Football 2010-2011

[strummer77]

I quite like Patrick Barclay, not that I've read him as opposed to his Twitter/ Sunday Supplement stuff.

In fact I very rarely read stuff in the paper these days as opposed to listen to podcasts etc, its far better when there is someone else there to argue against their bullshit

[strummer77]

Nope he wasn’t.

What surprises me though, is peoples surprise at Fergie having a go at refs like this. Hes been manager of Utd since 1986! Im not saying hes right, but hes a master at it. Ive no doubt his comments after the Wigan game helped Rooney escape a ban. He uses fear tactics very well, with players too.

[worm]

I've been given this link, which I've found very interesting and may be of some interest with you guys. The feature in the link regards Sunderland, but the guy is doing a lowdown on pretty much every club having just done Newcastle recently. Anyway, here you go......

http://www.swissramble.blogspot.com/

[ampersand]

Besides the incorrect way you've phrased it as play would not be interupted at all, then I already have explained here.........

[worm]

everything you posted in your quote can be achieved with a change to retrospective viewings though.

Edited March 2, 2011 by worm

[The Nal]

I'm not surprised, I just think he should be pulled up more.

He should be fined for his comments yesterday. Others have been fined for far less.

[strummer77]

Probably. But if it puts even 1% of doubt or hesitation in the refs mind this weekend it’ll be worth it in Fergies mind. He has no issue at all being a total c**t if it affects his team positively in some way.

[eFestivals]

Besides the incorrect way you've phrased it as play would not be interupted at all, then I already have explained here.........

Care to point out where I said play would be interupted?

What Isaid about your idea is that it would have "perfect ref decisions but imperfect play from those decisions within the game" - because that's what you've been putting forwards.

Just in case you're not getting it, you've said that decisions would be reversed within a game after a period of time (that's needed for a review) - which means that they'd be an amount of play of the game where the game had action but those actions would be contrary to the reviewed decisions.

And so you'd be swapping the current senario of imperfect ref decisions but perfect play from those decisions, for a system where there's perfect ref decisions but an amount of imperfect play to those decisions within the game.

It's no improvement to anything, and it's completely anti-intellectual. It's stupidity at its greatest. It means no one knows what is good and what is bad within any game because of the inconcsistencies of what happens within a game.

The current system isn't perfect, but it's a million times more perfect than what you're suggesting.

[ampersand]

Not so at all. It may help a little with in-play cheating perhaps, but only in terms of assessing the need of the foul. Players will still cheat and pick up the fine after the game so that they win the game. That would be compromised if they could be penalised during the game. Also, you can't make things fairer if you let a penalty or red card stand that should have been. You also can't have less ambiguity to rules if the ref's word still stands regarding a bad on-field decision.

I assure you that I don't. I'm still waiting for a reasonable (non-traditionalist/fatalistic/purist) point.

[worm]

Care to point out where I said play would be interupted?

What Isaid about your idea is that it would have "perfect ref decisions but imperfect play from those decisions within the game" - because that's what you've been putting forwards.

Just in case you're not getting it, you've said that decisions would be reversed within a game after a period of time (that's needed for a review) - which means that they'd be an amount of play of the game where the game had action but those actions would be contrary to the reviewed decisions.

And so you'd be swapping the current senario of imperfect ref decisions but perfect play from those decisions, for a system where there's perfect ref decisions but an amount of imperfect play to those decisions within the game.

Edited March 2, 2011 by worm

[worm]

if it was a fine, yeah it would be pointless. even if it was a weeks wages. hefty ban is what i'm talking. not that it stops rino gattuso being a raj but it would be a good detterent for most. better than a yellow card in play as would be the only punishment they could give for diving.

Edited March 2, 2011 by worm

[ampersand]

I'm down with the after match review. But I'm also down with in-play reviews too. That's all Boss.

I'm more than prepared to. I'm just not hearing anything other than 'I'd rather the cheating/unfairness/bad decisions stay than for the game to change', which is fine. I however do want it to change because I want these factors to be removed given the age we live in and the technology available. I'm no traditionalist.

[eFestivals]

Semantics.

Brilliant.

