Disallowed penalty/goal for Newcastle last night...

[Timbo]

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?

Anything that's not given that should have been.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

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.

This is where you (and sadly the appeal panel) have got this fundamentally back-to-front.

The match-day officials sent Shelvey off, based on what they saw at the time. To RESCIND that decision, the panel have to be absolutely sure that he was NOT kicking at Lansbury. Big difference.

 

[The Fish]

Anything that's not given that should have been.

The video-technology won't be used for fouls, for throw-ins, for goal kicks man. It'll be used for the big decisions that the ref isn't sure on.

Also, bear in mind that referees are egomaniacs, so even if there's a highly contentious decision there'd be no rule that the Ref a ) will review, b ) will get it right after review, c ) will remember the laws of the game in the first place

 

[The Fish]

This is where you (and sadly the appeal panel) have got this fundamentally back-to-front.

The match-day officials sent Shelvey off, based on what they saw at the time. To RESCIND that decision, the panel have to be absolutely sure that he was NOT kicking at Lansbury. Big difference.

Well, the panel of experts judged that Shelvey wasn't guilty of a red card offence, the gif clearly shows he's not guilty of violent behaviour (it's a tangle of legs, not a stamp or a kick), nor serious foul play. So I fail to see exactly why you think the panel got it wrong? You seem to suggest that because Shelvey's leg is waving near Lansbury, it's a red card offence? Strikes me Shelvey's reputation is influencing you. I mean, would you think the same were it Murphy, Perez, Murray, or Knockaert?

Look, we're never going to agree and we're going round in circles. My initial point remains, I've never before seen Newcastle receive the shocking standard of officiating I have this season. You might think Shelvey got away with one, that the panel are biased or whatever, but wherever you come from you're agreeing with my central point; The standard of officiating is atrocious.

 

[The Fish]

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!

That's an argument for reviews. It doesn't remove the human instinct, insight and judgement. It remains the decision of the referee as you can't yet rely on technology to say whether a collision was illegal or not. The Referee will benefit from seeing the incident, in slow motion, from (I'm assuming) a couple of angles, and after all of that, it's still his decision.

And that entire process would take as much time as walking over to his Lineoh to discuss a current contentious decision.

 

[Seasider78]

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?

These are few and far between and there is a world of difference between talking to a linesman and waiting for an official to run multiple angles of replay and communicate a decision back to the pitch.

This is a slippery slope and it will start with major contentious issues and before we know it there will be reviews for all marginal decisions and dangerous looking tackles.

Also why this obsession with every decision being spot on, the human nature of decision making and referees is part of the game and in any season you have the good decisions and bad decisions impacting your club. This is another step to a sanitised game born out if people's obsession with pouring over every incident in every game.

Spare a thought for the referees in this as well individuals who already have zero respect from fans and players and in no way treated in the same respectful manner in the other sports where this technology exists.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[portslade seagull]

Goal line technology yes. For other issues its a no from me, it would end up being a free for all and just spoil the game

 

[The Fish]

These are few and far between and there is a world of difference between talking to a linesman and waiting for an official to run multiple angles of replay and communicate a decision back to the pitch.

How long does it take you to pause and rewind the tv like? And if they've any sense, they'll use a dial, rather than buttons to the 4th official can better manipulate the incident frame by frame.

This is a slippery slope and it will start with major contentious issues and before we know it there will be reviews for all marginal decisions and dangerous looking tackles.

Why? Straight reds for tackles from behind hasn't lead to red cards for any tackle, getting rid of the 6 second rule hasn't lead to 'keepers hanging on to the ball. This slippery slope I hear so much about isn't half as steep or slippery as it's made out to be.

If the VT is used only for contentious decisions I don't see a problem. And , to be honest, if the technology and process becomes such that the review doesn't interfere with the game I've no problem with VT supporting the referee in every decision.

Also why this obsession with every decision being spot on, the human nature of decision making and referees is part of the game and in any season you have the good decisions and bad decisions impacting your club. This is another step to a sanitised game born out if people's obsession with pouring over every incident in every game.

This doesn't change who's making the decision, it doesn't change the laws of the game, all it does is give the referee the option of getting a better view of an incident. What's wrong with being better informed?

Spare a thought for the referees in this as well individuals who already have zero respect from fans and players and in no way treated in the same respectful manner in the other sports where this technology exists.

That's not an argument against technology, it's an argument for the enforcement of existing laws against pouring obloquy on the referee.

 

[Seasider78]

How long does it take you to pause and rewind the tv like? And if they've any sense, they'll use a dial, rather than buttons to the 4th official can better manipulate the incident frame by frame.

