Football 2010-2011

[worm]

the play doesn't have to stop for a review in that manner. But the play has to be wiped and re-started for any successful review.

[Benj]

I don't think that statement is strictly true. My 'rationale' was and is that having breaks in football to wait for a 4th(5th/6th whatever) official check some kind of technology would slow the game down. Which it would. Just as it has in every other sport it is used in.

Secondly, and very importantly, there isn't a system that is 100% fail safe. There isn't even one that is 80% fail safe. You could have a situation where you break play to get evidence from technology, only for that technology to be inconclusive. So you have stopped the flow of the game for absolutely no reason. This has and does happen in every other sport that uses any kind of referral system. We've seen it in rugby where a referee asks whether a ball has been grounded properly when a try is scored (or not). We've seen it in cricket where hot spot is inconclusive regarding whether bat has touched ball, or a ball has touched the ground in a catch scenario.

Unless you're in the very strange camp that enjoys waiting and watching a big screen, over watching live sport, your proposal is a shit one. One that makes the spectacle of watching a football match a worse one.

[worm]

I don't think that statement is strictly true. My 'rationale' was and is that having breaks in football to wait for a 4th(5th/6th whatever) official check some kind of technology would slow the game down. Which it would. Just as it has in every other sport it is used in.

Edited March 1, 2011 by worm

[Benj]

2. that creates more problems than it solves. A perfectly good goal (which is nothing to do with what's under review) could be scored before a call is made on that review.

[TheGayTent]

There were mongs back then calling for a whole match to be replayed because of it!

[TheGayTent]

For the nth time, you don't have to. You assess it while play is ongoing. When a decision is made, it is applied when the play stops again.

For example, a dodgy goal that was originally given is reviewed when the manager calls for one. In the meantime, play continues at 1-0. During such time a decision is made that it was not a goal. It flashes on the screen and is co-ordinated to the ref. At the end of the play (like when a team kicks it out of play) the ref takes the goal off.

Zero stoppage. Zero damage to the game. Uber fairness realised.

Edited March 1, 2011 by TheGayTent

[worm]

1. there are, but are too short for reviews. So they'd be longer stoppages - it's not unchanged as you're suggesting.

Edited March 1, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

It stands. You don't have to stop the play. You address it once the play has stopped. The opposing team would probably kick it out once it comes up on screen so that the ref can apply it.

So, a good goal can be scored in a bit of the game that doesn't exist because play has been recalled to something prior to the scoring of that goal? PMSL.

And who decides if the goal is good? If that team got the ball to score that goal because of a wrong call that was reviewed and over-turned then it'sa not a good goal, yet everything about it was good.

Yeah, it sounds a great system, completely fair, uncomplicated, smooth running, trouble free. ;lol:

Or it's a far bigger joke than any error any ref ever makes on the pitch nowadays.

Rubbish. They only have two referrals. They'd only ever use it on a big call.

which means that your system doesn't address the errors that you say it's there to address, does it?

Your rationale for this system is to create perfection. What it does in reality is create greater imperfection by the use of different standards dependant on what's happened in the game previous to any incident.

Absolute rubbish. It's a piece of piss. This is a multi-million pound industry.

What is rubbish here is your idea. It's the idea of someone who doesn't get football.

And if it's such a piece of piss, why are you not able to offer solutions for the BIG holes that people keep pointing out in your idea? With you being so clever in your own mind, if you can't come up with the solutions then no one else can.

hat you're really doing here is demonstrating just how dumb you are, by believing it's "a piece of piss".

[TheGayTent]

How do you suggest your proposal works at Championship level? Or League 2? Or Blue Square South Division?

It's a crap suggestion that would make the game worse - and indeed wouldn't work in practise anyway.

[worm]

That is never ever going to happen. If the referee gives a goal, the team who score celebrate and the team that have conceded have to go back to the centre circle and kick off. In practise what would happen is both sides would delay restarting the game until the 4th official has given his decision.

