Football 2010-2011

[Benj]

It would remove a lot of the more ridiculous and profound moments (not to mention embarrassing). I'm thinking of the French goal against Ireland, the disallowed Spurs goal against Man Utd, Bolton going down on the last day when they'd scored a goal etc.

It has without question improved other sports and the question is why is it not being adapted to football: the most popular sport in the world. The question isn't why should it be.

Edited March 3, 2011 by Benj

[TheGayTent]

Anyway...

Anyone Stokies know the answer to my block 39 question about 47 pages back before all this bollocks about referral/deferral systems started?!

[eFestivals]

Look at you not listening to me again.

I've never once said that a referee refers the decion. Not once. Not least of all because a referee cant refer. I've said all along that a manager has a number of referrals, which is common practice in many other sports.

No Neil. A referee DEFERS. A referee cannot refer as he has been refered to (hence his name).

You haven't a f**king clue have you.

I'm got more of a clue about the English language than you have, that's for sure.

In cricket, everything that happened is controlled by the Umpire. If the umpire is unsure about what is the right decision, he REFERS that instance to the off-field decision makers and the replays they have access to. He then DEFERS to their decision.

FFS.

re·fer

–verb (used with object)

1. to direct for information or anything required: He referred me to books on astrology.

2. to direct the attention or thoughts of: The asterisk refers the reader to a footnote.

3. to hand over or submit for information, consideration, decision, etc.: to refer the argument to arbitration.

4. to assign to a class, period, etc.; regard as belonging or related.

5. to have relation; relate; apply.

–verb (used without object)

6. to direct attention, as a reference mark does.

7. to have recourse or resort; turn, as for aid or information: to refer to one's notes.

8. to make reference or allusion: The author referred to his teachers twice in his article.

[eFestivals]

What is the point to this other than pointless semantic bullshit?

What's your problem with a two second delay that's occuring when play has stopped anyway? You aren't being in the least bit sincere, you're just attempting to win a lost argument.

is an extra two seconds an extra delay or not?

It's not semantic bullshit, it's a statement of fact - a fact I'm correct about, and a fact that you're wrong about.

[TheGayTent]

oh dear oh dear oh dear...

[eFestivals]

I'm talking about implementing a REFERRAL system, not a deferral system, so you're spouting irrelevant goop.

I REFER you to the definition of REFER, which you can read and then DEFER to my correct use of the English language and reject your wrong use of the English language.

[eFestivals]

Erm...its you not knowing what you're talking about in this case, the players can call (a limited number of) reviews now too!

My words were still correct - the Umpire still refers to the off-field system for a decision to be made.

As it happens, I watched the highlights of the England/Ireland match last night, where exactly that happened at least twice.

[ampersand]

is an extra two seconds an extra delay or not?

It's not semantic bullshit, it's a statement of fact - a fact I'm correct about, and a fact that you're wrong about.

[worm]

re·fer

[worm]

is an extra two seconds an extra delay or not?

It's not semantic bullshit, it's a statement of fact - a fact I'm correct about, and a fact that you're wrong about.

[worm]

My words were still correct - the Umpire still refers to the off-field system for a decision to be made.

[worm]

yup, the dictionaries out. in a football thread. f**k sake!

Edited March 3, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

None of which the Umpire is doing. What he's doing is deferring the decision making (as he hasn't made one) to someone else. He can only refer it if he has made a decision, which is of course stupid.

Had enough of the semantic bullshit yet?

Yours, yes I have.

Yet again, you are literally wrong. It's as funny as it gets from someone who believes themselves the dogs bollocks about language.

He is deferring the decision making. He refers the situation that he needs a decision for to that off-field system.

It's very simple, except for the very stupid - you.

[worm]

I REFER you to the definition of REFER, which you can read and then DEFER to my correct use of the English language and reject your wrong use of the English language.

[worm]

Yours, yes I have.

Yet again, you are literally wrong. It's as funny as it gets from someone who believes themselves the dogs bollocks about language.

He is deferring the decision making. He refers the situation that he needs a decision for to that off-field system.

It's very simple, except for the very stupid - you.

[eFestivals]

A pointless fact used because you've lost an argument. I've asked for you to make it a meaningful one in relation to the argument by answering this question: what difference does a two second delay make to the game?

Not a pointlewss fact - you had categorically stated that there is NO delay.

Is a 2 second delay a delay, or not?

You were wrong. I was right.

It's an extra delay. Delays change how people feel about what they're watching. After all, watching an injured player on the field getting treatment is a delay, and it's not what people have come to see - if the game was full of injury delays, then watching a game is not the same experience as a without those delays.

The delays might be small, but they're still delays. That has effects elsewhere, as I've stated and you dismiss as rubbish. What is rubbish is your dismissal of such things as meaningless, when they're not.

The likes of FIFA has decided they're not meaningless either, so it's not just me. But if your ideas are so fantastic then you'll be able to convince FIFA won't you .... so off you go, do it.

[eFestivals]

To steady the ship:

A referral system in sport means that a player or manager refers the referee's decision for a review upstairs.

A deferral system in sport means that a referee can defer a situation that they cannot judge for a decision upstairs.

Are we clear now?

I've always had it clear - that you read things so poorly you don't correctly read what I've said.

I've used refer correctly at all points. At no point have I talked about "A referral system" or "A deferral system", I've talking about "a review system" or "your idea".

I say it again: I've used 'refer' correctly at every point.

As ever, the error is with your reading and not what I've said.

[worm]

Delays change how people feel about what they're watching.

[worm]

I've always had it clear - that you read things so poorly you don't correctly read what I've said.

Edited March 3, 2011 by worm

[worm]

The likes of FIFA has decided they're not meaningless either, so it's not just me. But if your ideas are so fantastic then you'll be able to convince FIFA won't you .... so off you go, do it.

[Benj]

My words were still correct - the Umpire still refers to the off-field system for a decision to be made.

As it happens, I watched the highlights of the England/Ireland match last night, where exactly that happened at least twice.

[eFestivals]

So a two second delay would affect how people feel about watching the game. So shall we stop free kicks from happening and get rid of the offside rule? Maybe we could have walls instead of touch lines so that the ball stays in play.

Load of shite Neil. Nothing but a desperate attempt at argumentation for the sake of it.

It's an extra delay. Delays are not what people go to see.

And two seconds is a hypothetical anyway - in rugby they're often longer, in cricket they're often longer, so in football they'd often be longer. These are all true facts.

The stoppages that currently exist are a part of a hugely successful game. You cannot (rightly ) say with any certainty that adding further delays wouldn't lessen it's appeal, and you have no rationale to back that up either.

There is a rationale to back up what I'm saying, because people do not games to watch delays.

It might be the case that people wouldn't care about those extra delays. But that's not my conclusion - and more importantly, it's not the conclusion of the people who run the game and have considered these things in great depth.

[eFestivals]

And what were the results?

the results were a delay to the playing of the game.

[eFestivals]

In that case, why did you say that a referee would change their behaviour by referring (meaning deferring, but whatever) their decisions to a reviewer?

That wouldn't happen in a referral system.

Currently a referee has no immediate oversight of their decisions, so they approach their decisions in a particular way. They can have confidence that their decisions are not about to be immediately called into question in a way that changes anything about that decision.

If there was immediate oversight of their decisions, then they'd feel less confident about the making of their decisions than they currently do. It doesn't take a genius to realise that.

Or do you think that people don't ever self-censor, with that self-censoring influenced by their situation at that moment in time?

[ampersand]

the results were a delay to the playing of the game.