Clattenburg

[Bold Seagull]

I just don't know whats happened to the interpretation of 'deliberate' recently in the context of handball. For my money, the law should be interpreted as written, i.e. the defender is only penalised if he deliberately handles it. Its quite clear that in about 8 out of 10 cases of those given in the last couple of seasons, the defender has no intention of deliberately handling it (why would he?), the ball has just hit his hand accidentally.

Interesting, because really you'd need to know how many times the ball has hit the hand in the area and it wasn't given. So if you sample those penalties given that are debatable in terms of intent, then how is that comparable to how many handballs the ref has played on as accidental and not given?

I'd say in the vast majority of cases the ref doesn't give a penalty for handball and deems it unintentional. It is only when a ref makes a decision that it appears that we have inconsistency etc. I suspect mostly, it's a case of them not being given even if they should be because they don't take the risk.

 

[Easy 10]

I agree, I have no idea how you are expected to move a hand out the way of a ball being blasted at you from a Yard

I'd agree with that to an extent, but there is sometimes a case of players "making themselves big". John Terry is a master of it, he ALWAYS seems to get away with it. He'll go down in such a way that he's not seemingly moving his arm towards the ball, but because they're outstretched, the ball ends up hitting one of them.

The Stirling one I don't think was a pen at all, but players do sometimes spread themselves.

 

[Bold Seagull]

A TV replay will never prove intent. And setting aside how long it may take to conduct the review, the single biggest issue for me is when and how you stop the game for it ? If (for example) the ref turns down what looked like a stonewall pen and play goes on, then how do you review that ? Are we talking about adopting an NFL-style "appeal flag" being thrown onto the field to stop play for the review ? Or do we have to wait for the ball to go dead ? What if the other team scores before the review is seen ? It'd be chile-con-carnage.

Reviews can work ok in sports such as cricket, tennis, NFL because those are sports that occur within a series, or "bursts", of action. There's a natural pause between each play. Football just isn't like that. I cannot see how TV reviews could be introduced without fundamentally altering the structure of the game as we know it, and for what ? People will still argue over the interpretations of the decisions given following a TV replay.

Nope, non starter for me.

I agree, and as with cricket it would only transfer the controversy to a different place or a finer degree of scrutiny.

 

[Nixonator]

There are enough stoppages which interrupt the flow of the game already. Every time there's a direct free kick nowadays I'm getting irritated. The initial indignation and protests at the decision, the march, the vanishing spray, the customary pulling a player to the side and issuing the 'calm down' gesture, then keenly selecting the position from which he will eventually blow the ****ing whistle and we can get on with the game.

 

[Triggaaar]

And its a massive issue that, for me, makes it a complete non-starter.

It doesn't have to be for every decision. If it means we wait another minute for a sending off or penalty decision, so what?

just look at the spectrum of opinions on the Leicester and Spurs penalty decisions.

It will be an experienced ref looking at an incident (as it is now), but with the benefit of replays, which is far better than what we have now, where a ref will often have missed the incident completely.

Its not always obvious, or black and white, even after looking at it 10 times from 6 different angles.

And on those occasions there'll be no right or wrong decision. But on the occasion where it is obvious, the errors will be reduced. How can that not be good?

 

[Easy 10]

I agree, and as with cricket it would only transfer the controversy to a different place or a finer degree of scrutiny.

Exactly.

Introducing TV replays for decisions other than line calls would open up a whole new can of worms. Whether you're calling it "live" or re-watching it on a monitor x number of times, you're still relying on the officials interpreting an incident and making a judgement call that not everyone is going to always agree with.

You'll never get a perfect game with every decision 100% right, but they get it right more often than not. All you can ask is that the officials make an honest decision.

 

[Triggaaar]

the single biggest issue for me is when and how you stop the game for it ? If (for example) the ref turns down what looked like a stonewall pen and play goes on, then how do you review that ? Are we talking about adopting an NFL-style "appeal flag" being thrown onto the field to stop play for the review ? Or do we have to wait for the ball to go dead ? What if the other team scores before the review is seen ? It'd be chile-con-carnage.

