Football 2010-2011

[ampersand]

Football would end up as slow as yank football if it had a similar reffing system.

Baseball and cricket are slow sports, yep - which is a big part of why they don't interest many.

And the rules of basketball have less room for dispute than football has. You've either travelled, or you haven't - etc, etc.

[eFestivals]

There's a big difference between a bad foul and Rooney's actions on the weekend. You're right in that you can not prove them all, its no excuse not to take action on the ones that you can though.

Can you prove Rooney's actions were deliberate? No you can't. So there's no action that can be taken that makes things less in dispute than they are at this moment.

Oh, hang on .... worm can sort it out, with his telepathy.

[worm]

Exactly

[Tugger2k]

In theory I agree with that, but in the vast majority of such instances there's no clear way such things can be called. 'Dives' can be avoiding action, and 'foul play' can be just poor play.

[worm]

a watch of any football match, and then a watch of any yank football match.

[eFestivals]

I can't think of an occasion where that could not be identified in a replay

You what?

Every game is full of instances where something can be disputed as a foul or not, as dangerous play or not, as violent play or not. Or as a dive or not.

What you're doing here is thinking that your opinion of such instances is beyond dispute, yet someone with the opposite opinion proves you wrong.

UEFA having to back down over Eduardo shows just how difficult it is to call something beyond all doubt.

[worm]

Can you prove Rooney's actions were deliberate? No you can't. So there's no action that can be taken that makes things less in dispute than they are at this moment.

Edited March 1, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

Comparisons suggest otherwise, as I have already made clear. The NFL is barely affected by video review in terms of delay and is massively affected in terms of fairness.

it's "barely affected" because it's all stop/start anyway. It makes rugby look dynamic.

[Benj]

Can you prove Rooney's actions were deliberate? No you can't. So there's no action that can be taken that makes things less in dispute than they are at this moment.

Oh, hang on .... worm can sort it out, with his telepathy.

[worm]

Would such a thing come without side effects for football? No it wouldn't.

[ralph250]

thats the one - outrageous, and technically correct as he was inactive in the 1st phase of play

he's off side, and thats that

[worm]

it's "barely affected" because it's all stop/start anyway.

[TheGayTent]

Indeed, no one seems to complain about reviews in any other sport (although to be fair they are more stop start already in nature)

People either need to stop moaning about refs making mistakes, players diving and their teams being robbed, or get behind a move to introduce reviews, whatever format they may take.

[eFestivals]

Proof?

as you seem to be having some major brain numbness, try it this way....

How long is the timed play in yank footie?

And how long does a match take to play?

There a reason for this, and that reason is replays. The same time difference doesn't exist in junior not-filmed/not-reviewed games.

[Tugger2k]

Aye, thing is with the rule as it currently stands what's not say there won't be a development of forwards, say Rooney or Van Persie goalhanging 12 yards out when the opposition are in possession, and playing the percentages that more often than not you'll win the ball back, and when you do Fabregas/Scholes can play a ball over the top for Walcott/Nani to do the left back for pace. simple cross for tap in.

How do you defend it short of playing a much deeper defensive line, but then you'll have huge space between your defence & midfield lines, which teams breaking on the counter will be able to exploit unless the midfield also plays deeper/doesn't overcommit.

[eFestivals]

That simply isn't true. It's barely affected because it doesn't take that long and isn't used very often because the players have stopped cheating due to the threat of replay evidence.

How long is the timed play in yank footie?

And how long does a match take to play?

There a reason for this, and that reason is replays. The same time difference doesn't exist in junior not-filmed/not-reviewed games.

[Benj]

You what?

Every game is full of instances where something can be disputed as a foul or not, as dangerous play or not, as violent play or not. Or as a dive or not.

What you're doing here is thinking that your opinion of such instances is beyond dispute, yet someone with the opposite opinion proves you wrong.

UEFA having to back down over Eduardo shows just how difficult it is to call something beyond all doubt.

[eFestivals]

Why is any elbowing a sending off then?

yet it's not, is it?

A deliberate elbowing is - but that takes sopmeone to give an opinion on what is deliberate. Because it's an opinion, it's not an indisputable call.

