Football 2010-2011

[ampersand]

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.

[eFestivals]

source? if it is a reason for the rejection, it can only be way way way down the list. it would never be a key factor for it being rejected.

the impact on the game is the main factor. It makes it a different game, and that doesn't come cost-free.

If you're needing a source then all of the many reports of what's been considered and tried in test environments over the years has passed you by. If you want sources to educate yourself about what's been looked into, then you can find them for yourself. But the fact that you're not aware that such things have been looked into is probably why you're thinking it's all so simple and impact free on the game.

(I might have gone searching for you, but my work today has been one major cock-up [and nothing that's directly my fault]. If I'm exceedingly lucky I might get to put everything right by around this time tomorrow and with very little sleep).

[TheGayTent]

Kolo Toure failed a drug test...

[ampersand]

Kolo Toure failed a drug test...

[rexclark]

You saying Simon Mensing isn't a big name? How dare you.

[Benj]

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.

[eFestivals]

Kolo Toure failed a drug test...

the suggestion in the reports I've heard is that it's a fail due to some sort of medication he's taken rather than performance enhancing or recreational.

From some angles I feel a bit sorry for him if that's the case - it must be a nightmare for sports people who come under the testing regimes to navigate themselves around what is OK to take and what isn't, despite the help and advice that's available to them.

From the other side of course those substances are banned for a good reason, and he's a professional sportsman, so he should have known better.

[eFestivals]

They wouldn't need to know a decision had been made

It would be easy, any action in the penno area the lino presses a button as opposed to raising his flag, so the ref knows he thinks its offside, if a goal is scored the offensive side can appeal, if they so choose.

If no call is made but the defenders think its offside, they can appeal.

such a system might be 'easy' to operate (tho I'm not so sure it's as easy as you're presenting it), but it's certainly not consequence-free.

For example, because no flag had been raised to say it was offside (even tho - in the hypothetical I'm working to here - it was offside), a player could attempt to make a last-ditch tackle and injure themselves - creating an unfairness in a different direction by that player being lost to this game (and quite possibly future games) when he shouldn't have been.

I don't feel that removing one unfairness and replacing it with another is any improvement over what we have now, and nor do I think the added inconsistency of there being no immediate ruling on a piece of play is an improvement.

[The Nal]

Stephen Ireland. Got to be the biggest c**t in football surely? What a horrible interview by a horrible person.

"Yet I was the best player in training. It was my team that won in every session".

[Benj]

such a system might be 'easy' to operate (tho I'm not so sure it's as easy as you're presenting it), but it's certainly not consequence-free.

For example, because no flag had been raised to say it was offside (even tho - in the hypothetical I'm working to here - it was offside), a player could attempt to make a last-ditch tackle and injure themselves - creating an unfairness in a different direction by that player being lost to this game (and quite possibly future games) when he shouldn't have been.

[eFestivals]

As opposed to now where the lino doesn't make a call, a player goes on to injure himself and a goal is scored even though the linos ballsed it and its miles offside? You lose the player and a goal?

Its really not a reason not to have it.

I think the Irish would have taken a player being out for a few weeks to actually make the World Cup final too

What we have now is 100% consistency, even if there's errors amongst it.

Every suggestion made here for any type of review system loses that consistency, as well as failing to remove the errors (it addresses some, but not all).

To me, the consistency is of far greater value to the game than the correction of some errors (but not all) and at the price of that consistency would be.

And that's the view of FIFA, UEFA and the FA too.

I think the Irish would have taken a player being out for a few weeks to actually make the World Cup final too

PMSL - but you can't know if they'd have made the world cup!!!

Your presumption is being made on the basis of that one incident being the only wrong call during their entire qualifying campaign - and with the complete ignoral of all reffing errors in the other games in their group.

You're only able to say they'd have reached the finals if the same error correction is applied to every one of those group games. Which of course means that the results of any of those games could have been different to what they were, so there's no way of knowing if Ireland would have been in sniffing distance of getting to the finals.

As the saying goes: these things balance out.

And if they do, then Ireland still don't make the finals.

[worm]

What we have now is 100% consistency, even if there's errors amongst it.

[Benj]

What we have now is 100% consistency, even if there's errors amongst it.

Every suggestion made here for any type of review system loses that consistency, as well as failing to remove the errors (it addresses some, but not all).

[chappiepunk]

Stephen Ireland. Got to be the biggest c**t in football surely? What a horrible interview by a horrible person.

"Yet I was the best player in training. It was my team that won in every session".

