Disallowed penalty/goal for Newcastle last night...

[hans kraay fan club]

This ongoing debate between [MENTION=35039]The Fish[/MENTION] and [MENTION=3566]hans kraay fan club[/MENTION] over the Shelvey / Lansbury incident shows EXACTLY why bringing in video replays for decisions on fouls during a game would be an absolute can of worms, that would cause more problems than it solves. The "right" decision is not always obvious even after several replays. It always boils down to interpretation.

Whilst I agree with you there, its not the case for a review panel, whose role is to 'overturn manifest errors', not second guess a match-day referee's valid interpretation.

 

[Easy 10]

Whilst I agree with you there, its not the case for a review panel, whose role is to 'overturn manifest errors', not second guess a match-day referee's valid interpretation.

Sure, and on the whole I'm siding with you on this.

My (side)point is that this is a classic example of why video replays are not the simple cure for perceived refereeing injustices that so many people seem to think they are. You two are at polar opposites over this incident. That could (and does) easily happen amongst fans, pundits, everyone over any number of incidents during a game, that can all carry different interpretations.

A great example of the potential pitfalls happened on Saturday. Liverpool felt aggrieved that they didn't get a penalty for what they felt was a foul in the Stoke box. Nothing given, the ball didn't go dead and Stoke swept straight up the other end and scored. How would we begin to unpick THAT passage of play ? While the fans are celebrating, go to the video replay and decide it was a foul...chalk off Stoke's goal, and give Liverpool a pen ? Crikey, better be a cast-iron one hadn't it.

Anyway, I'm just digressing. Back to the popcorn while I watch you two slug it out

 

[Mellotron]

However, he didn't kick Lansbury, as the slow-motion replays show

Whether there was contact or not is irrelevant. It's about the intent. He kicked out, as you say. Debate kinda ends there.

 

[The Fish]

I can do this all day. I've nothing better to do.

Yes, I've watched it. I've seen it before, I watched it when you posted it, and I've watched it again now. Despite being very much the kindest angle from Shelvey's point of view (it looks much worse from others) it STILL very clearly shows him kicking out at Lansbury. The fact that the top-knotted prick is a snide cheat, whose actions are deplorable, in no way absolves Shelvey.

The panel have got it wrong because they've gone beyond their remit, which is not to say "Its inconclusive so we'll give him the benefit of the doubt" but to only overturn the match-day officials' decisions if there is clear evidence of an error. Which there isn't.

It fundamentally doesn't. It shows a tangle of legs and Shelvey pushing out to get untangled. It's clearly an error to send Shelvey off for that and the officials have clearly been duped by Lansbury's cheating. I can only assume the officials didn't see the issue clearly, saw only the reaction from Lansbury and took their cues from that. You can't send someone off if you haven't seen it, and given Shelvey wasn't guilty of either serious foul play, nor violent behaviour, there's nowt to see anyway. He's been guilty of that in the past and got away with it, but for this incident I honestly believe the ref's were conned and Shelvey got a reputation red.

But I can see you won't change your mind, whatever I say, whatever evidence is put before you and despite the FA's considered findings. so...

 

[The Fish]

This ongoing debate between [MENTION=35039]The Fish[/MENTION] and [MENTION=3566]hans kraay fan club[/MENTION] over the Shelvey / Lansbury incident shows EXACTLY why bringing in video replays for decisions on fouls during a game would be an absolute can of worms, that would cause more problems than it solves. The "right" decision is not always obvious even after several replays. It always boils down to interpretation.

Don't want to get a reputation for being ornery, but if video technology can be used as a tool that the referee can choose to use or not, choose to ignore or not, I don't have a problem. Referee's decision is final during the match, so it's not like he and the 4th official will be on the sidelines arguing back and forth. fwiw I think Video tech should only be employed for things like offsides that lead to goals, unclear red card offences. These things are already debated during the match between the ref and his assistants, so the ability to review the incident could prove invaluable. goal line tech has certainly proven to be worthwhile without disrupting the game at all.

The referee isn't surrendering authority to a machine which hasn't the capacity to interpret, he's using a tool.

 

[The Fish]

Whether there was contact or not is irrelevant. It's about the intent. He kicked out, as you say. Debate kinda ends there.

Kicking without hitting anyone isn't a red card offence. What you mean is kicking with the intent to strike someone is violent behaviour or serious foul play and I don't disagree. What's happened though is another Brighton fan has miquoted me (in what I can only assume is) an effort to misrepresent my position. Shelvey was kicking out of a tangle of legs. Not kicking Lansbury, not kicking at Lansbury, not kicking out at Lansbury...

As I've said before I'll use the term "Pushing out with his legs" so as to avoid this confusion if it helps?

 

[Mellotron]

Don't want to get a reputation for being ornery, but if video technology can be used as a tool that the referee can choose to use or not, choose to ignore or not, I don't have a problem. Referee's decision is final during the match, so it's not like he and the 4th official will be on the sidelines arguing back and forth. fwiw I think Video tech should only be employed for things like offsides that lead to goals, unclear red card offences. These things are already debated during the match between the ref and his assistants, so the ability to review the incident could prove invaluable. goal line tech has certainly proven to be worthwhile without disrupting the game at all.

