Stuck In The Dark Ages

[bkkjames]

I like the use of video to punish afterward. Gerrard and Torres won't like it but who really cares. JK

think judging players after the fact for something which you can usually not prove definitively is opening a massive, massive can of worms.

oh, and when does torres dive you cheeky get?

Glad to see you agree about Gerrard though mate.

You are correct, Torres doesn't dive, he just falls down when a defender touches him.

[carmine]

I did,nt say that. There are always however going to be certain instances, be it very very few, where the ref could get confirmation

fair enough. you know that the minute they use video replays for one incident then managers and players are going to call for it for every tiny little thing? besides which it's really hard to 'prove' diving or theatrics because they always look so much worse in slo-mo replay. i'd rather see harsher punishments for blatant cheating rather than trial by video.

[carmine]

I did,nt say that. There are always however going to be certain instances, be it very very few, where the ref could get confirmation

fair enough. you know that the minute they use video replays for one incident then managers and players are going to call for it for every tiny little thing? besides which it's really hard to 'prove' diving or theatrics because they always look so much worse in slo-mo replay. i'd rather see harsher punishments for blatant cheating rather than trial by video.

I uderstand where you are coming from, and 'm not saying you are wrong. Fact i though, in order o ascertain whether or not it can work FIFA have just got to give it a go. If it then proves unworkable to administer it can be withdrawn.

[JacknDanny]

I really do not understand why lovers of our game, are so against bringing in technology!! It would be better for the game for sure.

I do, however think that the technology only be used in certain situations ( certainly not for throw- ins and alleged diving, for example)

I mean we have the technology, why not use it. I do not agree when the apologists say it will delay the game!!

If it were used for the following

1) To determine if the ball has crossed the line

2)To determine if a penalty

3) To determine if offside, when a goal is scored.

The manager of a team is allowed 1 challenge per game. If he is correct, he keeps his challenge, if wrong, he loses it.

This would be the crux of the format, its not set in stone, but I fail to see how these things would induly delay the game substantially.

This would be particularly helpful for the smaller teams, who undoubtedly get fewer decisions than for example United or Liverpool

The other problem that I have in NOT introducing the technology, is that things have changed from the 70s and 80s!!!

When I used to follow City home and away, there were NO super size screens in the grounds. Yes there were decisions that you felt were ridiculous, but the only time you could be sure was by watching it on Match of the Day when they had 1 maybe 2 at the most different angles of the incident.

Nowadays, there are screens in every ground, showing incidents from numerous angles, showing immediately whether the ref is right. This puts uneccessary pressure on the referee.

You cant have it both ways!! If you are against introducing technology, then showing instant replays, especially at the ground, should also NOT be allowed.

I am firmly in the camp of, if the technology is available why not use it.

IMHO, Sepp Blatter and his band of nob head dwarfs, should be put out to pasture

[mrbojangles]

Nicely put Jack and I concur.

The die hards only ever give one argument and that is that it will slow up the game. However, they never expand on why it will slow up the game, when people argue various points as to how it won't.

[StevieH]

I really do not understand why lovers of our game, are so against bringing in technology!! It would be better for the game for sure.

I do, however think that the technology only be used in certain situations ( certainly not for throw- ins and alleged diving, for example)

I mean we have the technology, why not use it. I do not agree when the apologists say it will delay the game!!

If it were used for the following

1) To determine if the ball has crossed the line

2)To determine if a penalty

3) To determine if offside, when a goal is scored.

The manager of a team is allowed 1 challenge per game. If he is correct, he keeps his challenge, if wrong, he loses it.

This would be the crux of the format, its not set in stone, but I fail to see how these things would induly delay the game substantially.

This would be particularly helpful for the smaller teams, who undoubtedly get fewer decisions than for example United or Liverpool

The other problem that I have in NOT introducing the technology, is that things have changed from the 70s and 80s!!!

