Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

Football 2010-2011


Guest eFestivals

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 10.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • eFestivals

    2125

  • ampersand

    1135

  • The Nal

    1089

  • TheGayTent

    766

  • Admin

and considering how close it was probably the result but lets not worry about the addition of an extra 1% playing time (that actually adds excitement in the case of cricket) get in the way of that.

cricket is so slow anyway that any delay like that is a minor factor. The same doesn't apply with footie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

neil, about half the stadium go for a pie five minutes before the first half has even concluded. and lots stroll in five minutes after kick off cos they're too busy finishing their pints.

you might care about a 2/10/20 second delay, but the majority wouldn't really care. nor would the players to get a wee breather and fill up the stamina bar that little bit.

for the games where such a system would be used the stadium audience is generally a tiny proportion of the whole audience - and more importantly (from some angles), a small proportion of the money.

You say that the majority wouldn't care, but that's not been FIFA's conclusion.

Or to put it another way: if it ain't broke don't fix it.

After all, there's not a huge demand for any sort of decision review system to be put in place from any angle of the game, aside from goal-line technology (which is the one thing where there's always a clear-cut decision, and the game would stop as a result).

Sure, there's a big outcry for the very few instances where some feel particularly hard-done-by such as the France/Ireland thing, but instances such as those are few and far between, and the benefit of getting the right decision for those has to be weighed against all of the other far-less-important times such a system would be used and the negative impact it would have along with it, as well as a consideration of the times it couldn't correct a bad decision (such as in the CC final) or when there's no clear-cut ruling that can be made (such as with the Rooney elbow).

It's nowhere near as black and white or as simple as worm is presenting it. As I said from the off, any such system has negative impacts as well as positive, and ignoring the impact of those as worm has done here makes just about all of his words on this subject worthless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

neil, i agree that it shouldn't be brought in. but your extra delay angle is just ridiculous as there's enough delays as it is to render it irrelevant.

and regarding your point that the tv audience is the much bigger one, the superbowl doesn't tend to suffer from constant ad breaks or going back to the studio. a small delay for a decision isn't going to make a huge impact on the handful of guys in a living room drinking beer. if it resulted in ad breaks while the decision was made, i'd agree. but it would just result in action replays and tyler or whoever commenting on it.

Edited by ampersand
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

you keep saying it but it will still be bollocks. there's lots of small stoppages in football. another small stoppage isn't going to make a difference.

watch a game and take a note of how long a ball is out of play when a ref blows for a penalty and the resulting penalty is staken. or from when a player makes a foul, is booked and then the resulting free kick is taken. you may surprise yourself!

A game of cricket is many hours long, even for 20-20 - longer than football. So within those many hours a minute's delay is a much tinier proportion of the whole event than it would be with football.

It's also the case that decisions in cricket are cut and dried, 100% clear in just about everything - someone is either out, or they're not, there's no dispute about that with clear evidence (such as from cameras).

The same is not true for football, where a tackle can be considered by some to be fair, by others a foul but minor, by others a yellow, and by others a red (OK, I know I've stretched that a little, but I'm trying to make the point clear).

So there is no 100% certain decision that can be made for things like that, there is only an opinion. And by having two (at least) different people - the ref on the field and the reviewer - handing down those decisions the consistency of rulings within a game is lost, because it will never be the case that those opinions will match.

People complain now that a ref is slack or overly harsh - but at least you know that's how that ref is, and the game can be played by the players within how that ref works. Once you have two opinions that's out the window, no one really knows where they stand in regard to any decisions outside of the ones that are definitive - the ball crossing any of the lines of the field of play, or offside.

But with offside there can (in half the cases) be no redress even if a decision is reviewed and over-turned - there is no way to give Brum their advantage back, and a penalty can't be awarded because the players have played to the flag.

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

there was no need for that long post neil, you're preaching to the converted. just one aspect of your arguement is nonsense for me. say the review system was flawless (which it's not), if you sat and timed the delays for any calls it would be used for, you'd realise that it wouldn't make a significant difference. you'd barely notice. i did this last night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

neil, i agree that it shouldn't be brought in. but your extra delay angle is just ridiculous as there's enough delays as it is to render it irrelevant.

