Football 2010-2011

[ampersand]

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

[worm]

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

Edited March 2, 2011 by worm

[worm]

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

[eFestivals]

he was agreeing with me saying reviews in a natual stop. as in an offside call. and a review could happen in a shorter time than a substition takes at a natural stop anyway. so it doesn't affect the flow of the game any more than it's interrupted at the minute.

as i say though, this method creates its own probelms too.

That's not true tho.

Yes, there are stoppages that are long enough for a review to take place in, but there's many that aren't too.

If reviews in stoppages became the thing, then the stoppages that are currently short will become long. And then we have a very different game to the one that we watch currently.

It's the speed and flow of the game that gives the game it's appeal - as I've already said, this is a near enough universal view of those that run the game, and credited as the reason for football's success.

[worm]

That's not true tho.

Yes, there are stoppages that are long enough for a review to take place in, but there's many that aren't too.

If reviews in stoppages became the thing, then the stoppages that are currently short will become long. And then we have a very different game to the one that we watch currently.

It's the speed and flow of the game that gives the game it's appeal - as I've already said, this is a near enough universal view of those that run the game, and credited as the reason for football's success.

[ampersand]

That's not true tho.

Yes, there are stoppages that are long enough for a review to take place in, but there's many that aren't too.

[eFestivals]

No it isn't and no it doesn't. It's that we can refer the ref's decision for a review if a team wishes to use a referal.

As to your other mindless and irrelevant retorts that completely miss the point:

Those other sports prove that there is not a negative impact on the game being played as you've stated would happen, so you're spouting an unproven theory that comes with contradictory examples from just about every other sport. In-play reviews would stop Ireland being cheated out of a world cup place, so you were wrong to say that 'anything which in-play reviews can achieve towards stopping cheating can also be achieved by post-reviews'. The play would be bad anyway so what's your point (do you understand how comparison works?). And there is no inconsistency - the referee's judgement stands until it is overuled; if it is not overuled then play has continued as if nothing has happened.

What is it that you're failing to understand with your weird semantic bullshit? The review system reviews the referee's call. Play can continue and be called back after a review. One referral per team per game would stop this happening every time a ball is kicked by limiting it to a definitive incident.

those other sports you're comparing football to are have many more stoppages within them than football.

those other sports you're comparing football to are much less successful than football - and there's a reason why.

Those two factors are related.

And there is inconsistency - it can't be anything else if decisions are over-turned.

[eFestivals]

They said this when free kicks, linesmen and the off-side rule were introduced! So f**k. It's just progress.

Oh, you're a football history expert now are you?

If you were, I'd have thought you'd haver known what the game was called - which you didn't know.

It's the most basic piece of info there is to know about the game, so you're clearly talking out of your arse. Nothing new.

[eFestivals]

i know. hence me saying that brings its own problems too. like when the ref waves away a penalty claim that a team wants to challenge.

exactly.

A solution to a problem which creates as many problems as it solves is no solution.

It doesn't take a genius to recognise this. But it does take a know-nothing worm to have a view contrary to this.

[worm]

those other sports you're comparing football to are have many more stoppages within them than football.

Edited March 2, 2011 by worm

[worm]

Oh, you're a football history expert now are you?

[eFestivals]

What has that got to do with overcoming cheating?

nothing at all.

But it's got everything to do with the effects that would be caused onto the game by your method of overcoming cheating.

Those implementations have succesfully overcome forms of cheating in other sports, which is what you said wouldn't happen due to x, y and z. X, y and z did not happen in other sports, so why should they in football?

Because those other sports are not free-flowing mostly-uninterrupted sports as football is.

You are not comparing like with like. As a result, you are not considering the negative impacts of your idea onto the game of football.

Football is as successful as it is because it is a free-flowing mostly-uninterrupted game.

Those other sports are far less successful because they're stop/start games which many people find too boring to follow.

[ampersand]

Football is as successful as it is because it is a free-flowing mostly-uninterrupted game.

Those other sports are far less successful because they're stop/start games which many people find too boring to follow.

[worm]

But it's got everything to do with the effects that would be caused onto the game by your method of overcoming cheating.

Edited March 2, 2011 by worm

[worm]

so why do you think that basketball isn't huge here?

and being tall isn't a neccessity to play if you were going to say that most don't play so don't watch either.

[eFestivals]

so why do you think that basketball isn't huge here?

because it's boring as f**k despite being fast - team gets ball, goews to other end and scores; other team gets ball, goes to other end and scores. Etc, etc, etc.

The pro game is mostly like that - with a score from any change of possession much more likely than a no-score. While the result might not be predictable, what happens within the game invariably is.

[Benj]

because it's boring as f**k despite being fast - team gets ball, goews to other end and scores; other team gets ball, goes to other end and scores. Etc, etc, etc.

The pro game is mostly like that - with a score from any change of possession much more likely than a no-score. While the result might not be predictable, what happens within the game invariably is.