When I used to follow City home and away, there were NO super size screens in the grounds. Yes there were decisions that you felt were ridiculous, but the only time you could be sure was by watching it on Match of the Day when they had 1 maybe 2 at the most different angles of the incident.

Nowadays, there are screens in every ground, showing incidents from numerous angles, showing immediately whether the ref is right. This puts uneccessary pressure on the referee.

You cant have it both ways!! If you are against introducing technology, then showing instant replays, especially at the ground, should also NOT be allowed.

I am firmly in the camp of, if the technology is available why not use it.

IMHO, Sepp Blatter and his band of nob head dwarfs, should be put out to pasture

you keep on missing the point about it undermining the referee mate, who is the most important person on the pitch. without the referee there is no game, unless you want to transfer all decision-making to the 'experts' in the sky studio and their slo-mo replays from 24 angles.

video replays would simply not be limited to just penoes, ball crossing line or offsides. if you believe they ever would or could be you're in cloud cuckoo land. the pressure from managers and media to extend them to everything else would be immense.

1 challenge per game? you're advocating turning it into a game show. perhaps the there can be a countdown on the big screen where the crowd go 'wooooooaaaahhhhh' until a massive 'OFFSIDE!!!!!' flashes up on the jumbo monitor.

i wouldn't have big screen replays in the ground at all, screens in the ground should be for no more than showing the line-ups pre-kickoff and indicating the score and the clock during a match. using them for replays of incidents just further undermines the referee's authority and is not necessary.

Nicely put Jack and I concur.

The die hards only ever give one argument and that is that it will slow up the game. However, they never expand on why it will slow up the game, when people argue various points as to how it won't.

not true again BJ, i and others have outlined far more reasons in this thread than just slowing the game down. the game is run and dictated enough by sky already, taking more power and authority from the referee and putting it in the hands of tv companies would be horrific.

[bkkjames]

I really do not understand why lovers of our game, are so against bringing in technology!! It would be better for the game for sure.

I do, however think that the technology only be used in certain situations ( certainly not for throw- ins and alleged diving, for example)

I mean we have the technology, why not use it. I do not agree when the apologists say it will delay the game!!

If it were used for the following

1) To determine if the ball has crossed the line

2)To determine if a penalty

3) To determine if offside, when a goal is scored.

The manager of a team is allowed 1 challenge per game. If he is correct, he keeps his challenge, if wrong, he loses it.

This would be the crux of the format, its not set in stone, but I fail to see how these things would induly delay the game substantially.

This would be particularly helpful for the smaller teams, who undoubtedly get fewer decisions than for example United or Liverpool

The other problem that I have in NOT introducing the technology, is that things have changed from the 70s and 80s!!!

When I used to follow City home and away, there were NO super size screens in the grounds. Yes there were decisions that you felt were ridiculous, but the only time you could be sure was by watching it on Match of the Day when they had 1 maybe 2 at the most different angles of the incident.

Nowadays, there are screens in every ground, showing incidents from numerous angles, showing immediately whether the ref is right. This puts uneccessary pressure on the referee.

You cant have it both ways!! If you are against introducing technology, then showing instant replays, especially at the ground, should also NOT be allowed.

I am firmly in the camp of, if the technology is available why not use it.

IMHO, Sepp Blatter and his band of nob head dwarfs, should be put out to pasture

you keep on missing the point about it undermining the referee mate, who is the most important person on the pitch. without the referee there is no game, unless you want to transfer all decision-making to the 'experts' in the sky studio and their slo-mo replays from 24 angles.

video replays would simply not be limited to just penoes, ball crossing line or offsides. if you believe they ever would or could be you're in cloud cuckoo land. the pressure from managers and media to extend them to everything else would be immense.

1 challenge per game? you're advocating turning it into a game show. perhaps the there can be a countdown on the big screen where the crowd go 'wooooooaaaahhhhh' until a massive 'OFFSIDE!!!!!' flashes up on the jumbo monitor.

i wouldn't have big screen replays in the ground at all, screens in the ground should be for no more than showing the line-ups pre-kickoff and indicating the score and the clock during a match. using them for replays of incidents just further undermines the referee's authority and is not necessary.

