Football 2010-2011

[eFestivals]

What are you on about? They judge in exactly the same way. The only change is a managerial option to refer.

In a changed world, everything changes. It's called the law of unintended consequences.

The only change is a managerial option to refer.

PMSL - make your f**king mind up. One minute you've said that it's the ref who refers stuff, and now you're saying it's the manager.

So which is it? Pick one, and stick to it.

Oh, do f**k off with your attempts to undermine. Apply this knowledge if you have it. What are you saying here? What's your point?

my point is that you're saying nothing changed with other sports, when you weren't around to see if they did change.

It's very definitely changed tennis.

I don't watch much rugby, but I've still seen the change there.

I don't watch much cricket, and I've seen the change there.

You're too young to have seen the change in tennis; you're too young to have seen the change in yank football. So how do you know? Are you as professor in sports field management systems now too?

Rubbish! It would be free flowing.

apart from when something was referred, then it wouldn't.

Or, if the game carries on while a referral is looked at, then you get weird "non" situations where what's happened on the field is different to the decision that's retrospectively handed out, which is so f**ked up as a way to have game of sport it's laughable.

[eFestivals]

Is it f**k. It's an improvement to a system, by allowing an option to review major errors, thus keeping them from standing.

You clearly have zero knowledge of these systems from other sports. This lacking is so very, very obvious.

Do please tell me which part of your idea being "an agreement to allow some errors thru" is factually incorrect.

I have knowledge of them, which is precisely why I understand why they'd be so bad for football. But me and the world's football administrators know nothing, eh?

[Benj]

yeah, because they very definitely wouldn't be disputing every decision rather than just a few to try and get every decision against them ovewrturned thru the review system, eh? And you wouldn't have the team that any review went against then complain about that decision in the same way?

[worm]

Neil, you don't understand what a referral system is - plain and simple.

[worm]

I have knowledge of them, which is precisely why I understand why they'd be so bad for football.

[worm]

In a changed world, everything changes. It's called the law of unintended consequences.

[worm]

No they wouldn't, as they can only dispute certain things and they wouldn't want to waste their calls on shit anyway

I'm with worm here you just dont seem to get how it works

Edited March 2, 2011 by worm

[Benj]

Gah double post

Edited March 2, 2011 by Benj

[eFestivals]

No Neil, you don't have knowledge of them which is why you understand they'd be bad for the game.

You keep proving that you don't understand how that kind of system works.

I know how such systems work.

I know that much of what you've said isn't how such systems work - you're not even consistent in what you're saying. One minute it's the ref that refers something, the next it's the manager. Which is it?

And I also understand that you're making false claims about such systems - by saying they've changed nothing within games. That's simply not true. Eg: in cricket they've changed decisions from being solely the umpire's decision to the umpire deferring decisions to the review system - AND added an extra delay in an already very slow sport.

Fort me not to be laughing at your suggestions you need to make one suggestion and stick to it, rather than keep moving the goalposts every time I point out a flaw. Moving goalposts would be fine if it removed the flaws, but each change you make to your idea introduces flaws elsewhere - and you keep pretending that there's no flaws anywhere.

I've not said anywhere that a system of review can't work.

What I have said is that it will change the game, slow down the game, make the rules of the game more complicated (when the simplicity of football is a part of its mass appeal), and won't fully address the errors it's brought in to address - these are all indisputably true from what you've suggested.

[eFestivals]

Not least of all because it's a literal impossibility for a referee to refer a decision.

Cricket has just exploded in a puff of smoke.

In cricket, the umpire refers a decision for review.

It would help if you knew what you were talking about.

Answer the f**king question: what has changed in the decision making of these referees as a consequence of a referral-based review system in each respective sport?

A ref's sole control of the decision making processes for a game.

You'd have what would be known as a 'referral period' in which play continues according to the ref's original decision. Exactly the same as a f**king normal game. The only difference being that at the end of it, rather than never, a referee's incorrect decision can be reversed.

so your system which is designed to remove errors doesn't remove the errors, does it?

It might lessen them, but it doesn't remove them.

And within the bit of play between referral and decision, further things can happen - yet can't necessarily be ruled on, because of the reversed decision.

Really straight-forward. Zero stoppage.

Not true. Time is required for the ref to take on board the reviewed decision, and for the changed decision to be implemented. It might only be a 2 second delay - but it is an extra delay.

