Football 2010-2011

[Tugger2k]

So...before DRS wrong decisions were given...after DRS wrong decisions are given...so why bother...?

[Benj]

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?

Edited March 1, 2011 by Benj

[Benj]

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 that be disproven.

[Tugger2k]

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 that be disproven.

[TheGayTent]

A lot less though,

[worm]

How long is the timed play in yank footie?

And how long does a match take to play?

Edited March 1, 2011 by worm

[Tugger2k]

Again Agreed. Though the two sports are so different just because it works (to an extent) in cricket doesn't mean it will in football (and it wouldn't - it's simply not practical).

[Benj]

People agree that the idea is good but it still doesn't work properly. It doesn't work for various reasons - including the fact that you still get wrong decisions given due to a team running out of appeals. You should be able to appeal everytime. But that doesn't work because everyone believes if you do that, they'd be too many appeals that would ruin the spectacle...

Plus of course, as you point out snicko isn't available. It isn't used because snicko requires 5 mins to work. They don't want to stop the game for 5 mins to wait for a decision...

So...before DRS wrong decisions were given...after DRS wrong decisions are given...so why bother...?

[worm]

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.

Edited March 1, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

Totally irrelevant.

The facts are that the game hardly ever stops and when it does it isn't for very long.

:lol,: PMSL - if you're going to be making up your own idiot facts out of nothing then you have nothing worthwhile to say.

There's more stoppage than there is game. That's the real fact.

[Tugger2k]

Fair enough, you can argue over the details but in the main the technology has made the game 'fairer' and I'd almost go as far to say a bit more involving/ exciting for the spectators as they are almost able to judge the decisions themselves.

Re- Snicko taking 5 minutes, Im sure this can and will be brought forward and hopefully then used once it is.

[Benj]

:lol,: PMSL - if you're going to be making up your own idiot facts out of nothing then you have nothing worthwhile to say.

There's more stoppage than there is game. That's the real fact.

[worm]

There's more stoppage than there is game. That's the real fact.

Edited March 1, 2011 by worm

[TheGayTent]

agreed - its apples and oranges

im fundamentally against the sort of review system during the game - it would stop the game too much. but have no issue with retro-active punishment from a panel of experts

i just want to see something, anything, that will reduce some of the blatant cheating that occurs every week in football

[worm]

Have been saying for years, diving should be punished with a red card. As should trying to influence the ref to book an opposing player. As should crowding the ref and talking back after a decision - like Man Utd used to do week in week out when Keane was playing.

Would cause controversy when first introduced but players would soon learn not to dive and not to question a refereeing decision.

[TheGayTent]

You refer to the original decision if there is still ambiguity - spot on.

[Tugger2k]

Have been saying for years, diving should be punished with a red card. As should trying to influence the ref to book an opposing player. As should crowding the ref and talking back after a decision - like Man Utd used to do week in week out when Keane was playing.

Would cause controversy when first introduced but players would soon learn not to dive and not to question a refereeing decision.

[worm]

Which is bonkers. Waste five minutes only to decide to go with whatever decision the ref would have made in the first place.

[TheGayTent]

It wouldn't alter the abject favouritism though.

[strummer77]

Actually, CBA with the fan debate.

Pointless one anyway

Edited March 1, 2011 by strummer77

[ampersand]

i've missed nearly 3 pages worth over lunch.

i'm going duncan bannatyne on this.

[Benj]

Which is bonkers. Waste five minutes only to decide to go with whatever decision the ref would have made in the first place.

[TheGayTent]

Hardly. You lose a referal. An excellent system.

Edited March 1, 2011 by TheGayTent

[eFestivals]

Think of Ireland asking for a video review of France's goal during the world cup qualifier. It would take a couple of minutes before re-starting play.

correct.

But it would also mean lots of other stoppages during the game too, so that other incidents could be looked at - because there would be other incidents.

And so it's not how you're choosing to present it. It's not just about "a couple of minutes", it's about the tens of minutes that would impact on the game and make the game something very different to what it is currently.

It's a common view (and one that I agree with) that it's the speed and flow of the game which gives football its appeal. Anything which impacts on that speed and flow also impacts onto the whole success of football.

[TheGayTent]

Fair enough, no moaning though when on the last day of the season Gordon claws back a ball that has crossed the line and a goal is not given and West Ham are relegated whilst Sunderland clinch a Chumps League spot!