Blatter Apologises to Mexico and England

ArmaniJeanss

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

The ball was in the goalies hands after rebounding off the underside of the crossbar .The referee could have stopped it there and then ,no problem at all.

I hate this idea. No way should the ref be able to stop the game at this point.
The keeper has the ball in play in his hands at the end of an opposition attack. 1 second later the keeper can have ran to the edge of his box and launched it - 5 seconds later that ball can be landing between the out-of-position centre halfs - 2 seconds after that the ball can be in the back of the net. For many teams (Ireland 1990-92 springs to mind) the keepers big punt after an oppositions attack has ended is their most potent attack weapon.

Stopping the game for a review whilst the ball is still in play, even if it is in a goalkeepers possession, would be a huge step too far.

Guy:Incognito

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I hate this idea. No way should the ref be able to stop the game at this point.
The keeper has the ball in play in his hands at the end of an opposition attack. 1 second later the keeper can have ran to the edge of his box and launched it - 5 seconds later that ball can be landing between the out-of-position centre halfs - 2 seconds after that the ball can be in the back of the net. For many teams (Ireland 1990-92 springs to mind) the keepers big punt after an oppositions attack has ended is their most potent attack weapon.

Stopping the game for a review whilst the ball is still in play, even if it is in a goalkeepers possession, would be a huge step too far.

Even taking the whole world cup in to the equation, the Lampard inceident is the only one I can think of where this scenario comes up. Thats hardly excessive.

ballsymchugh

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Well if he doesnt get it then some other gangster will take his place .

ladies and gentlemen, i give you mr Jack Warner.

http://www.transparencyinsport.org/Racist_Jack_Warner/kick_racism_out_of_football.html

101001

Stekelly wrote: »

100 years ago the parameters of the game involved tape for a cross bar, no subs etc. By your logic, thats the way it should still be, never moving on.

Not necessarily my point... I think the addition of goal line technology is a tad excessive. I for one kind of enjoy the human error factor of the sport. The frustration of henry's handball, the joy of Lampards disallowed goal (was in a german pub with german friends). I enjoy the banter with people afterward discussing the near miss, reveling in the fortuity. Goal line technology ads a sterility to he game that could suck some of the enjoyment/passion from it.

And as you say the game develops... If you ad in goal line technology where will the video replays end?

A Primal Nut

parker kent wrote: »

That approach has too much faffing about. Better to just appoint a fifth official who is watching the game on TV and in constant contact with the others. 5 seconds after Lampard's shot he would have been able to tell that it was a goal.

They would have to establish ground rules as for how often the TMO can intervene, maybe just at the referee's discretion if he feels he needs a second opinion or in the case of a major game changing error (basically decisions affecting goals or maybe penalties if he notices and incorrectly awarded penalty). He could also make a note of diving as it would be easier for somebody with replays to assess.

The challenge idea sounds messy to me.

I agree with this. Stopping play to make decisions would ruin the game and they would end up being used strategically. Current technology would allow the Television Match Official to instantly watch replays of the last 5 seconds and make a quick decision, perhaps in under 10 seconds. Which is enough for the referee to call the game back. Even now you sometimes see the referee give advantage for 5 seconds and call the game back if the team loses that advantage. This would be a similiar thing.

But in my opinion they should be used as assistance to the referee. So if he isn't sure, he presses a button requesting assistance and waves play on. Then call it back if the TMO says there was a goal/penalty/offside. None of this challenging stuff - every decision treated equally.

The ball-over-the-line problem is so easily fixed its unreal. Just simple technology - ball buzzes when it goes over the line. Even in court 33 of Wimbledon in some game nobody watches, the net beeps when the ball hits it.

Another important thing is that the referee should sit down and watch the game with his assistants the day after, cancel any yellow and red cards that he sees were wrongly given (remembering the context in which they were given), then gives any new yellow and red cards, which should have been given, with the help of the video. The problem here is that media campaigns and maybe even bias in the video production might highlight some incidents more than others. It would be the referees responsibility to avoid it. If the referee sees he was fooled he will have no hesitation giving yellows for diving; which may help to stamp it out, although a 1-game ban might be more effective.

