England'S Official 2012 Euro Discussion Thread

[Razzler1973]

Completely agree. I came on here at half time to see people talking about dragging half our team off, including Rooney, so disgusted were they with how we played. I thought to myself, i hope there are some calmer and clearer minds in the dressing room! I couldn't see the need to panic. Yes we didn't play that well, but Ukraine had huffed and puffed a lot without creating anything clear cut, and the score was set up well for us. Job done so far i thought.

Perhaps people do what they often accuse the England team of - of being complacent, of thinking we have a divine right to go out there and whip the opposition. Yes Ukraine might not be right up there, but it's a competitive international game - there are no easy ones. Dazzling play is a luxury we can't afford. Result is all that matters. That's all we should care about. The history books will show, two wins and one draw in our first three competitive games with a new manager and a mish mash of a team. That's pretty good going in my book. If it ends on Sunday, so be it. Top eight is our level. Beyond that a bonus.

I did think Rooney looked off the pace a little but he's still a danger and capable of doing something. Worst case scenario we haul him off on 65-70 mins for Carroll. No guarantee Rooney not starting would have meant we'd have played any better.

It's a cliche but there aren't any easy ones and especially not in tournaments. We have had tournaments where we've let cheap goals in and scraped through groups and I'd take it but we've gone through unbeaten here. Solid display against France, shaky moments against Sweden but much improved and disciplined if a bit nervous last night.

Everything changes with 1 goal in any of the games. Teams can defend, no one is hitting 4s and 5s in these types of games. The Spain/Italy/Croatia games in point, anything could have happened there. Spain could have gone out. Here's the best team in Europe and had some heart in the mouth moments (more than we did) and Italy were ragged too .... at one point a 1-1 Croatia/Spain would have sent Italy out ... it's always tight yet some fans think you turn up, 2-0 against them, we'll do them 3-1 or something and get a draw in this one but it never, ever works like that.

From the start of the 2nd half, even without the goal, it was set up nice, I thought. Defence is a bedrock for our team at the moment but that's one of our strengths and what's wrong with playing to your strengths? You can't be a positive England fan without people lumping you in with idiotic Sun readers saying 'we're gonna win it 'innit' so people go the opposite end of the spectrum and constantly moan about how rubbish England are.

Before every tournament I would say the same thing. Get into the 1/4 finals regularly and see how it goes. Bit of luck, nice draw, good form and you end up in a semi. From time to time we may get into the last 16 but on the whole this is the area we operate in. Maybe more of the players need to realise this and not play paralysed by fear.

1/4s are so close but also miles away at the same time. "just the 1/4s" when you're on the brink of a semi. Anyone going into a semi has a chance. I do think under Sven we could have made 1 more semi with that team to make our history a little better where a series of 1/4s looks more like failure.

I'll take this and then roll the dice against Italy, perhaps no Chellini for them, should be epic. It's good to be back in the mix again, quite positive, playing an equal-ish side and actually having a chance to look forward to the game with genuine opptimism. I hope we don't feel the need to create a villain if we don't get through and maybe with Hodgon having more time with the players we can keep improving.

All these Managers had years with the side and not got them doing what they wanted and Hodgson had less than everyone at looks like we have a plan of playing. May not be perfect or to everyone's liking but you get the sense the players understand what is required of them individually as well as collectively and it's not often we can say that in recent times so hey ho, good tournament and group so far

Edited June 20, 2012 by Razzler1973

[rixalex]

Completely agree. I came on here at half time to see people talking about dragging half our team off, including Rooney, so disgusted were they with how we played. I thought to myself, i hope there are some calmer and clearer minds in the dressing room! I couldn't see the need to panic. Yes we didn't play that well, but Ukraine had huffed and puffed a lot without creating anything clear cut, and the score was set up well for us. Job done so far i thought.

Perhaps people do what they often accuse the England team of - of being complacent, of thinking we have a divine right to go out there and whip the opposition. Yes Ukraine might not be right up there, but it's a competitive international game - there are no easy ones. Dazzling play is a luxury we can't afford. Result is all that matters. That's all we should care about. The history books will show, two wins and one draw in our first three competitive games with a new manager and a mish mash of a team. That's pretty good going in my book. If it ends on Sunday, so be it. Top eight is our level. Beyond that a bonus.

I did think Rooney looked off the pace a little but he's still a danger and capable of doing something. Worst case scenario we haul him off on 65-70 mins for Carroll. No guarantee Rooney not starting would have meant we'd have played any better.