You have to base it on the evidence you have. On first viewing the Rooney contact did not look to bad, on video replay, I'd say he deffo deserves a punishment.

I'd say it looks bad, but it also looks like action to avoid a full body collision - it could be either.

If I had to make the call on it I'd say deliberate, but I'd also know I couldn't be sure.

[TheGayTent]

How long is the timed play in yank footie?

And how long does a match take to play?

There a reason for this, and that reason is replays. The same time difference doesn't exist in junior not-filmed/not-reviewed games.

[Benj]

You are joking? The DRS system in cricket has been discussed for a million man hours and still can't be agreed on. Plus the end result? Wrong decisions are still made.

It doesn't work 100% in cricket for a start. Secondly, two of the three disiciplines played at international level are hugely longer in format than a 90 minute football match. Which already have plenty of stoppages to make another stop for a DRS decision hardly noticeable. The same does not apply to football.

[eFestivals]

No, I was address your specific point about someone jumping out the way of a challenge. I can not think of one occasion where some pussy has had to jump out the way of a challenge that has looked like a dive.

I can thing of many where a pussy has pussied out of a tackle (yes Im looking at you Johnny Heitinga) but not one where I can say that someone who has been accused of diving when in reality they were just being a massive pussy.

You what?

It happens a number of times every weekend - a player is going for the ball, the goalie is going for the ball. The goalie gets there just ahead of the player, and the player takes avoiding action and ends up on the floor.

The player is often accused of diving by the opposition, and tries to indicate that he was merely avoiding (or trying to) the goalie. If the players on the pitch a few feet from the incident can't agree, who can?

They had to back down over the Eduardo thing as they realised what the consequences of their actions would be. You can not suddenly ban a player for doing something week in week out, without then doing it every single week, they would have kicked off exactly what Im advocating now. The pussied out on that one and the reason was not that they were unsure of if he dived or not.

No, they had to back down because they couldn't prove it was a dive, and for no other reason. There was nothing which showed no contact, and there was something to suggest contact.

They could have said that what suggested contact didn't suggest it enough of course - but that would have been saying someone was guilty without the evidence to back it up, without it being "beyond reasonable doubt".

[Benj]

yet it's not, is it?

A deliberate elbowing is - but that takes sopmeone to give an opinion on what is deliberate. Because it's an opinion, it's not an indisputable call.

[TheGayTent]

All but the set in their way purists agree that it is good.

The only time I can remember it not working of late was when Bell (I think) touched the ball and was caught behind in this ashes series and the hot spot did not show the touch as it was so slight.

The snickometer available to commentators but not the umpires, did show (hear) the touch, proving that further technology should be used!!

If you count the number of appealed decisions reversed in cricket, compared to technology errors, you know what side is going to win on whether its made the game fairer or not

The debate about stopping the game in football is one that I agree with you on, at least in what on and how often appeals can be made

[eFestivals]

I agree with the general point being made - however the reasons for the difference between time played and duration of a game is not solely due to replays.

oh I know - but it does add to it, as shown by the time differences with not-filmed matches.

And of course, because the game stops for other reasons all the time, the reviewing is often within those stops-for-other-reasons - something which isn't there with footie. It's far from unusual for TV to not be able to show a replay of an incident because they're having to keep showing the action that's still going on.

[eFestivals]

Arggghhhh!! Exactly my point. Someone has to make the decision, give that person the most information possible to make it!

If they then feel that there is not enough proof it is intentional, then fine.

Looking at the Rooney vidoes I'd ban him, it looks blatant as hell, you don;'t do that to make a collision less bad.

As I've said, to me Rooney looks deliberate, but I can't be sure.

It's certainly the case that he'd have run square into the player at speed if he'd not taken avoiding action.

And because he'd have hit him square-on, and because he was at speed, his avoidance needed some sort of counter-balance for him to avoid hitting him - and that counter-balance was his arm.

It's quite possible that what looked like an elbow square to the face was actually Rooney trying to get his arm/elbow in front of the player to miss him with it, but that there wasn't the space to avoid hitting him. It's a possibility, and one that I don't think can be disproven.

Edited March 1, 2011 by eFestivals