Edited March 4, 2011 by chappiepunk

[eFestivals]

Its consistently incosistent. Brilliant

It's not perfect. I've not claimed it's perfect.

If the changes you're advocating were put in place, the error correction within the game still isn't perfect - and there's added imperfections from the inconsistencies of the refereeing of the game.

And the game is more complicated in its rules, which also has an impact onto the game.

As I keep saying, changes don't come cost-free. You're not considering your ideas properly, because you're believing that they are cost-free.

If only one error a game is corrected, it is by definition 'fairer'

You're only able to conclude it's "fairer" because you're ignoring the impacts elsewhere on the game from the changes you're proposing.

As I keep saying, those changes don't come cost-free.

Well you or them then are f**king stupid as the whole problem at the mo is inconsistency, some offside goals are given, some are not, they may as well remove the offside rule if they want consistency!

right, so what you're saying is the game would be better if one set of inconsistencies are removed and replaced by another set of inconsistencies.

I'm sure I don't need to point out to you that such an idea is, by itself, anti-logical.

Delving deeper into the idea, a consideration has to be made as to whether the new set of inconsistencies are an improvement over the current set of inconsistencies - something you've yet to do in what you've expressed here.

Such considerations HAVE been made by the administrators at many levels of the game - and their expert conclusions is that they would not be an improvement, for a miriad of reasons - including that it would change the spectacle from what is currently, and that it becomes impossible for the same game to be played by kids in the park as is played on a professional pitch (and so risking the whole future of the game; the game is not at risk of dying because of the current errors in reffing!).

What has been done in other sports is of little relevance, because those other sports are very different in very many ways.

Indeed, as I say a fair chance, I was using one example, to illustrate a point, which as things stood at that point was the case, obviously history could have been very different if reviews had been in place for that entire qualifying stage, which is my exact point! At the moment things are not as they should be due to the "inconsistency" of officials to make the right calls.

Yet such a system would replace those inconsistencies in decisions made in error with inconsistencies in decisions formally written into the rules!!!

After all, if the game plays on after a valid offside because your idea has been implemented, then that is an error against the rules no different to the ref or linesman making the wrong call.

and if you believe about the whole balancing out then, no more moaning about Berbatov's dive vs Liverpool etc..etc...

I do believe that, in general, things do balance out - in general, but not perfectly. But a system like yours would not be perfect either (see above), lets not forget!!

As for that Berba incident, while I believe it was a dive, how do I know that's how it would be called via a review process? So your system changes nothing in regard to those sorts of things. Someone still has to give their opinion on it - and it will only ever be opinion for incidents like that, because there is no definitive proof.

If a review system was in place for that Berba incident and it had been called as a dive, then for everyone like me that got the decision that felt was right for that, there'd be those who felt it wrong - just as was expressed in this very thread in reponse to my comment that it was a dive by those who felt it wasn't.

And of course, fergie would have had nothing to say about that reviewed decision which had cost his team a penalty and so a goal, eh?

So what we have by your review system is a system that creates no less controversy, but where the game from a rules basis is confused, confusing, and formally inconsistent - while currently it is only inconsistent due to human error, something not formalised or confusing.

[Steve P]

Big game for us tomorrow, win it and we really put some pressure on United ahead of their game on Sunday. Time for Bendtner to show he's got the talent his ego says he's got.

[Benj]

It's not perfect. I've not claimed it's perfect.

If the changes you're advocating were put in place, the error correction within the game still isn't perfect - and there's added imperfections from the inconsistencies of the refereeing of the game.

And the game is more complicated in its rules, which also has an impact onto the game.

As I keep saying, changes don't come cost-free. You're not considering your ideas properly, because you're believing that they are cost-free.

Edited March 4, 2011 by Benj

[eFestivals]

What inconsistencies are being introduced>

that a part of the game is played to decisions which are over-turned after review.

That there is not one person making the decisions via their opinion (because most calls are opinion, and not black and white), but two - who cannot be working on the exact same basis (in the exact same way as refs differ in opinion and how they then make decisions from their own opinion right now).

Decisions should be more consistent due to the fact that they do not have to me made in a split second by one running individual, with just one view point

nope, within any game, the decisions will be less consistent and not more consistent - because there's (at least) two individuals (the ref on the field and the reviewer off the field) making the decisions, but without any consultation between them about those decisions.

The kid answer is a massive cop out, for many reasons.

it's not, not at all.

Kids want to imitate their heroes on the field by playing the same game. A review system of any kind means they can't.