The referee isn't surrendering authority to a machine which hasn't the capacity to interpret, he's using a tool.

Here you are correct.

No one is suggesting video tech will suddenly solve all the world's ills. But if it leads to a higher % of right calls, then obviously that's a good thing. If anything, it also dispels the silly myth that we'd have nothing to discuss and debate - an argument rendered even dafter by the fact Cricket punditry (which has hawkeye etc) is LIGHTYEARS ahead of football's.

 

[Mellotron]

Kicking without hitting anyone isn't a red card offence. What you mean is kicking with the intent to strike someone is violent behaviour or serious foul play and I don't disagree. What's happened though is another Brighton fan has miquoted me (in what I can only assume is) an effort to misrepresent my position. Shelvey was kicking out of a tangle of legs. Not kicking Lansbury, not kicking at Lansbury, not kicking out at Lansbury...

As I've said before I'll use the term "Pushing out with his legs" so as to avoid this confusion if it helps?

For me it was way too open to interpretation to rescind the red. To rescind you have to be 100,000% sure Shelvey meant no malice whatsoever towards Lansbury in the untangling/kicking out/loosening of legs.

No one could blame Shelvey for having malice towards Lansbury, because Lansbury is an annoying little shit.

Also having just watched the gif again, it certainly looks like he's trying to get a bit of Lansbury. Their legs aren't really tangled by that point, there's no need for the movement he makes.

 

[Easy 10]

Don't want to get a reputation for being ornery, but if video technology can be used as a tool that the referee can choose to use or not, choose to ignore or not, I don't have a problem. Referee's decision is final during the match, so it's not like he and the 4th official will be on the sidelines arguing back and forth. fwiw I think Video tech should only be employed for things like offsides that lead to goals, unclear red card offences. These things are already debated during the match between the ref and his assistants, so the ability to review the incident could prove invaluable. goal line tech has certainly proven to be worthwhile without disrupting the game at all.

The referee isn't surrendering authority to a machine which hasn't the capacity to interpret, he's using a tool.

Fine in theory. Except if video technology is there, then referee's will be under ENORMOUS pressure to use it for pretty much any incident that is laced with even a hint of controversy. Players will be all over him, and the 4th official will be being badgered by the manager to look at it again. The ref himself will end up using it as a crutch - it's already happened with cricket umpiring, who often go for replays for some of the most straightforward decisions. I've seen run-outs reviewed where the batsman is a yard outside the crease, but the umpire "wants to be sure". Its human nature to want to check if there is an inkling of doubt in their mind.

Not so bad in cricket, which is a game divided into short bursts of action within each delivery. A whole different kettle of fish with football though, where there can often be long passages of play without the ball going dead.

 

[Triggaaar]

Fine in theory. Except if video technology is there, then referee's will be under ENORMOUS pressure to use it for pretty much any incident that is laced with even a hint of controversy. Players will be all over him, and the 4th official will be being badgered by the manager to look at it again. The ref himself will end up using it as a crutch - it's already happened with cricket umpiring, who often go for replays for some of the most straightforward decisions. I've seen run-outs reviewed where the batsman is a yard outside the crease, but the umpire "wants to be sure". Its human nature to want to check if there is an inkling of doubt in their mind.

Not so bad in cricket, which is a game divided into short bursts of action within each delivery. A whole different kettle of fish with football though, where there can often be long passages of play without the ball going dead.

With cricket, as you say, the umpire can check for run outs. There would have to be a strict limit on things a football ref could check for. Team captains and managers could also check other things, but they'd use up a limit of challenges.

 

[Easy 10]

With cricket, as you say, the umpire can check for run outs. There would have to be a strict limit on things a football ref could check for. Team captains and managers could also check other things, but they'd use up a limit of challenges.

The thing is, if a manager has a couple of challenges in hand, he's obviously going to want to use them to get a goal ruled out. I can see it happening regularly, where a minor infraction is reviewed in the hope of getting a goal chalked off - meaning our goal celebrations are "on hold" while we wait for the officials to watch the tape. Not great.

An added complication is the fact you'll be reviewing decisions when the ball is dead (simpler), and non-decisions when the ball is still in play and you're waiting for it to go dead (more tricky).

I think reviews for anything other than a line call is going to be a bloody nightmare.

 

[Triggaaar]

The thing is, if a manager has a couple of challenges in hand, he's obviously going to want to use them to get a goal ruled out. I can see it happening regularly, where a minor infraction is reviewed in the hope of getting a goal chalked off - meaning our goal celebrations are "on hold" while we wait for the officials to watch the tape. Not great.

A low percentage of goals have an infraction with a chance of getting the goal (given by the ref) disallowed. And maybe only give each team one challenge, so they don't waste it. It's better than having the other team celebrate a goal that shouldn't have been given.

An added complication is the fact you'll be reviewing decisions when the ball is dead (simpler), and non-decisions when the ball is still in play and you're waiting for it to go dead (more tricky).

Yes that's more tricky. There could be some circumstances where a ref is unsure, but allows play to go on and then checks if it becomes important. It would take a fair bit of work to make it something that adds to the game without ruining the flow of it.

