Football 2010-2011

[eFestivals]

Do you want football to be fairer? If so you should be pro Reviews, if all you really care about is a good spectacle and a bit of drama, f**k it, its fine as it is

I want football to be fairer, but I don't want the game destroyed by making it fairer.

The simple fact is that there is no 'proof' for some of the things most popular for such reviews (diving, violence), there is only opinion. So it might as well be the opinion of the ref.

[Benj]

you like boring yank sports (tho haven't actually experienced one in the flesh to realise how deathly boring they are). Say no more.

When you have a way of being able to identify what is deliberate and what isn't you'll have a system that's better than the system we have now.

I guess you'd use the telepathy you displayed yesterday to know for sure. And just like you were yesterday, you'd be wrong.

[eFestivals]

What side effects?

Go watch a game of football, then you'll know.

[The Nal]

thats the one - outrageous, and technically correct as he was inactive in the 1st phase of play

he's off side, and thats that

[worm]

The simple fact is that there is no 'proof' for some of the things most popular for such reviews (diving, violence), there is only opinion. So it might as well be the opinion of the ref.

[eFestivals]

"Stevie G's" dive at the weekend, blatant attempt to win a penno, no contact whatsoever, chucks himself to the floor. 4 match ban. Done, he's not trying to win one of his trademark, stick his leg out fouls again.

I half-watched that match, but didn't see that - so can't comment.

But it can be the case that a player goes to ground to avoid a collision, and which ends up looking like a dive. So things would still be called wrongly, because ultimately only the player himself can know what really went on.

[Tugger2k]

"Stevie G's" dive at the weekend, blatant attempt to win a penno, no contact whatsoever, chucks himself to the floor. 4 match ban. Done, he's not trying to win one of his trademark, stick his leg out fouls again.

[Benj]

I want football to be fairer, but I don't want the game destroyed by making it fairer.

The simple fact is that there is no 'proof' for some of the things most popular for such reviews (diving, violence), there is only opinion. So it might as well be the opinion of the ref.

[worm]

Go watch a game of football, then you'll know.

[eFestivals]

I get you now and can clear this up.

Review systems bring in laws that accord to the forensic examination of a video review. This makes it far more precise. Just look at cricket, rugby, tennis and the NFL. The rules as they stand are defined with a referee in mind, not precision technology. It would clear up some of the cheating, for sure.

Yes, I've looked at the boring sports that don't flow and decided I prefer to watch paint dry instead.

As would many people who currently enjoy football if the same interruptions to the game were introduced to football.

Perhaps you should experience the boredom they induce for real before recommending them.

[Tugger2k]

I half-watched that match, but didn't see that - so can't comment.

But it can be the case that a player goes to ground to avoid a collision, and which ends up looking like a dive. So things would still be called wrongly, because ultimately only the player himself can know what really went on.

[worm]

A murder verdict is not decided upon by the first cop on the scene.

[worm]

Yes, I've looked at the boring sports that don't flow and decided I prefer to watch paint dry instead.

[ampersand]

Yes, I've looked at the boring sports that don't flow and decided I prefer to watch paint dry instead.

As would many people who currently enjoy football if the same interruptions to the game were introduced to football.

Perhaps you should experience the boredom they induce for real before recommending them.

[eFestivals]

If the ref can make a decision to ban someone for violence (or not in the recent Rooney case) why can it not be passed with someone who has more evidence and time at their disposal to make the same decision.

I've little problem with reviews for violent conduct such as that Rooney incident - but ultimately there is no definitive answer.

If it was deliberate, red card and ban - no problem. If it wasn't the ref got it right. The only person who knows which it was is Rooney himself.

My take is that it was probably deliberate, but I also get that a part of the body has to be used to counteract a change in direction of a body in motion, and it's possible that that's what really happened with Rooney.

Im 100% up for post match reviews for Diving and Foul play. Much less so for during the match.

In theory I agree with that, but in the vast majority of such instances there's no clear way such things can be called. 'Dives' can be avoiding action, and 'foul play' can be just poor play.

If you read back, there's been posts about Scholes in the last 24 hours, with one person saying he's a deliberate fouler and someone else saying not. The only person who really knows is Scholes himself.

[worm]

american football is slow because of how the game is. not because of the refereeing system.

Edited March 1, 2011 by worm

[Benj]

I half-watched that match, but didn't see that - so can't comment.

But it can be the case that a player goes to ground to avoid a collision, and which ends up looking like a dive. So things would still be called wrongly, because ultimately only the player himself can know what really went on.

[worm]

In regards to Gerrard's case on the weekend, its perfectly clear that he was attempting to gain an advantage from cheating. There's a 1% chance that he may genuinely may have not have been but then again there's probably a 1% chance that Colonel Gaddafi's a top chap.

[Benj]

If you read back, there's been posts about Scholes in the last 24 hours, with one person saying he's a deliberate fouler and someone else saying not. The only person who really knows is Scholes himself.

[eFestivals]

american football is slow because of how the game is. not because of the refereeing system.

baseball is just as slow as cricket.

and basketball is faster and more exciting than football.

so don't really see your angle from this.

Football would end up as slow as yank football if it had a similar reffing system.

Baseball and cricket are slow sports, yep - which is a big part of why they don't interest many.

And the rules of basketball have less room for dispute than football has. You've either travelled, or you haven't - etc, etc.

[Benj]

The fact is that a review panel can ascertain this far better than an official. If there's still ambiguity, then the ref's decision on the pitch should stand.

[worm]

Football would end up as slow as yank football if it had a similar reffing system.

[eFestivals]

Well said.

The refereeing system has benefitted the game and removed nigh on all of the cheating and exploitation of human error that used to occur regularly in the 80s. That's what Neil wants to happen, this is an excellent way of providing it.

woiuld such a thing come without side effects for football? No it wouldn't.

It's not as simple as you're imagining it. No change there tho.

[eFestivals]

Utter rubbish. Proof?

a watch of any football match, and then a watch of any yank football match.

[Benj]

Football would end up as slow as yank football if it had a similar reffing system.