It might be minor, but it still impacts on the spectacle that people have come to see. That alters their enjoyment of what they've come to see. Claiming other than that is what's ridiculous here.

and regarding your point that the tv audience is the much bigger one, the superbowl doesn't tend to suffer from constant ad breaks or going back to the studio. a small delay for a decision isn't going to make a huge impact on the handful of guys in a living room drinking beer. if it resulted in ad breaks while the decision was made, i'd agree. but it would just result in action replays and tyler or whoever commenting on it.

The superbowl does suffer from such things - it's a part of why yank football has not taken off around the world as football has done, despite much bigger sums and much bigger efforts having been ploughed into it to try and make it a world-wide success than with football.

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

there was no need for that long post neil, you're preaching to the converted. just one aspect of your arguement is nonsense for me. say the review system was flawless (which it's not), if you sat and timed the delays for any calls it would be used for, you'd realise that it wouldn't make a significant difference. you'd barely notice. i did this last night.

your imaginings are probably not how it would work in practice.

Such things have been tried in test games by FIFA, and found to work poorly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A game of cricket is many hours long, even for 20-20 - longer than football. So within those many hours a minute's delay is a much tinier proportion of the whole event than it would be with football.

It's also the case that decisions in cricket are cut and dried, 100% clear in just about everything - someone is either out, or they're not, there's no dispute about that with clear evidence (such as from cameras).

The same is not true for football, where a tackle can be considered by some to be fair, by others a foul but minor, by others a yellow, and by others a red (OK, I know I've stretched that a little, but I'm trying to make the point clear).

So there is no 100% certain decision that can be made for things like that, there is only an opinion. And by having two (at least) different people - the ref on the field and the reviewer - handing down those decisions the consistency of rulings within a game is lost, because it will never be the case that those opinions will match.

People complain now that a ref is slack or overly harsh - but at least you know that's how that ref is, and the game can be played by the players within how that ref works. Once you have two opinions that's out the window, no one really knows where they stand in regard to any decisions outside of the ones that are definitive - the ball crossing any of the lines of the field of play, or offside.

But with offside there can (in half the cases) be no redress even if a decision is reviewed and over-turned - there is no way to give Brum their advantage back, and a penalty can't be awarded because the players have played to the flag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It might be minor, but it still impacts on the spectacle that people have come to see. That alters their enjoyment of what they've come to see. Claiming other than that is what's ridiculous here.

The superbowl does suffer from such things - it's a part of why yank football has not taken off around the world as football has done, despite much bigger sums and much bigger efforts having been ploughed into it to try and make it a world-wide success than with football.

Edited by Benj
Link to comment
Share on other sites

it impacts about as much as a pigeon flying onto the pitch at wembley. the timing would do nothing to affect the people who watch. and people that decided to leave based on that probably aren't that important anyway and are the types who claim to support man utd but only watch 2 games a season.

and 'come to see'? so we're back now talking about the people in the stadium who happily miss 10 minutes of a game for pies and pints?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and what impacts it more, 2-3 minutes of reviews out of 116 minutes, or one handball that ends 2 years worth of matches?

In effect everyone who watched one of the ROI's matches may well have not bothered for the sake of that one incident

Link to comment
Share on other sites

source? if it has been tried and tested, i'd hazard a guess that it's not the timings that's caused it to fail. it's the other points that have been put across.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason they wont do it is the cost, it would cost an absolute bomb to implement it. Plus it would also massively highlight the horrific (/ace) cheating that takes place, which they wouldn't want to do for the image of the sport

Edited by worm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

kinda reminds me of the 'people only go to see their team win' stance.

people go for entertainment. 2 minutes of delay isn't going to have them staying away when they're still getting the same 90 they always have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

If it wasn't for the delays, would you support a review system then?

it depends what you're meaning by a review system.

There's no review system that can be devised that can satisfactorily deal with the Brum 'offside' incident in the CC final, for example. The only way something could work was if players were told to ignore the decisions of refs and linesmen and keep on playing - at which point the whole game becomes an unmanageable farce.

So any review system would have to be limited in its scope by that fact - at which point, for many incidents, you might as well not bother at all.

I've little problem with goal-line technology, because that's a cut & dried thing, where if a goal is scored the play stops anyway, and everything can carry on in the exact same manner as if the goal was spotted by the ref or linesman.

I've little problem with reviews after matches for 'exceptional' incidents - such as the Rooney elbow. I'm not sure that the right way of handling these exists currently where the ref has to say it was an unseen incident - but I do understand exactly why they've taken that view of it, for the consistency that comes from the ref.