It's a cliche but there aren't any easy ones and especially not in tournaments. We have had tournaments where we've let cheap goals in and scraped through groups and I'd take it but we've gone through unbeaten here. Solid display against France, shaky moments against Sweden but much improved and disciplined if a bit nervous last night.

Everything changes with 1 goal in any of the games. Teams can defend, no one is hitting 4s and 5s in these types of games. The Spain/Italy/Croatia games in point, anything could have happened there. Spain could have gone out. Here's the best team in Europe and had some heart in the mouth moments (more than we did) and Italy were ragged too .... at one point a 1-1 Croatia/Spain would have sent Italy out ... it's always tight yet some fans think you turn up, 2-0 against them, we'll do them 3-1 or something and get a draw in this one but it never, ever works like that.

From the start of the 2nd half, even without the goal, it was set up nice, I thought. Defence is a bedrock for our team at the moment but that's one of our strengths and what's wrong with playing to your strengths? You can't be a positive England fan without people lumping you in with idiotic Sun readers saying 'we're gonna win it 'innit' so people go the opposite end of the spectrum and constantly moan about how rubbish England are.

Before every tournament I would say the same thing. Get into the 1/4 finals regularly and see how it goes. Bit of luck, nice draw, good form and you end up in a semi. From time to time we may get into the last 16 but on the whole this is the area we operate in. Maybe more of the players need to realise this and not play paralysed by fear.

1/4s are so close but also miles away at the same time. "just the 1/4s" when you're on the brink of a semi. Anyone going into a semi has a chance. I do think under Sven we could have made 1 more semi with that team to make our history a little better where a series of 1/4s looks more like failure.

I'll take this and then roll the dice against Italy, perhaps no Chellini for them, should be epic. It's good to be back in the mix again, quite positive, playing an equal-ish side and actually having a chance to look forward to the game with genuine opptimism. I hope we don't feel the need to create a villain if we don't get through and maybe with Hodgon having more time with the players we can keep improving.

All these Managers had years with the side and not got them doing what they wanted and Hodgson had less than everyone at looks like we have a plan of playing. May not be perfect or to everyone's liking but you get the sense the players understand what is required of them individually as well as collectively and it's not often we can say that in recent times so hey ho, good tournament and group so far

Spot on.

[Bangkokhatter]

Well finally managed to watch the game, dodged a couple of close calls regarding finding out the score. What a difference watching the game sober and in English commentary makes. My take for what it's worth..

Gerrard was again the best player in an England shirt. First half we were generally poor, but Hart only actually made a couple of saves. Surely some credit should go to Ukraine and the way they were playing ?

Wellbeck seems to be improving every game and i reckon it's the start of a long international career. As for Rooney, looked rusty but getting a game under his belt will do him the world of good. Can't believe some bloke on here is critical of his goal. Lineker built a career on goals like that.

Again, Milner very poor, with Young not too far behind, but as said on commentary, we may not be the best team with the ball, but we are very good when we don't have it.

As for the disallowed goal, definitely an offside in the build up, and who ever won a tournament without a bit of luck ?

Italy next, listening to Gerrard after the game, it seems the teams view is if we are going to win the tournament you have to beat the best teams, not that i'm getting carried away but I don't think there is much to choose between the 2 teams.

All in all a job well done so far considering the squad we have and the players we are missing.

[mrbojangles]

Breaking News....Breaking News

England have had to forfeit the game against Ukraine last night.

Rooney has tested positive for a performance enhancing rug

[sharecropper]

Breaking News....Breaking News

England have had to forfeit the game against Ukraine last night.

Rooney has tested positive for a performance enhancing rug

I don't want to split hairs but you have failed to get to the root of the problem. Alopecia-te you not merkin such wild allegations in future!

[smokie36]

Breaking News....Breaking News

England have had to forfeit the game against Ukraine last night.

Rooney has tested positive for a performance enhancing rug

I do think it affected him for the header.....maybe Abrak will give us some Trigonometry lessons?

[rixalex]

Well finally managed to watch the game, dodged a couple of close calls regarding finding out the score. What a difference watching the game sober and in English commentary makes. My take for what it's worth..

Gerrard was again the best player in an England shirt. First half we were generally poor, but Hart only actually made a couple of saves. Surely some credit should go to Ukraine and the way they were playing ?

Wellbeck seems to be improving every game and i reckon it's the start of a long international career. As for Rooney, looked rusty but getting a game under his belt will do him the world of good. Can't believe some bloke on here is critical of his goal. Lineker built a career on goals like that.

Again, Milner very poor, with Young not too far behind, but as said on commentary, we may not be the best team with the ball, but we are very good when we don't have it.

As for the disallowed goal, definitely an offside in the build up, and who ever won a tournament without a bit of luck ?