Just about every claim you've made for such systems is factually incorrect. You're crediting such a system with perfection, and ignoring that such a system causes effects of its own.

-----------

Added to all of that, for all of the more major incidents in recent games I can think of, such a system either can't work properly, or the decision is one based on opinion and not fact - so we might as well stick wioth a ref'[s decision.

Rooney's elbow? : that's opinion and not fact as to whether it was deliberate violent conduct.

Brum's 'offside' attack in the first minute or so of the CC final?: the moment the linesman raises his flag, the players play to that flag (after all, you've said the ref has the same control of the game). So there's nothing within your suggestions that can give Brum back their attack, and because the players have played to the flag a penalty can't be given (because they've reacted to that flag and not what's happened on the field).

I could go on, but it would be pointless. You'll either change what you say yet again to try and make those 'disappear' and again ignore the side-effects of whatever new method you come up with, or say they don't play to the flag (in which case the game is changed, the ref doesn't have control on the field, etc).

If and when you come up with something sensible and consistent and are prepared to admit that such changes have their own side effects then there's a reasonable discussion to be had. All the while you bury your head in the sand all you get to see is dirt.

[ampersand]

last night whittaker was sent off for rangers. it was about 4 minutes before play restarted. and then the ref added on two minutes

[worm]

I know how such systems work.

I know that much of what you've said isn't how such systems work - you're not even consistent in what you're saying. One minute it's the ref that refers something, the next it's the manager. Which is it?

[worm]

Not true. Time is required for the ref to take on board the reviewed decision, and for the changed decision to be implemented. It might only be a 2 second delay - but it is an extra delay.

Edited March 3, 2011 by worm

[ampersand]

What is the point to this other than pointless semantic bullshit?

What's your problem with a two second delay that's occuring when play has stopped anyway? You aren't being in the least bit sincere, you're just attempting to win a lost argument.

[worm]

And I also understand that you're making false claims about such systems - by saying they've changed nothing within games. That's simply not true. Eg: in cricket they've changed decisions from being solely the umpire's decision to the umpire deferring decisions to the review system - AND added an extra delay in an already very slow sport.

Edited March 3, 2011 by worm

[worm]

last night whittaker was sent off for rangers. it was about 4 minutes before play restarted. and then the ref added on two minutes

Edited March 3, 2011 by worm

[Benj]

In cricket, the umpire refers a decision for review.

It would help if you knew what you were talking about.

[Benj]

i'm not getting neil's free flowing angle. yes it's more free flowing than most sports, but christ it's not as if there's never a stop in play. look at my post above. 4 minutes to restart play after a tackle, second yellow and a mild injury.

[Benj]

Indeed. About a third of a game is used up in stoppages. Thinking about it, a deferral system may even work, say in the case of a ball crossing the line or some such. I doubt they'd introduce this first though, and you could probably use technlogy to transmit this immediately to the ref anyway. It'd have to be referrals to begin with to keep the traditionalists happy.

[ampersand]

Indeed, 2 or 3 reviews a match are not going to ruin the game, they may make talking about them more dull, deffo not watching them though.

[Benj]

it's a pretty sad state of affairs if not being able to talk about refereeing decisions will make your discussions about football worse. i think technology will bring about as much controversy as it takes away anyway. so i'm for sticking rather than twisting.

[ampersand]

Im happy either way, as long as people don't moan about players diving but then also say that they don't want reviews bought it.

I don't mind the f**k ups, just see it as part of the match.

on the other hand...

I think reviews would add an extra dimension to the match

[Benj]

yeah, as i've said before, i'm more than after a hefty ban for diving after the game has finished. review it during the game, you can only book him. review him after and i'd slap a 5 match ban minimum. whether it's 100% or not. that'd soon stop it.

fair enough it might not stop someone from doing it to try and get their team into the world cup final or to even win it. if the culture of it is stamped out domestically though, who knows.

[ampersand]

Would the player risk it knowing that he would miss the final? Maybe in the last throws, when down, in the semi, otherwise I don't think they'd risk being banned

[worm]

i doubt it. there's enough controversy in the game without refereeing decisions. and i get quite bored of people arguing about refs sometimes to be honest.

like last nights game, the ref played a blinder in my book. couldn't fault him on much and got 3 correct red cards. yet there's still plenty of talk (not on here mind)