[TheGayTent]

You don't need a big screen, it's just that it's a good way of using it. It's superfluous, but people often see the replays on them, which confounds poor decisions.

[ampersand]

Play continues and the goal would stand.

A review is made while play is ongoing. Whatever happens during the review period stands. Unless of course someone has an issue with an instance during that play.

[worm]

So, a good goal can be scored in a bit of the game that doesn't exist because play has been recalled to something prior to the scoring of that goal?

[worm]

so team1 argue a penalty decision. team2 scores and keep their goal whilst team1 then take a penalty that was awarded after review to try and equalise?

[worm]

Not true. Not sure on other leagues but in the top flight clubs aren't allowed to show replays of contentious incidents.

[eFestivals]

Again good points, if I check back (never would in 100 years) to the Henry hand ball discussion on here and see more than a shrug of the shoulders from you, then you're a bad hypocrite as is Neil and everyone else discounting it as a way to perhaps improve the game.

There were mongs back then calling for a whole match to be replayed because of it!

the biggest rules moan I can remember having was during the world cup and that handball off the line by Betty Suarez.

But while my point there was that the punishment didn't fit (was too little for) the crime for that instance, I recognised that there wasn't really any realistic alternative to the rules as applied in that case.

Much like some people are calling for here, the only way it could be dealt with would be for some official to make a subjective opinion on whether a 'real' goal had been denied by foul play, and to award a goal on that basis.

But when rules start to stray into the subjective to that extent they cease to be rules, and start to be opinion-based shifting rules which it's not possible for anyone to know how to work within them - they're just as flawed as the errors that refs might make anyway, and no actual improvement is made to the rules of the game or how it's played out.

amusingly, at that time, worm argued against my dislike of what happened in that Betty incident - which just goes to prove that he'll adopt whatever position he thinks will get him the best argument.

[worm]

How do you suggest your proposal works at Championship level? Or League 2? Or Blue Square South Division?

[ampersand]

Give me an instance as this isn't clear.

[Benj]

but that's ridiculous as tgt says. as play can start from one of two places depending on the outcome of the appeal.

so team1 argue a penalty decision. team2 scores and keep their goal whilst team1 then take a penalty that was awarded after review to try and equalise?

[eFestivals]

2-0! Woo hoo

Its a fair point, one again that rules could be built around. Oppo scores tough shit, its 1-1 (if your review is successful). You score, you get your review back.

yep - rules could be built around it.

But you'd just end up with a complete mess of rules that would be far more difficult to understand and apply than what we have currently, and that "tough shit" is no less unfair than the rules that would be changed from that then brought about that "tough shit" situation.

Nothing is improved if in dealing with one unfairness another unfairness is caused elsewhere, is it?

A big part of the appeal of football is its simplicity - this factor is hugely recognised, and credited for its massive penetration around the world (which no other sport has managed to do to even half the extent). It seems that this recognition is everywhere but with some posters here.

[ampersand]

You can't say it wouldn't be exciting!

And would the team rather have a penno to try to equalise, or simply be a goal down having had a shit decision against them?

[Benj]

the biggest rules moan I can remember having was during the world cup and that handball off the line by Betty Suarez...

[eFestivals]

You clearly watch too much rugby for girls and are influenced by it.

he does - but only on TV. If he'd experienced it for real he might have a different opinion.

But, don't cha know, you can become an expert on every stupid yank idea by watching it on TV.

[worm]

exactly. because it's ludicrous.

if you're asking me for an example where it's happened before, it hasn't. because it makes no sense for a team who should have had an advantage to go 1-0 down. but then be given that advantage only to find that they're a goal down.

you simply can't have reviews in play. a 30 second or less review when play has stopped i don't see a problem with. but in play is a complete joke.

Edited March 1, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

Not true. Not sure on other leagues but in the top flight clubs aren't allowed to show replays of contentious incidents.

Surely you're wrong?

After all, he's from "the hotbed of football", so must be at the stadium of lightweights every week and know that what you're saying is completely wrong.

Or perhaps he's never been to a game. Just a thought.