You've asked for reasonable points, and when you're given them you can't dismiss them with reason, so you use the dumb and call it 'semantics'. PMSL.

No it isn't.

yes it is. Everything I've said would happen within what you've said.

It's a system that would see fairer reversable decisions between plays regarding bad decisions, incorporating the factors I've just given you.

"fairer" is a matter of subjective opinion and not a fact.

It's certainly the case that some people don't consider having a mixture of play based on both bad (the initial decision, from which play continues until after the in-game review) and good (the play after the review) as 'fairer'. For many people consistent is always fairer than a situation where no one knows at any point within a game what is good and what is bad - at least as things are curre3ntly, everyone knows what's what even if they don't agree with the decisions that have been made (and no one is ever going to agree with all decisions anyway).

What you've replied with is a load of meaningless semantic bullshit.

Or alternatively, you don't have enough brain cells to address what I've said with reason so you've reverted to bullshit.

What I've said is what you've said - but I've said it in such a way as to clearly expose the huge flaws in your idea, to make clear that your own ideas are at least as imperfect as what exists now (because there's still play that's made after a bad decision just as there is now), as well as being a situation where no one knows where things actually stand with the game.

The only genuine response is that people simply don't want the rules to change.

PMSL.

The genuine response is that there is no benefit in swapping one imperfect system for another that is no better (and in some people's eyes a damn sight worse).

They refuse such a system because they like it the way it is.

They refuse such a system because the system you're suggesting is stupidity at it's greatest. It's no improvement.

However, they've got zero right to moan about cheating etc if they want to keep it the same as it is and refuse alternatives that would go some way to removing such factors.

If the 'price' of addressing cheating is a system that's just f**king stupid most people with half a brain get to realise that such cheating is the lower price.

[Benj]

the foul I've mentioned was on Rooney.

And it's also the foul they showed on Sky News this morning when they were talking about Fergie's moaning.

[worm]

You've asked for reasonable points, and when you're given them you can't dismiss them with reason, so you use the dumb and call it 'semantics'.

Edited March 2, 2011 by worm

[worm]

technology your way changes the game for the worse in my mind.

[ampersand]

Well, that's a matter of opinion. As you can probably tell, I want football to modernise like other sports and I detest the unfairness and cheating that occurs. I'm willing to see changes. I think cheating etc undermines the integrity of the game, not that there is much left now. I think this approach could restore integrity and get people back into a modern game that is based upon the fine tradition of sport, that being may the best team win.

[worm]

it may be in theory, but as long as players are making 6, even 5 figure sums in a week, it will never be soley about that. you'd need to bring in serious pay cuts for that to really happen.

Edited March 2, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

You haven't given a reasonable point. You've indulged semantic bullshit.

yeah, it's unreasonable and sementic bullshit to point out how f**king stupid your idea is with reason.

It is better with regards to the factors of being fairer, having less cheating etc as I've already proven.

You've proven nothing. You've merely given your opinion that it would be fairer and there'd be less cheating.

But how things can be fairer by having no consistent ruling on the field of play I don't know. And nor do you by the sounds of it, because you keep ignoring the fact that they'd be no consistent rulings on the field of play.

And it very definitely the case that anything which in-play reviews can achieve towards stopping cheating can also be achieved by post-reviews of the match.

It will make referee decisions challangable and reversable, meaning that you'll have stuff like wrongful goals and sendings off overturned.

and within that scenario it would also create it's own "wrongful goals" (within what gets played that is subject to a won review) - very likely to a greater extent than the small-ish number of 'wrongful goals' that occur at the moment - and would also create the situation where refs would choose not to send someone off until it had been reviewed (because they look less foolish with their own decisions in that way than they would if their decision was over-ruled by the review), so they'd be increased instances of people being on the field when they should have been sent off.

You'd have more rigid terms of definition because they'd suit the review team as well as the referree, thus less ambiguity.

PMSL - yeah, there's less ambiguity when no one knows if any decision is going to stand after it's been reviewed than there is when a ref's decision is final (as it is now).

FFS. Welcome to the world of one-brain-cell worm.

That's fairer, and you can f**k off with your retarded 'fair' is subjective semantic bullshit.