[eFestivals]

Not the one's that you mentioned though. The one's involving what the ref would do as a result. The one's that haven't happened in any other sport.

You wot?

It's what I've consistently mentioned.

That's irrelevant.

You said that the referees would give up their officiating, as they could defer it to a review system. There is no reason for this at all,

apart from of course that their every call is under a different type of scrutiny, and immediately.

Would any ref ref the game in the same way? Not a bleeding chance. Because there's a review system to defer to, they will defer to it, and that brings it's own extra problems.

as their decision is required for a referral (NOT deferral) to come into operation - they do exactly what they're doing now, regardless.

But they wouldn't.

When one thing changes, everything related to that changes too. When a man loses his leg, he doesn't continue to walk as tho he has two legs.

I've also said that this is how it works in other sports and it has not affected the referee's decision making process in real time whatsoever.

And I've also said that it's not how it works in other sports - it has very definitely changed the ref's approach to all things, and has absolutely changed their decision making process. If it's changed nothing with "the referee's decision making process in real time" then it's utterly pointless.

And all that aside, you're too young to have seen some of those sports prior to them having review systems - which just gets to show you're making it up out of nothing.

Just for a change like.

Nor has it undermined their authority. So why would it in football Neil?

you one brain cell is clearly running out of juice. Their authority is undermined by the very fact that they no longer have absolute authority: they are forced by your idea to defer to the review system when the review system is used.

What's the free flowing nature got to do with it?

The fact that it would no longer be free flowing.

[Benj]

Would any ref ref the game in the same way? Not a bleeding chance. Because there's a review system to defer to, they will defer to it, and that brings it's own extra problems.

[eFestivals]

How much in the ref's face bitching and moaning goes at the mo after a penno call or bad offside decision? Having reviews may actually speed things up!

yeah, because they very definitely wouldn't be disputing every decision rather than just a few to try and get every decision against them ovewrturned thru the review system, eh? And you wouldn't have the team that any review went against then complain about that decision in the same way?

[eFestivals]

This is an interesting one which I thikn would depend completely on how the system was implemented.

If like your suggesting a review system that refs can defer to is used, I think they would fall back on it and do it to often, taking much of the excitement out of the game.

On the other hand if you employ an NFL type system, where the managers (or captain) calls the reviews (from limited stock), I think the refs are far more likely to give decisions that they would otherwise shit out of, not knowing for sure that it was right and are far less likely to be 'homers', knowing that their decisions can be reviewed, making them look like tits.

Again it compeltely depends on the system used and how it is implemented

If there's a limited amount of reviews that a team can have, then that means that it's an agreement to allow some errors thru.

Which makes a system that has been put in place to remove those errors completely at odds with the purpose it's designed for.

[worm]

It's what I've consistently mentioned.

Edited March 2, 2011 by worm

[worm]

If there's a limited amount of reviews that a team can have, then that means that it's an agreement to allow some errors thru.

Which makes a system that has been put in place to remove those errors completely at odds with the purpose it's designed for.

Edited March 2, 2011 by worm

[worm]

yeah, because they very definitely wouldn't be disputing every decision rather than just a few to try and get every decision against them ovewrturned thru the review system, eh? And you wouldn't have the team that any review went against then complain about that decision in the same way?

[eFestivals]

Stop changing the goalposts by convoluting the point. You said that the refs would change their decision making process, thus deferring a decision. That wouldn't be the case at all. It isn't the case in any other sport, so why would it be the case in football? Answer the question.

I said the refs would change their decision making process - because there's a difference to all of the decision making process, isn't there?

It *HAS* happened with other sports.

No they aren't, you paranoid freak. Their call CAN BE referred for a second opinion. What is wrong with that other than nowt.

I said "apart from of course that their every call is under a different type of scrutiny, and immediately" - do please tell me what part of that is factually incorrect you moron?

Any call they make has to be scrutinised before it can be referred - it's not like they're going to randomly refer stuff, are they?

No there f**king isn't! There's a referral system. This isn't a deferral system.

They refer a call to the referral system. They have to defer to the decision of that referral system. :rolle3yes:

The refs operate as per usual. It has not affected the refereeing decisions in any other game. What are you missing about this point?

the fact that you're factually incorrect.

In tennis, the umpire no longer over-rules the line judges, technology does.

In rugby and cricket, play is delayed while a ref/umpire gets a decision. Because he knows the system is there, he knows he can use it - and he knows that his calls can be made to look more stupid than when only he was responsible; that difference changes his approach.

Etc, etc, etc. In a changed world, everything changes.

Deferral does not mean referral. They cannot defer to a review. They just do their job, as per usual.

if they don't defer to the decision from a review, the point of the system is what exactly? PMSL.

But they do.

the facts show that they don't.

What has this to do with anything? Nowt. You're spouting semantic drivel. Losing a leg is hardly the same as having a leg problem referred for review.

In a changed world, everything changes. It's called the law of unintended consequences.

Someone as well-read as you () should have heard of that one.