I've not even got too much of a problem for reviews for diving, in theory at least. The difficulty there comes from deciding what is actually a dive - the Eduardo thing is a great example for that, because although it looks like a dive there's nothing that can prove for sure that it was. Even if it can proved that there's been no contact that still doesn't prove a dive, because it can be something that was done to avoid a collision.

Outside of that, it ends up changing what happens on the field, and gives no consistency to the play on the field - you have 'bad' sections of play (which can be said to be bits of play that shouldn't have happened) between a decision and a review which over-turns it. To my mind, things work better if fully consistent, even if that consistency is at the expense of the occasional wrong decision (and they are only occasional wrong decisions, whatever some people might like to think with their blinkers on).

The only reason there's a perception of refs getting more wrong nowadays is because we're all now able to have endless reviews ourselves of every incident, because of so many games being filmed and often with quite a number of cameras.

Oh and NFL is amazingly popular globally considering it in not played at any significant level in any nation bar the US and Canada.

It's failing to gain greater popularity to much of an extent, despite the big efforts and money that have been used to try to do that. The same is not true for football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

source? if it has been tried and tested, i'd hazard a guess that it's not the timings that's caused it to fail. it's the other points that have been put across.

the time taken for reviews - in whichever way a review system might operate - is a part of the reasons for the rejections. It changes the game, and football's administrators (in consultation with fans) don't see the benefits of greater accuracy of rulings as being worth the change to the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • In August 2009, in his Spectator blog he wrote about Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour Party, in unflattering terms. Liddle began the article by asking: "So — Harriet Harman, then. Would you? I mean after a few beers obviously, not while you were sober."[27] Tanya Gold wrote in The Guardian that Liddle had delivered a "tissue-thin polemic." Pointing out that it was The Spectator's cover story that week.[28] Rachel Cooke in The Observer nearly two months later recalled finding Liddle's piece "disgusting"[29] Cooke went on to say: "I would still like to do something really unpleasant to the man who wrote [the article]." Liddle said two months later that the Harman column "was supposed to be a parody of guttural, base sexism", a joke he assumed readers would understand. After the negative response from Gold (and then Cooke, among other female journalists) he continued: "And then I suppose I came to the conclusion – gradually – that I must have got it wrong."[30] In June 2014, he said that of those he had offended, Harman was the one person to whom he would apologise.[31] In November 2009, again for The Spectator website, he offered "a quick update on what the Muslim savages are up to," a brief article about the stoning to death of a 20-year-old woman in Somalia after she was accused of adultery, and the similar death of a 13-year-old the year before. He made remarks, considered sarcastic, that read: "Incidentally, many Somalis have come to Britain as immigrants recently, where they are widely admired for their strong work ethic, respect for the law and keen, piercing, intelligence."[32][33] In December 2009, on his Spectator blog, Liddle referred to two black music producers, Brandon Jolie and Kingsley Ogundele, who had plotted to kill Jolie's 15-year-old pregnant girlfriend, as "human filth" and said the incident was not an anomaly. He continued: When he was accused of racism, Liddle said he was instead engaging in a debate about multiculturalism.[35][36] In March 2010 the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) upheld a complaint against Liddle, who became the first journalist to be censured over the contents of a blog, because he had not been able to prove his claim about the crime statistics.[37] After the publication of London crime figures in June 2010, The Sunday Telegraph suggested Liddle was largely right on some of his claims, but that he was probably wrong on his claims about knife crimes and violent sex crimes.[38] In October 2010, Liddle called for the abolition of the Welsh language TV channel S4C as a result of the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review. In his article for The Spectator, he described Welsh nationalists as "miserable, seaweed munching, sheep-bothering pinch-faced hill-tribes".[39] On 23 May 2013, Liddle wrote about the murder of soldier Lee Rigby near the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, London. In the original version of a blog article for The Spectator, he referred to the perpetrators as "two black savages".[40] After many objections to his language use,[41] this phrase was modified.[42] Liddle apologised.[40][43] Giving a speech at Durham University in December 2021, Liddle said: "It is fairly easily proven that colonialism is not remotely the major cause of Africa's problems, just as it is very easy to prove that the educational underachievement of British people of Caribbean descent or African Americans is nothing to do with institutional or structural racism."