Considerations have perhaps been made, no proper systems have been proposed or trialed though

factually incorrect.

FIFA have formally asked for and got proposals, from which systems have been tested to see the effects on to a game.

There's also been a large number of informal tests of ideas, both directly with FIFA and outside of that.

They are also similar in many ways, I understand that a system in one sport may not be suitable for another but its no reason to discount all review processes.

I'm not discounting anything just because it's a review system. I'm discounting them on what they achieve in both a positive manner on the game as well as a negative manner on the game.

erm...The rules would be rewritten, as they were with the back pass rule and the changes to the offside rule, the introduction of yellow cards, players having to go the pitch after an injury etc...etc...etc...

It's worth remembering that all four of these reasonably recent rules were introduced to speed up the game and not slow it down as any review system would do!!

The point is they have far more evidence and time to make their decision than the ref. A system that has without doubt been beneficial to other sports with much success.

yes, I get that. In theory I've no objections at all against anything that makes the decisions more evidence-based and accurate.

As I keep saying, there's an opposite side to these things too - they don't only have those good effects.

You'd need to be retarded to not understand the system,

right, so anyone that doesn't grasp every single technical rule of rugby is retarded, are they?

The simple fact is that a person cannot sit and watch a rugby match and simply from watching grasp what the rules are.

Outside of the offside rule, the same CAN and DOES happen for football.

it would be far less complex than the offside system that it would help support.

Whoaaaa! It's an extra layer of complexity onto that very offside rule!!! It doesn't make things simpler, it makes things even more complicated.

The system would reduce human error that currently makes things so inconsistent. If you want to reduce the inconsistency, reduce the amount of possible human error that you say makes it. Its really very simple

As I keep pointing out and you and others keep ignoring, the system which you're proposing to reduce inconsistencies introduces new inconsistencies of its own.

[Benj]

that a part of the game is played to decisions which are over-turned after review.

[TheGayTent]

Birmingham charged by FA over pitch invasion

[eFestivals]

That is not an inconsistency

yes, it is.

Currently we have a system where a ref makes a decision (perhaps a wrong decision, but a decision all the same), and all of the game is played consistently from and with his decisions.

Using the review system that worm has been going on about, the ref makes a decision and the play continues consistent with that decision, and then sometime later the reviewed decision is handed down, and play then happens that's consistent with that reviewed decision but not consistent with the ref's decision or the play that happened between his decision and the review decision.

Indeed, the two decisions may well be inconsistent, which is the whole reason for reviews!

that's fine for those decisions which are black and white (such as "did the ball cross an out-of-play line?", or "was it offside?" - tho only half the offsides can be properly addressed by any review system).

It becomes somewhat stupid for the grey areas (such as the ferocity [or not] of a tackle) where those two opinions might differ.

There is no reason why the ref can not pass his opinion on to the person making the review, much like 'assistent referees' opinions are now referred to far more by refs

if the ref does, then that introduces further delays into the game.

It's also contrary to the system worm advocated - which gets to show that even those people who think that reviews in-play are a good idea can't agree over what exactly are the good ideas and bad ideas.

Utter bullshit. Kids in teh park don't have a ref, they don't even have goal posts!!

Yet it takes the kids game in a park further away from the game on TV than it is now.

You're dismissing the simplicity of today's game as being meaningless - it's not.

Didn't stop kids playing american football in the park I visited in New Jersey last weekend.

yet you see far fewer kids in parks in the USA playing yank football than you do kids in parks in the UK playing footie. That's certainly my own experience of several months spent in the USA.

So not properly proposed or trialed like I said.

No, not like you've said. They HAVE been properly proposed and trialed in some instances.

As yet, there's not even a good working system for goal-line technology - which is why FIFA have so far rejected the formal proposals for it.

Fair point, from my point of view though, given that time spent at a football match lasts on average longer than 110 minutes (inc half time), I do not think that reviews will affect that by more 1-2%

but it's still contrary to the recent-ish introduction of rules designed to speed up the game rather than slow it down.

And - it's worth noting - football has become hugely more popular since those speeding-up-the-game rules have been introduced.

No but those who don't understand the review system are

first off you'd have to make a clear definition of what that review system is, and how it would work for every possible incident that can happen within a game - I've already pointed out that offsides can't be fully and properly addressed, and while brief outlines of how things might work with a review system for that (which still don't properly address it, all the same) have been given by you and worm, they've been far from complete and clear - so if I'm retarded for not understanding what you've said, then you're far more retarded for advocating a system that you can't clearly explain for all possibilities.