I think it would be easy. You're against the idea in general, so I doubt you're trying hard to find a solution.

I think the ref should have to option to call for a video replay when he wants to, and each manager should have a couple of options per game. If the manager asks for a video check, a signal is sent to the ref, who then decides when to stop play. If a team is on a break, or has a chance to score, he can wait until that's over before reviewing the footage. If a team scores a goal, but the video shows the other team should have been given something, then it's easy, the goal doesn't count and play goes back. In the vast majority of games that wouldn't happen, so it's not like it's changing the way we enjoy football. And if it did happen, then the right decision will have been reached instead of a goal to the other side.

Reviews can work ok in sports such as cricket, tennis, NFL because those are sports that occur within a series, or "bursts", of action. There's a natural pause between each play. Football just isn't like that.

Indeed in other sports there can be loads of reviews without it changing the flow of the game much and football is different, but 2 reviews per team in 90 minutes wouldn't lead to a change in the flow of the game.

and for what ? People will still argue over the interpretations of the decisions given following a TV replay.

It will remove some of the absolute clangers we get. Of course there will still be some decisions that are difficult to call, but people will understand that nothing is going to be perfect, it would just be a lot better than it is now.

 

[Easy 10]

It doesn't have to be for every decision. If it means we wait another minute for a sending off or penalty decision, so what?

It will be an experienced ref looking at an incident (as it is now), but with the benefit of replays, which is far better than what we have now, where a ref will often have missed the incident completely.

And on those occasions there'll be no right or wrong decision. But on the occasion where it is obvious, the errors will be reduced. How can that not be good?

You're still not addressing the fundamental issue of how you shoe-horn these replays in during the game. What if a ref DOESN'T give a decision, and allows the game to carry on. When and how do you stop the game to have another look at the incident ?

Do you want replays for offsides ? What about if a player is wrongly flagged offside and the game stops when he was clean through ? And that's before we even look at the whole "was he interfering with play" minefield that lies down that road. What about if the manager thinks there was a foul in the buildup to a goal, does he get to appeal that to try and have the goal ruled out ? Because you can bet they'll be looking for any little tap or tug to get it overturned.

Its just not as simple as saying "it'll only take a minute to have a look". There's so much more that has to be considered.

 

[Triggaaar]

You're still not addressing the fundamental issue of how you shoe-horn these replays in during the game.

Yes I did.

What if a ref DOESN'T give a decision, and allows the game to carry on. When and how do you stop the game to have another look at the incident ?

Manager signals to 4th official that they want to use one of the options, and says what for (penalty, offside, red card). 4th official sends beep to ref (as already used I think), and refs stops when he thinks it's suitable (almost any time except when there could be a goal scoring chance/break).

Do you want replays for offsides ?

If a linesman/ref or manager wants it, yes.

What about if a player is wrongly flagged offside and the game stops when he was clean through ?

If it's close, and the linesman thinks it may have just been offside, he can call for a video if an advantage is gained (goal or corner). If he thinks it's clear, call it offside. He could get that wrong, but it won't happen as much, as he's only flagging clear offsides.

And that's before we even look at the whole "was he interfering with play" minefield that lies down that road.

Same thing. Don't rule it offside unless you're sure, or there's an advantage (goal, corner etc) and you think it might have been offside.

What about if the manager thinks there was a foul in the buildup to a goal, does he get to appeal that to try and have the goal ruled out ?

If he's sees a foal and flags it to the 4th official, and he later turns out to be right, yes. If he ignores it, a goal is scored, and he then wants to flag it, perhaps not. I say perhaps because this is just my opinion, there's more than one way it could work. For example, they could have 10 seconds to appeal it, so if there's a foul, then a goal within a couple of seconds, they could appeal it.

Because you can bet they'll be looking for any little tap or tug to get it overturned.

And if there was just a little tap they'll have lost their appeal, which would be silly.