[44] Independent editor rumour and Millwall supporters' website The Guardian reported on 8 January 2010 that the expected purchase of The Independent by Alexander Lebedev, a Russian billionaire, would be followed by the appointment of Liddle as editor.[45] Roy Greenslade wrote on 11 January that the reports were provoking a "major internal and external revolt" by The Independent's staff and readers.[46] The stories about Liddle's posts on Millwall Online apparently further reduced the likelihood of his being offered the job.[47] Finally, on 19 February, Stephen Brook of The Guardian reported that Liddle was no longer in the running for the post.[48] Tim Luckhurst, professor of journalism at the University of Kent, argued that Liddle's prospects of editing The Independent were nullified "by the people behind a viciously intolerant campaign of liberal bigotry".[49] In January 2010, the press drew attention to allegedly racist and misogynist comments posted under the username "monkeymfc"—a name Liddle has used—on Millwall Online, a fan club web forum with no official connection to Millwall Football Club. Liddle attributed some of the comments to opposition fans logging in under his name to embarrass him. He later said he had written some of the posts that were being criticised, including one in support of the BNP excluding Black and Asian people from the party.[50] Another post, in which he joked about not being able to smoke at Auschwitz,[51] led to his being asked to explain what he meant in The Jewish Chronicle.[47] While he said in June 2014 that his comments were taken out of context, he said that he did not regret making them. "No. Never. Absolutely not. I thought about my mates at Millwall Online, God I respect them so much more than these other people, these ghastly f**king people."[31] Stephen Lawrence, disabled and transgender people In November 2011, an article by Liddle for The Spectator suggested the trial of two men accused (and later convicted) of murdering Stephen Lawrence would not be fair.[52] It was referred to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve by the judge for possible contempt of court,[53] and he ordered the jurors not to read it. Having decided that it might have breached a court order, Grieve passed the case on to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions.[54] The decision that The Spectator was to be prosecuted by the CPS for breaching reporting restrictions was announced on 9 May 2012, with a court hearing scheduled for 7 June, although Liddle as the author was not himself liable for prosecution. Fraser Nelson, the magazine's editor, announced that the prosecution would not be contested,[55] and the magazine pleaded guilty at the hearing. The fine was £3,000, plus £2,000 compensation to Stephen Lawrence's parents and £625 costs.[56] In January 2012, Liddle wrote that many people in the UK were "pretending to be disabled" in his column for The Sun,[57] an opinion defended by James Delingpole.[58] Frances Ryan in The Guardian accused him of "belittling something that on a daily basis affects real people" who can be "a huge benefit to society. Maybe for a month Liddle would like to try that."[59] In May 2015, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) upheld a complaint from Trans Media Watch that Liddle had been discriminatory towards Emily Brothers, a blind and transgender Labour candidate at the 2015 general election, in two Sun columns published in December 2014 and January 2015. In commenting in the way he had Liddle had breached two sections of the editors' code.[60][61] Column on poppers and gay sex During a parliamentary debate on the Psychoactive Substances Bill – which "makes it an offence to produce, supply, offer to supply, possess with intent to supply, possess on custodial premises, import or export psychoactive substances"[65] the Conservative politician Crispin Blunt admitted he used poppers: Liddle responded in his Spectator blog: The satirical and current affairs magazine Private Eye described this as hypocritical, pointing out Liddle's account in The Sunday Times of using Viagra in July 2004.[68][69] A spokesperson from the LGBT rights charity Stonewall said of Liddle's remarks: "Comments like this are shocking and damaging, but we wouldn't expect anything less from repeat offending bigots like Rod Liddle."[70] Column on Muslim voters In October 2019, Liddle penned a column in The Spectator commenting on the forthcoming December 2019 UK general election, which suggested that the election should be held on a Muslim holy day to reduce the Labour vote. The column was criticised by senior political figures including Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid and former Conservative Deputy Prime Minister David Lidington. Liddle defended the content as being humorous. The article also criticised the Labour MP Rosie Duffield's recent speech about her experience of trying to exit an abusive relationship; Duffield described the article as "racist and misogynistic".[74]
    • A true social democrat
    • I thought the same thing I thought when Baresi went which is there sure is a hell of alot of people who don't make the new pension age.
    • 1, The Menzingers- Everything I Ever Saw 2, Quicksand- Bring On The Psychics 3, Radkey- Bedroom Sand  
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...