How does it make it more complicated? If anything it will help to explain the rule, as it will highlight how decisions are made.

because it's not a single decision for what is offside, but two separate decisions - one for what is played on the piiutch, and then another handed down after review.

Things don't get less complicated and clearer than a single clear decision!!

And nobody has any difficulty in grasping that human error can occur in such marginal calls.

Thats certainly a point I disagree on, you say yourself the reason for inconsistencies are human error, reviews lessen the impact this can have

It lessens the impact of human error, yes - but at the price of consistency. That's something which cannot be got away from.

Edited March 4, 2011 by eFestivals

[Steve P]

Birmingham charged by FA over pitch invasion

[Benj]

yes, it is.

Currently we have a system where a ref makes a decision (perhaps a wrong decision, but a decision all the same), and all of the game is played consistently from and with his decisions.

Using the review system that worm has been going on about, the ref makes a decision and the play continues consistent with that decision, and then sometime later the reviewed decision is handed down, and play then happens that's consistent with that reviewed decision but not consistent with the ref's decision or the play that happened between his decision and the review decision.

[eFestivals]

They may well differ, even following the viewing of the review footage, I do not see that as a problem though as I do not care who makes the decision, as long as they are best qualified to do so. You can let the ref on the field view it if you want though (as happens in NFL), if that's one of your concerns, I really do not think it matters though.

but if two qualified refs have different opinions over an incident (which they often do), then who knows which of them is the best qualified to make that decision??!!

The ambiguity over decisions for football is something that many other sports that use review systems don't have, or at least not to the same extent. And that's a part of why football is less well suited to a review system than other sports are.

You see loads chucking a ball about, few playing an actual game, Im genuinely hoping you're not suggesting this is down to them not having video reviews though as opposed to a myriad of other reasons

video reviews is no doubt a part of it. But the main reason why there's fewer casual games is because casual games for yank football are more difficult, because its rules are more complex.

As I've been pointing out right thru this discussion, the current simplicity of football is a big part of its success. So if you interfere with its simplicity, there's a risk that you also interfere with its success.

I realise that the only proof for whether that happens or not is by going down the route of making it more complex and seeing what happens - but what happens is not going to be instantly clear, and if it does have a negative impact, reversing out of a reviewing system might be too late to reverse a downturn.

Why 'fix' something that's not really broken? It's not like there's a massive worldwide call for review systems to be introduced - it's only when particularly bad examples of human error within reffing (such as France/Ireland) that there's an outcry, but even then only by some.

When and where?

the goal line technology stuff has been officially tested by FIFA in the last couple of years or so - there were two different systems put to FIFA to try, and they found both unsatisfactory, because they either had their own inaccuracies or were too slow to indicate (I can't remember the exact details now, but I think one was one of those, and the other the other).

Other stuff has been tried on a more casual basis as people have come up with ideas - and the conclusions have been that they create as many new problems as they solve, while making the game more complex.

I heard this AM that all proposed systems have been rejected for trial as they can not return a result within a second, Im sure we could wait 5-10.

They've been tested by FIFA to have been rejected for further trials (that's what I'm referring to above).

While you don't want to think of such delays as important, football's administrators do - as I've been saying right thru this discussion. They place a lot of weight behind the idea of football being a fast moving game (which is why recentish rule changes have been made to speed up the game), and I agree with that - if you add extra delays, you change the game for both players and spectators. If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

People can grasp it but many seem to have a problem with it, which is the reason for reviews, to get it right, so the best team wins, not the one with the most decisions that go their way. If you're happy with this, so be it, Im not bothered myself, I can clearly see that reviews will make the game more fair though.

I can see that accurate decisions will make the game more fair - but I can also see that it changes the game from what it is now.

That change to the game is not something to be dismissed lightly - as worm has done.

I still don't get this obsession!

Perhaps if you hunt around on YouTube, you might manage to find Steve Claridge's rant about the effects such systems would have on the game (I can't remember what programme it was from, but it was within the last year I think). He raises all the right points quite succinctly, and you might get a better grasp of what I'm going on about from him than you would from me.

worm has said he thinks the objections are simply from tradition. They're not, they're solidly based in the impact they'd have on the game, along with the fact that it's impossible to work such things for everything that happens on a football field - in trying to make the decisions 'fair', unfairness is introduced elsewhere.

Edited March 4, 2011 by eFestivals

[Benj]

but if two qualified refs have different opinions over an incident (which they often do), then who knows which of them is the best qualified to make that decision??!!

Edited March 4, 2011 by Benj