Nicely put Jack and I concur.

The die hards only ever give one argument and that is that it will slow up the game. However, they never expand on why it will slow up the game, when people argue various points as to how it won't.

not true again BJ, i and others have outlined far more reasons in this thread than just slowing the game down. the game is run and dictated enough by sky already, taking more power and authority from the referee and putting it in the hands of tv companies would be horrific.

Stevie, I think you will find it's the Skys of this world that are keeping things like game slowing technology out of the mix. Can't run over the allotted 2 hours ya know.

[StevieH]

Stevie, I think you will find it's the Skys of this world that are keeping things like game slowing technology out of the mix. Can't run over the allotted 2 hours ya know.

when's the last time you watch sky sports james? andy gray's the last word? chris kamara's goals on sunday? the sunday supplement? sky would be creaming itself at the thought of all the new shows it could create around video replays. they'd more than likely also offer money to the league to be able to sponsor replays and supply the technology for them.

[bkkjames]

Stevie, I think you will find it's the Skys of this world that are keeping things like game slowing technology out of the mix. Can't run over the allotted 2 hours ya know.

when's the last time you watch sky sports james? andy gray's the last word? chris kamara's goals on sunday? the sunday supplement? sky would be creaming itself at the thought of all the new shows it could create around video replays. they'd more than likely also offer money to the league to be able to sponsor replays and supply the technology for them.

think beyond the UK, to the rest of the world where bigger TV audiences and big bucks lay. Can't cut into NASCAR time on ESPN in the US mate.

Notice how True sport one cuts off the game the 2nd the whistle blows? Wish we could get some sky coverage here.

[mrbojangles]

Not often I agree with you james but in this instance you are absolutely spot on.

[StevieH]

Stevie, I think you will find it's the Skys of this world that are keeping things like game slowing technology out of the mix. Can't run over the allotted 2 hours ya know.

when's the last time you watch sky sports james? andy gray's the last word? chris kamara's goals on sunday? the sunday supplement? sky would be creaming itself at the thought of all the new shows it could create around video replays. they'd more than likely also offer money to the league to be able to sponsor replays and supply the technology for them.

think beyond the UK, to the rest of the world where bigger TV audiences and big bucks lay. Can't cut into NASCAR time on ESPN in the US mate.

Notice how True sport one cuts off the game the 2nd the whistle blows? Wish we could get some sky coverage here.

valid point, i've never watched in the US and i don't watch any post-game stuff over here anyway. so are you saying that video replays would by default extend shows beyond 2 hours duration? making them a non-starter in terms of global broadcast contracts?

[mrbojangles]

you keep on missing the point about it undermining the referee mate, who is the most important person on the pitch. without the referee there is no game

Got to disagree with you there Stevie. The ref isn't the most important person on the pitch. IMO the players are and the salaries they all get would seem to agree. Without the players you really couldn't have a game but it is possible to have a game without a ref actually being on the pitch. It wouldn't be pretty but it's possible. As for undermining him, it wouldn't be undermining him, it would be giving him a tool that he can use to get better and more consistent decisions. And anyway, who gives a toss if he feels undermined, they don't even have the decency to come out after a game and explain their decisions. Even when they've made the biggest blunder in refereeing history.

1 challenge per game? you're advocating turning it into a game show.

Come on Stevie. It is a Game show, we all love it and that is why it's so popular. It's definately had a positive impact on the other sports that are using it.