Oh, sorry, I must get a copy of the dictionary you're using, because it's the only correct one in the worlds. Care to tell me it's name so that I can?

And someone had better tell OED, quick.

How many more times?

.... can you prove yourself a moron? I dunno, but you've been managing it for something like 5 years here already, and I expect there's many more years still to come.

No it isn't. It's a game of football that will see reviewable calls that do not interfere with play alongside bans for incidents where a person has got away with a major foul.

If any initial decision is over-turned during a game then it interferes with play.

It interferes because any play made during that successful review is 'bad' play that shouldn't have happened, exactly as exists now - but without any interference with what happens now, because any 'bad' decision is considered good because what the ref says is final.

What would be 'stupid' or 'anti-intellectual' about a game played in this way?

the complete lack of consistency to the play that happens on the field, and the lack of control that comes from that.

As things are now, a ref's decision is final. So while you or I might consider that ref's decision as 'bad', within the context of the game (of the ref's decision being final) it is 100% correct because it cannot be disputed or over-turned.

Within your idea, no decision is final and anything can be over-turned - so no one knows within the game what is a good call and what is bad one, and so there can be no proper control of the game.

eg: Fred commits a foul, and the ref gives him a red. Because Fred knows that the decision can be reviewed and might be over-turned he refuses to leave the field until there's been that review. The ref has no power, and the game has no control.

FFS, it's not difficult if you understand the game. You clearly don't.

[ampersand]

I'm asking why? What can be done to improve the system I've provided. I've already altered it a number of times to incorporate issues when presented with them. It's a piece of piss.

What's this good and bad explanation? All Neil's done is shown that he hasn't a clue about what's being said. He's said this.....

[worm]

You've proven nothing.

Edited March 2, 2011 by worm

[worm]

the only way i think reviews in real time could be done is if the game has a natural stop.

[eFestivals]

Yes I have.

oh sorry, my mistake. I'd forgotten that your opinions are solid facts, just because they're your opinions.

It couldn't stop France reaching the world cup unfairly. So you're wrong.

what part of "there is no rule currently in place which allowed for a review of that game" are you having such difficulties with?

Proof?

It's a scenario that could happen - which makes your solution to dealing with such things a cause of the same problem.

What part of that is too difficult for you to grasp?

Mine is that it doesn't happen in any other sport where this kind of system is applied. So you're wrong.

those other sports aren't football.

And, if the system you're suggesting for football is actually used in any other sport (a sport where the play continues while a review takes place), then you're talking bollocks. Anything could happen on the field within that review period.

The review will apply less ambiguous laws than a referee, as is clear from my explanation.

Your idea is that we won't get +final decisions from the ref, but we'll get it sometime later (with the play carrying on in the meantime) - which very definitely makes your idea more ambiguous than what we have now.

Fairness according to law, is the equal distribution of the law. As I said, f**k off with your semantic bullshit. If we throw out 'fair' because it's subjective then we have no law or cheating because everything's fair-game.

You are applying your subjectivity to everything being fair while the match continues as a review takes place - yet that piece of play is 'bad' if the review over-turns a decision, which makes that part of the game less than fair.

So your idea has no consistent idea of fairness being applied to the game, while the idea that the ref's decision is final very definitely does.

The view of which is fairer is very definitely subjective.

Righteous inteference.

'righteous' or not it's interference - something you'd previously claimed didn't happen.

As it would be anyway! The difference is, the rest of the game can be righted rather than be the result of bad play.

Yes, I get that.

But does the inconsistency in-built into your idea make things fairer or not? It's a subjective view - and the opinion of people here is overwhelmingly 'not'.

[eFestivals]

I have time for this too.

Yes, but you're a fan of stop/start snoozeball.

Most football fans are not. They recognise that the speed of the game is its appeal; as do FIFA, as do UEFA, as do the FA.

Football has become the world's most successful sport precisely because it does not have the interruptions you think would be an improvement.

Yank Football has completely failed to take off around the world - despite huge attempts with massive funding to make it popular - precisely because it bores most people senseless.

[ampersand]

with hindsight, i can see worms idea working. for example you can hardly argue against it with the henry handball incident.

but in practice it would be a disaster. which is why it will never be proposed, let alone trialled or implemented.