I think reviews for anything other than a line call is going to be a bloody nightmare.

I don't see how penalty reviews would be a nightmare. A goals are such a big thing, I don't see how it can hurt if officials automatically check them.

 

[darkwolf666]

Picture the scene... Palace have a contested decision in the box but play continues while checks are made, Dunk launches a ball up front and Murray runs on and scores and the fans go wild... oh hang on, the video ref says that should have been a penalty to Palace, so chalk off the goal and back to the other end for the penalty.
Then watch the ensuing mayhem!!!
Extreme scenario I know, but possible. Goal-line only for me...

 

[Timbo]

I've already listed a whole host of unworkable scenarios on another thread but another one struck me yesterday. 3 minutes added time, there's a contentious penalty shout after 2 and half. 30 seconds later the ref blows up, players start walking off then 2 minutes later the video ref decides it was a penalty.

Some decisions for the ref are entirely down to personal opinion, see Stephens at Boro, Dunk last week. You could find 2 referees with entirely different opinions even after watching it 20 times. I honestly think I would stop going if replays came in.

 

[The Fish]

Here you are correct.

No one is suggesting video tech will suddenly solve all the world's ills. But if it leads to a higher % of right calls, then obviously that's a good thing. If anything, it also dispels the silly myth that we'd have nothing to discuss and debate - an argument rendered even dafter by the fact Cricket punditry (which has hawkeye etc) is LIGHTYEARS ahead of football's.

The fluid nature of football is often used as an argument against the introduction of video-technology, but hasn't the goalline system proven that it needn't be so? I certainly wouldn't have a number of challenges available to either team. Surely teams would simply begin to use those reviews tactically, to waste time, kill momentum and slow the game, or just unsettle the referee. Personally, I'd restrict the use of VT for contentious red-card offences and goals. The kinds of incident that naturally halt the game for a while and nothing else. If Wayne Rooney demands a review of a throw in in the 17th minute, warn him, if he keeps on in the ref's ear, card him for dissent.

I wonder if people kicked off as much when Referee left the side lines and assumed almost dictatorial power way back in the 19th century?

 

[The Fish]

For me it was way too open to interpretation to rescind the red. To rescind you have to be 100,000% sure Shelvey meant no malice whatsoever towards Lansbury in the untangling/kicking out/loosening of legs.

No one could blame Shelvey for having malice towards Lansbury, because Lansbury is an annoying little shit.

Also having just watched the gif again, it certainly looks like he's trying to get a bit of Lansbury. Their legs aren't really tangled by that point, there's no need for the movement he makes.

To send off you have to be sure that Shelvey was kicking at Lansbury. I don't think you can be sure of that, and the review board agree.

 

[Seasider78]

The fluid nature of football is often used as an argument against the introduction of video-technology, but hasn't the goalline system proven that it needn't be so? I certainly wouldn't have a number of challenges available to either team. Surely teams would simply begin to use those reviews tactically, to waste time, kill momentum and slow the game, or just unsettle the referee. Personally, I'd restrict the use of VT for contentious red-card offences and goals. The kinds of incident that naturally halt the game for a while and nothing else. If Wayne Rooney demands a review of a throw in in the 17th minute, warn him, if he keeps on in the ref's ear, card him for dissent.

I wonder if people kicked off as much when Referee left the side lines and assumed almost dictatorial power way back in the 19th century?

The goal line system is immediate there is no delay or stop in play for review so in no way comparable

 

[The Fish]

I've already listed a whole host of unworkable scenarios on another thread but another one struck me yesterday. 3 minutes added time, there's a contentious penalty shout after 2 and half. 30 seconds later the ref blows up, players start walking off then 2 minutes later the video ref decides it was a penalty.

Some decisions for the ref are entirely down to personal opinion, see Stephens at Boro, Dunk last week. You could find 2 referees with entirely different opinions even after watching it 20 times. I honestly think I would stop going if replays came in.

I'm not sure I follow, why would play go on for 2 minutes before the review takes place? If the contentious decision is followed by open play, the ref can still immediately ask the 4th official "Is that worth a review?" and when there's a stoppage in play either bring the ball back or carry on. The only big problem will be is if the contentious penalty decision is immediately (<15seconds) followed by a goal the other way, and how often does that happen? When it did happen obviously the penalty decision takes precedence. Contentious reds that require review usually result in a break of play anyway, so there's no problem there, contentious goals result in a break of play, and the majority of contentious penalties don't result in a goal the other way.

 

[The Fish]

The goal line system is immediate there is no delay or stop in play for review so in no way comparable

Which contentious decisions don't result in a break of play and can't be pulled back after brief consultation during play? We've all seen refs put their hand to their ear as the linesman advises on an incident, how would this be different?

 

[Timbo]

My point is that even after looking at replays, decisions are still contentious. It's not like cricket where it's either an edge or not. Would you have given a penalty against Dunk last week?

With the red cards, if the ref blows up as he thinks it's a red card and it turns out it isn't, what then?

Edit, sorry meant to quote [MENTION=35039]The Fish[/MENTION] there!