It can't go on as it is anyway.

keane2097

There is no argument about the flow of the game being disturbed by video replays, absolutely none.

Every time a shot is taken in soccer in a televised game, you will have seen a replay of it from four different angles before the goal kick is taken.

Disturbs the flow of the game my hole.

Psychedelic

Stopping play to make decisions would ruin the game

Bad decisions are ruining the game.

Even if the game is slowed down by video replays etc (which I don't think it would be) I think it is a small price to pay to ensure that terrible unjust decisions are never made.

seadnamac

keane2097 wrote: »

There is no argument about the flow of the game being disturbed by video replays, absolutely none.

Every time a shot is taken in soccer in a televised game, you will have seen a replay of it from four different angles before the goal kick is taken.

Disturbs the flow of the game my hole.

Bang on.

Psychedelic wrote: »

Bad decisions are ruining the game.

Even if the game is slowed down by video replays etc (which I don't think it would be) I think it is a small price to pay to ensure that terrible unjust decisions are never made.

Exactly. Bad decisions and cheating (diving etc.).

Hyzepher

Soccer is one of the slowest team games around - probably the slowest of all the popular team sports. The ball is out of play nearly 40 minutes in most matches and you'll rarely go 1 minute between stoppages for throw-ins, frees etc.

If American Football didn't exist I would imagine that no one would have "ruining the flow of the game" as an excuse for not introducing technology.

The idea of having a level set of rules/process etc for all levels of the game is already out the window. Even in the EPL you can be cited after the match based on video evidence.

Giving teams a set amount of challenges would be a mistake though. I think if technology is introduced then it must be invoked by the officials without any necessary request from teams/players. I also wouldn't be in favour of decisions about free kicks etc being taken out of the referees hands.

I do think goals and offsides are reasonable areas of the game that could be enhanced by the use of technology.

A Primal Nut

keane2097 wrote: »

There is no argument about the flow of the game being disturbed by video replays, absolutely none.

Every time a shot is taken in soccer in a televised game, you will have seen a replay of it from four different angles before the goal kick is taken.

Disturbs the flow of the game my hole.

You missed the point. What happens if the ball doesn't go out of play. A potential foul in the box, the other team win the ball and counter-attack. What happens then? Do you want to stop the game? to see if it was a foul?

What happens if it turns out it wasn't a foul. The other team's counter attack has been interrupted.

My point is that play should be allowed to continue until a decision has been taken by a television match official.

keane2097

A Primal Nut wrote: »

You missed the point. What happens if the ball doesn't go out of play. A potential foul in the box, the other team win the ball and counter-attack. What happens then? Do you want to stop the game? to see if it was a foul?

What happens if it turns out it wasn't a foul. The other team's counter attack has been interrupted.

My point is that play should be allowed to continue until a decision has been taken by a television match official.

You wait till it goes out of play obv.

Or even better, the TMO watches the replay within seconds of it happening, sees that it was a foul/offside/whatever, tells the ref through an earpiece, and the ref blows the whistle to come back.

Decisions in soccer are so clearcut once you can view them in slow motion that you really don't need the big production they have in rugby where everything stops and everybody spends a couple of minutes watching replays - just have a guy upstairs, with the appropriate technology and a direct line to the ref, and have him help him with tough decisions on the fly.

Simples tbh.

noodler

keane2097 wrote: »

Simples tbh.

Everyone needs to stop this.

It isn't funny.

keane2097

noodler wrote: »

Everyone needs to stop this.

It isn't funny.

It's not supposed to be funny

noodler

keane2097 wrote: »

It's not supposed to be funny

Really? Why do so many people keep ending their points with it then?

Whats it supposed to be?

greendom

noodler wrote: »

Really? Why do so many people keep ending their points with it then?

Whats it supposed to be?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ust9YBlEfY

keane2097

noodler wrote: »

Really? Why do so many people keep ending their points with it then?

Whats it supposed to be?

I don't really think it's worth getting yourself worked up over.

noodler

greendom wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ust9YBlEfY

Ah I know the ad unfortunately.

keane2097 wrote: »

I don't really think it's worth getting yourself worked up over.

I'm not - I swear!