[StevieH]

you keep on missing the point about it undermining the referee mate, who is the most important person on the pitch. without the referee there is no game

Got to disagree with you there Stevie. The ref isn't the most important person on the pitch. IMO the players are and the salaries they all get would seem to agree. Without the players you really couldn't have a game but it is possible to have a game without a ref actually being on the pitch. It wouldn't be pretty but it's possible. As for undermining him, it wouldn't be undermining him, it would be giving him a tool that he can use to get better and more consistent decisions. And anyway, who gives a toss if he feels undermined, they don't even have the decency to come out after a game and explain their decisions. Even when they've made the biggest blunder in refereeing history.

we're coming from different starting points then i'm afraid BJ. the referee is by far the most important person on a football pitch as he is the only one of his kind, the protagonists are equal at 11 per side and he is the balance between them, there to ensure a fair fight. this doesn't always happen i know, but that's another argument. without the rules there is no game, and without the referee there are no rules - there are just a load of thick blokes running about a field with no purpose. like rugby.

and it's not about 'decency' by the way, they're not allowed to explain decisions post-match by the league. not the refs' doing that, blame the game's administrators.

1 challenge per game? you're advocating turning it into a game show.

Come on Stevie. It is a Game show, we all love it and that is why it's so popular. It's definately had a positive impact on the other sports that are using it.

balls. the day that football has 'replay breaks' so that tv broadcasters can switch to a quick commercial break and fans in the stadium can buy another foot-long is the day i stop watching it. because it will have ceased to be a real sport.

[mrbojangles]

you keep on missing the point about it undermining the referee mate, who is the most important person on the pitch. without the referee there is no game

Got to disagree with you there Stevie. The ref isn't the most important person on the pitch. IMO the players are and the salaries they all get would seem to agree. Without the players you really couldn't have a game but it is possible to have a game without a ref actually being on the pitch. It wouldn't be pretty but it's possible. As for undermining him, it wouldn't be undermining him, it would be giving him a tool that he can use to get better and more consistent decisions. And anyway, who gives a toss if he feels undermined, they don't even have the decency to come out after a game and explain their decisions. Even when they've made the biggest blunder in refereeing history.

we're coming from different starting points then i'm afraid BJ. the referee is by far the most important person on a football pitch as he is the only one of his kind, the protagonists are equal at 11 per side and he is the balance between them, there to ensure a fair fight. this doesn't always happen i know, but that's another argument. without the rules there is no game, and without the referee there are no rules - there are just a load of thick blokes running about a field with no purpose. like rugby.

We are indeed coming at it from different angles. Of course Rules are needed and that is the foundation of this argument and what I am saying is that there are ways in which the rules of the game can be administered even better.

What I am also saying is that without the players on the pitch you couldn't have a game, absolutely impossible. They are indespensable. But if you think outside the box, you could have a game without a ref on the pitch and yet still enforce the rules. For instance, you could could have them in a box in the rafters looking at monitors and blowing their little whistles over a microphone. I'm not advocating that and just taking it to the extremes but you get the point. Thus the ref on the pitch is dispensable and therefore not the most important person on the pitch.

and it's not about 'decency' by the way, they're not allowed to explain decisions post-match by the league. not the refs' doing that, blame the game's administrators.

Fair dinkum but we know that the administrator's are also tossers

[Illrockmerch]

In last nights game it took a whole 30 seconds to see a replay that the ball had indeed crossed the line. It takes referees at least 1 minute from any free kick near the box to get the players back the required distance and try to stop them encroaching. Who are these dinasours who are making these decisions do they have names ? They should be named and shamed

They don't have names because they are from their country and they are having those guts to prove that they are correct instead of it infact they are wrong. And they are doing those foolish things because only they want to remember that day which will make the history of that day.

[mrbojangles]

I quite liked this what Kamara had to say. Even if you don't agree with the technology, I'm sure we all agree on Blatter

Time to replace Sepp Blatter

It's time to find somebody younger who is in touch with the modern game to be in charge of world football. On the day that he made an announcement that goal-line technology would not be allowed, we saw Birmingham have a perfectly good goal not given at Portsmouth. I was at the game and the only people who didn't see the ball cross the line were the referee and his assistants. They need help. We're not asking for any rule changes, just goal-line technology in the big leagues. They don't have to go down to grassroots where it's not affordable, but in the big leagues where there's loads of money, we've got to have it.