From the recent trial game 45 seconds for a simple offside call with one angle so not unrealistic to expect 60-90 seconds plus for a more contentious situation. Then they have to agree what the decision is which as others has suggested in not as clear cut as other sports.

Why? Straight reds for tackles from behind hasn't lead to red cards for any tackle, getting rid of the 6 second rule hasn't lead to 'keepers hanging on to the ball. This slippery slope I hear so much about isn't half as steep or slippery as it's made out to be.

The examples you are giving again are not comparable this is introducing stoppages and delays to the flow of the game. The 6 second rule and goalkeeper handling were the complete opposite and designed to reduce delays in the game.

If the VT is used only for contentious decisions I don't see a problem. And , to be honest, if the technology and process becomes such that the review doesn't interfere with the game I've no problem with VT supporting the referee in every decision.

This is nonsense explain how these do not interfere with the game if the game has to stop whilst these decisions are reviewed?

This doesn't change who's making the decision, it doesn't change the laws of the game, all it does is give the referee the option of getting a better view of an incident. What's wrong with being better informed?

See above it will disrupt the flow of the game and increase the amount of stoppages

That's not an argument against technology, it's an argument for the enforcement of existing laws against pouring obloquy on the referee.

It is very narrow minded to view the technology in isolation without considering the impact on the games stakeholders. Whether you like it or not there is limited respect for referees and this move would only escalate that as fans and players inside stadiums can see the referees incorrect judgement and react accordingly. You are also simplifying the issue this is not just a case of enforcement this is a cultural issue that is not going away anytime soon and perhaps would warrant more focus that the VT argument.

 

[The Fish]

From the recent trial game 45 seconds for a simple offside call with one angle so not unrealistic to expect 60-90 seconds plus for a more contentious situation. Then they have to agree what the decision is which as others has suggested in not as clear cut as other sports.

Why do they have to agree? Referee has authority, he can override the other officials. As he has done, as he will do going forward. Re: the time, that was the first use of the technology in a competitive game so I'd expect the process & technology to improve in efficacy. Also, if less than a minute means the difference between a goal standing or not, I'm sure that's reasonable.

The examples you are giving again are not comparable this is introducing stoppages and delays to the flow of the game. The 6 second rule and goalkeeper handling were the complete opposite and designed to reduce delays in the game.

The examples were contending your slippery slope position. These rules that were brought into/removed from the game were pushed back on, fears they'd lead to football becoming a "non-contact sport" or a return to the time wasting of the late 80s.

This is nonsense explain how these do not interfere with the game if the game has to stop whilst these decisions are reviewed?

Well I've not said that the game has to stop while the decision to review occurs. To give you an example; Murray goes down in the box, Referee's view is obscured and he isn't sure if a foul has occurred but the Brighton players are up in arms. Play continues. As the game goes on Referee asks the 4th official via his headset thingy "Is that worth a review?" 4th official says "no, Murray tripped over his own feet" play continues. 4th official says "Yes", play is stopped while the review happens. Literally no different to him checking if his assistant saw anything.

Or, for a lesser offence, Knockaert looks like he's fouled off the ball as he goes across the halfway line but the referee and his assistants have missed it. VT official buzzes the ref as linesman do now. Ref can either play on, give a foul, or review it.

It seems you expect there to be frequent stoppages as the referee reviews loads of decisions, every other tackle, and every goal. Where in fact it's likely most games will pass without any review being required, just like most games pass without the goal line technology needing to be used. To be honest I've seen broadcasters use that tech more than referees.

It is very narrow minded to view the technology in isolation without considering the impact on the games stakeholders. Whether you like it or not there is limited respect for referees and this move would only escalate that as fans and players inside stadiums can see the referees incorrect judgement and react accordingly. You are also simplifying the issue this is not just a case of enforcement this is a cultural issue that is not going away anytime soon and perhaps would warrant more focus that the VT argument.

Why will players and fans see the reviews? I'm not in favour of displaying the incidents on massive screens at all. I envisage the VT official to be in a room, or maybe at pitch side with a comms link to the Referee.

I cannot see why the referee having the facility to review an incident would increase the problem. Players appeal for a penalty, the referee doesn't give it, players beseech him, play resumes. Players appeal for a penalty, the referee reviews and doesn't give it, players beseech him, play resumes. Why would reviewing escalate this?

I'm not simplifying the issue at all, it's a real concern throughout football. But the laws are already in place to punish crowding and dissent and if Referees consistently punished excessive barracking and abuse of officials with cautions and cards, the managers would sharp put more pressure on the players to respect the referee. Hopefully that would filter down through the leagues to grassroots and junior football.