centre circle.

I am sorry but I really don't get your second point, ref's should make exactly the same decisions as they did before, the more they get right and backed up by TV evidence the better they are, then we would really find out who the good refs are and not the Graham Polls of this world whom blow their own trumpet. The better ones will be rewarded with the bigger games (e.g World Cup finals etc.)

 

[Pavilionaire]

I think doing it that way round leaves you back at square one with a head strong ref very unlikely to consult any 5th official. Personally think it would have to be the 5th official pulling the ref up and not the other way round.

I think if it was introduced refs who used it to effect would gain respect, while refs who refused to use it who were then proved to be wrong would not survive in the game.

We've already seen this in cricket. How many umpire's give a run out without referring to the 3rd umpire? They all do it, other than when the decision is completely clear cut. Ditto rugby referees awarding pushover or touchline tries - they all do it too.

I think it's important it's left down to the ref to decide when to use it, unless there's a Zidane-style off the ball incident.

 

[Easy 10]

For starters, how do you restart the game after a wrong decision has been corrected (e.g. a penalty awarded and then overturned by the video ref)? A drop ball in the penalty area??

Penalty given against the defending team that is overturned, drop ball at the centre circle.

So the ref has (incorrectly) stopped play and awarded a penalty which it then turns out shouldn't have been awarded, thus destroying that particular passage of play. If there was no foul, then it should have been 'play on' in the penalty area, no ? Why then take it all the way back to the centre circle ? Hows that work ?

 

[34064 Fighter Command]

But with football the game carries on, it flows. With cricket, nothing happens again until the issue has been sorted one way or the other and the bowler can get on with the next delivery. Its an entirely different structure to the game which ALLOWS for the review of decisions. By its very nature, football just doesn't get that kind of opportunity, so logically the two cannot be compared.

And you say offside is a line call - its NOT always as straightforward as that, you are completely ignoring the "is he interfering with play" and "1st/2nd phase" aspects of it.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this, we are at polar opposites on this issue. You will never persuade me that TV replays for everything would be a good thing any more than you will accept my view that they shouldn't be used for anything.

Hawkeye for the goal-line is the only thing which could be simply and effectively introduced.

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.

Football has adapted and evolved in the past, nets were only introduced to help the ref decide which side of the post the ball had travelled. The offside rule was only introduced to prevent goal hanging. It was progress back then, now we can all see that refs need help to make proper decisions because they're getting some of them wrong right now.

It's like allowing radar to be installed in military jets, but not in civillian ones, because ' it would diminish the navigators role and responsibilty ', even though it would stop planes from flying into each other !

 

[simmo]

But with football the game carries on, it flows. With cricket, nothing happens again until the issue has been sorted one way or the other and the bowler can get on with the next delivery. Its an entirely different structure to the game which ALLOWS for the review of decisions. By its very nature, football just doesn't get that kind of opportunity, so logically the two cannot be compared.

And you say offside is a line call - its NOT always as straightforward as that, you are completely ignoring the "is he interfering with play" and "1st/2nd phase" aspects of it.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this, we are at polar opposites on this issue. You will never persuade me that TV replays for everything would be a good thing any more than you will accept my view that they shouldn't be used for anything.

Hawkeye for the goal-line is the only thing which could be simply and effectively introduced.

Football doesn't flow at all (it should but it doesn't) there are multiple stoppages per game.

The offside rule has become so convulted with Fifa's tinkering of it. It is they that have caused this problem concerning interpretation not the fact of offside rule itself. If they put clearer criteria down (for all officials) then it would be easier to administer.

Some of the officiating we saw on Sunday would embarress a school boy game, biliions of people around the world saw the farcical nature of it within seconds of both incidents happening, saw two wrongs occuring and neither being righted. In this day and age it is really unbelievably amateurishness and it is not good enough. TV technology has been embrassed by multiple sports and more correct decisions are made in these sports. Blatter should really hang his head in shame.

 

[Monsieur Le Plonk]

I think if it was introduced refs who used it to effect would gain respect, while refs who refused to use it who were then proved to be wrong would not survive in the game.

We've already seen this in cricket. How many umpire's give a run out without referring to the 3rd umpire? They all do it, other than when the decision is completely clear cut. Ditto rugby referees awarding pushover or touchline tries - they all do it too.

I think it's important it's left down to the ref to decide when to use it, unless there's a Zidane-style off the ball incident.

I just think that if you do it this way then the bullying by players and crowd to get it referred would be intense. Little man with a little screen tucked out of the way is the only possibility for me.

 

[Vicar!]

Sorry is spelt R-E-S-I-G-N. Triesman for FIFA president.

 

[simmo]

So the ref has (incorrectly) stopped play and awarded a penalty which it then turns out shouldn't have been awarded, thus destroying that particular passage of play. If there was no foul, then it should have been 'play on' in the penalty area, no ? Why then take it all the way back to the centre circle ? Hows that work ?

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!

 

[sten_super]

I am sorry but I really don't get your second point, ref's should make exactly the same decisions as they did before, the more they get right and backed up by TV evidence the better they are, then we would really find out who the good refs are and not the Graham Polls of this world whom blow their own trumpet. The better ones will be rewarded with the bigger games (e.g World Cup finals etc.)

Let me give you an example. A ball is played over the top, leaving the striker clean through on goal. If the linesman incorrectly flags him offside, he gets abuse from the fans and the players. If the linesman incorrectly doesn't flag him offside, the striker scores but the video ref pulls it back, no harm done. As a linesman, I would be much more inclined to not flag things than to flag them. If I'm 90% sure that a player is offside, I'd probably flag him. But what if it's 75%? 60%? 51%? I wouldn't, safe in the knowledge that my incorrect decision won't cost the attacking team, whereas if I flag and am wrong the attacking team have been denied a clear goalscoring opportunity.

It'd basically introduce moral hazard to refereeing.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Again, the players will very soon look stupid if they bully the ref to review only to discover the ref was right in the first place.

I've yet to see a rugby player ask the ref to review a rugby try,

I also think the introduction of technology is also an opportunity to introduce changes as regards interaction with the referee, i.e. only the captain is allowed to question a decision.

There's no reason why all of this can't be trialled for a season somewhere.

 

[The Large One]

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!

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.

 

[Easy 10]

Football doesn't flow at all (it should but it doesn't) there are multiple stoppages per game.

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 ??