Yet stubborn Sepp Blatter won't have it. Quite simply it's because he's old and he's living in a time warp. When he first started watching football they played with big leather balls and steel toe-capped boots and he hasn't moved on. I don't think anybody has agreed with anything he's said in the last 10 years and I don't understand how this guy can be leading the world game. It's time for the Premier League to over-rule him and make the decision for him because these changes have got to happen.

Link :- http://www.skysports.com/opinion/story/0,2...6009895,00.html

[StevieH]

anyone else hear andy townsend make a clown of himself during the fa cup final on saturday? drogba's freekick tipped onto the bar by james, pings down, rebounds out, linesman calls (correctly) no goal.

townsend bleats on about how the linesman was poorly positioned to make the call (what with him doing his job and being in line with the last defender to watch for offside and that) and how video technology would have ensured that the correct decision was made. THE CORRECT DECISION WAS MADE YOU BLATHERING GOBSHITE.

andy townsend is a one-man argument in favour of watching the world cup with thai commentary.

[imola]

anyone else hear andy townsend make a clown of himself during the fa cup final on saturday? drogba's freekick tipped onto the bar by james, pings down, rebounds out, linesman calls (correctly) no goal.

townsend bleats on about how the linesman was poorly positioned to make the call (what with him doing his job and being in line with the last defender to watch for offside and that) and how video technology would have ensured that the correct decision was made. THE CORRECT DECISION WAS MADE YOU BLATHERING GOBSHITE.

andy townsend is a one-man argument in favour of watching the world cup with thai commentary.

agreed steve, the linesman would have possibly been in line with last man, enabling him to give a correct offside call if neccesary, making it impossible to be on the line also at the same time to call , whether the ball had crossed the line or not,

its ipossible for a human to be in 2 plac es at 1 time, given that the ball could well be travelling at 8okph

and no im not afan of video replay in football, it may well work for other sports , but not for football

[StevieH]

anyone else hear andy townsend make a clown of himself during the fa cup final on saturday? drogba's freekick tipped onto the bar by james, pings down, rebounds out, linesman calls (correctly) no goal.

townsend bleats on about how the linesman was poorly positioned to make the call (what with him doing his job and being in line with the last defender to watch for offside and that) and how video technology would have ensured that the correct decision was made. THE CORRECT DECISION WAS MADE YOU BLATHERING GOBSHITE.

andy townsend is a one-man argument in favour of watching the world cup with thai commentary.

agreed steve, the linesman would have possibly been in line with last man, enabling him to give a correct offside call if neccesary, making it impossible to be on the line also at the same time to call , whether the ball had crossed the line or not,

its ipossible for a human to be in 2 plac es at 1 time, given that the ball could well be travelling at 8okph

and no im not afan of video replay in football, it may well work for other sports , but not for football

oh i agree about the seeing two things at once, that's just a medical and physical fact.

what annoys me is pundits and gobshites complaining when refs and linesmen make mistakes and then still carping on when they make great calls. it's nonsense.

[imola]

anyone else hear andy townsend make a clown of himself during the fa cup final on saturday? drogba's freekick tipped onto the bar by james, pings down, rebounds out, linesman calls (correctly) no goal.

townsend bleats on about how the linesman was poorly positioned to make the call (what with him doing his job and being in line with the last defender to watch for offside and that) and how video technology would have ensured that the correct decision was made. THE CORRECT DECISION WAS MADE YOU BLATHERING GOBSHITE.

andy townsend is a one-man argument in favour of watching the world cup with thai commentary.

agreed steve, the linesman would have possibly been in line with last man, enabling him to give a correct offside call if neccesary, making it impossible to be on the line also at the same time to call , whether the ball had crossed the line or not,

its ipossible for a human to be in 2 plac es at 1 time, given that the ball could well be travelling at 8okph

and no im not afan of video replay in football, it may well work for other sports , but not for football

oh i agree about the seeing two things at once, that's just a medical and physical fact.

what annoys me is pundits and gobshites complaining when refs and linesmen make mistakes and then still carping on when they make great calls. it's nonsense.

thats also a medical fact mate , its called delusion, some of these pundits are just not cut out to be on tv,

saying that though . no one is correct 100% evey time an opinion is given on a call, there is still to a degree debate whether the ball crossed the line 66 wc final, its part and parcel of the game , and i hope it stays that way

[StevieH]

thats also a medical fact mate , its called delusion, some of these pundits are just not cut out to be on tv,

saying that though . no one is correct 100% evey time an opinion is given on a call, there is still to a degree debate whether the ball crossed the line 66 wc final, its part and parcel of the game , and i hope it stays that way

couldn't agree more, mistakes and grey areas are part of what makes football such a fascinating game. it'd be a bloody boring sport if nobody ever made bad judgement calls, mistakes or cock-ups.

besides if video replays removed almost every element of doubt from decisions who would managers blame in press conferences for their team's not having won a match? their players? themselves? hardly.

[imola]

thats also a medical fact mate , its called delusion, some of these pundits are just not cut out to be on tv,

saying that though . no one is correct 100% evey time an opinion is given on a call, there is still to a degree debate whether the ball crossed the line 66 wc final, its part and parcel of the game , and i hope it stays that way

couldn't agree more, mistakes and grey areas are part of what makes football such a fascinating game. it'd be a bloody boring sport if nobody ever made bad judgement calls, mistakes or cock-ups.

besides if video replays removed almost every element of doubt from decisions who would managers blame in press conferences for their team's not having won a match? their players? themselves? hardly.

wenger , would no doubt claim the camera equipment could be faulty

[StevieH]

reckon arsene would soon be saying that he hadn't seen a video replay of the incident but there was no way on earth one of his players could possibly have been at fault.

[carmine]

reckon arsene would soon be saying that he hadn't seen a video replay of the incident but there was no way on earth one of his players could possibly have been at fault.

And yet there are some that still listen to his drivel.

[StevieH]

reckon arsene would soon be saying that he hadn't seen a video replay of the incident but there was no way on earth one of his players could possibly have been at fault.

And yet there are some that still listen to his drivel.

he's a great manager. and all great managers talk out of their hoops from time to time. it's a defence mechanism and one that seems to work really.

[MSingh]

Dont think things need to change as stevie as stated if down to human error ok.

But i do think in the big games maybe the top ref's around europe could be used.

Nev, give me the name of 3 Top Refs in Europe ??

[carmine]

reckon arsene would soon be saying that he hadn't seen a video replay of the incident but there was no way on earth one of his players could possibly have been at fault.

And yet there are some that still listen to his drivel.

he's a great manager. and all great managers talk out of their hoops from time to time. it's a defence mechanism and one that seems to work really.

I agree and in the past he has been exceptionally good at this. However, this last season he has made a <deleted> of himself a few times. With all his hystrionics about nasty tackles i doubt that he helped his players either.( Interesting that Van Persie has just recently commented that Arsenal have to toughen up.)

Edited May 18, 2010 by carmine

[StevieH]

Dont think things need to change as stevie as stated if down to human error ok.

But i do think in the big games maybe the top ref's around europe could be used.

Nev, give me the name of 3 Top Refs in Europe ??

at the moment, probably wolfgang stark, roberto rosetti and frank de bleekere. think stark's incredibly consistent.

[mrbojangles]

Stilltuck in the dark ages then Stevie

[StevieH]

Stilltuck in the dark ages then Stevie

stilltuck is a kind of german cake isn't it?

and if the dark ages mean less tv intrusion and more mistakes from players and referees both then consider me a luddite mate.