Italy next, listening to Gerrard after the game, it seems the teams view is if we are going to win the tournament you have to beat the best teams, not that i'm getting carried away but I don't think there is much to choose between the 2 teams.

All in all a job well done so far considering the squad we have and the players we are missing.

A brave man who watches England without intoxicants! Well summed up.

Interesting to see how Blatter is so vigorously throwing his support behind goal line technology after the England game. Can't help wondering whether that has more to do with his disgust at England getting to the quarter finals than it does to do with his belief in technology being used in football. No mention being made whatsoever about the offside call that was missed, that would have allowed the "goal" that wasn't given to stand.

[StevieH]

Well finally managed to watch the game, dodged a couple of close calls regarding finding out the score. What a difference watching the game sober and in English commentary makes. My take for what it's worth..

Gerrard was again the best player in an England shirt. First half we were generally poor, but Hart only actually made a couple of saves. Surely some credit should go to Ukraine and the way they were playing ?

Wellbeck seems to be improving every game and i reckon it's the start of a long international career. As for Rooney, looked rusty but getting a game under his belt will do him the world of good. Can't believe some bloke on here is critical of his goal. Lineker built a career on goals like that.

Again, Milner very poor, with Young not too far behind, but as said on commentary, we may not be the best team with the ball, but we are very good when we don't have it.

As for the disallowed goal, definitely an offside in the build up, and who ever won a tournament without a bit of luck ?

Italy next, listening to Gerrard after the game, it seems the teams view is if we are going to win the tournament you have to beat the best teams, not that i'm getting carried away but I don't think there is much to choose between the 2 teams.

All in all a job well done so far considering the squad we have and the players we are missing.

A brave man who watches England without intoxicants! Well summed up.

Interesting to see how Blatter is so vigorously throwing his support behind goal line technology after the England game. Can't help wondering whether that has more to do with his disgust at England getting to the quarter finals than it does to do with his belief in technology being used in football. No mention being made whatsoever about the offside call that was missed, that would have allowed the "goal" that wasn't given to stand.

i think it has more to do with him having the chance to have a pop at the extra goal-line official, which was very much a platini and uefa idea rather than a fifa one. never misses a chance to have a dig at platini does sepp.

[Bangkokhatter]

I have never had time for anything Blatter says and i think your right he's probably gutted we made it this far. Even if the goal was given it does not mean we would not have gone through, all if's, but's and maybe's, which just about sums up a game of football. Do wonder what the line official was up to though, there is probably some directive telling him he must stay on the line

Not sure I can watch the next game, got to fly to Cambodia Sunday night for work. Best i get on another forum and ask some questions.

[rixalex]

Well finally managed to watch the game, dodged a couple of close calls regarding finding out the score. What a difference watching the game sober and in English commentary makes. My take for what it's worth..

Gerrard was again the best player in an England shirt. First half we were generally poor, but Hart only actually made a couple of saves. Surely some credit should go to Ukraine and the way they were playing ?

Wellbeck seems to be improving every game and i reckon it's the start of a long international career. As for Rooney, looked rusty but getting a game under his belt will do him the world of good. Can't believe some bloke on here is critical of his goal. Lineker built a career on goals like that.

Again, Milner very poor, with Young not too far behind, but as said on commentary, we may not be the best team with the ball, but we are very good when we don't have it.

As for the disallowed goal, definitely an offside in the build up, and who ever won a tournament without a bit of luck ?

Italy next, listening to Gerrard after the game, it seems the teams view is if we are going to win the tournament you have to beat the best teams, not that i'm getting carried away but I don't think there is much to choose between the 2 teams.

All in all a job well done so far considering the squad we have and the players we are missing.

A brave man who watches England without intoxicants! Well summed up.

Interesting to see how Blatter is so vigorously throwing his support behind goal line technology after the England game. Can't help wondering whether that has more to do with his disgust at England getting to the quarter finals than it does to do with his belief in technology being used in football. No mention being made whatsoever about the offside call that was missed, that would have allowed the "goal" that wasn't given to stand.

i think it has more to do with him having the chance to have a pop at the extra goal-line official, which was very much a platini and uefa idea rather than a fifa one. never misses a chance to have a dig at platini does sepp.

That's true. I forgot that angle. Having a pop at England and Platini. An irresistable combination for the buffoon.

[Abrak]

I am afraid to say I think Platini is nearly as awful as Blatter. UEFA's decision to extend the Euros from 16 teams to 24 is going to ruin the competition.

We will have 36 Group matches instead of 24 and the sole purpose will be to reduce the number of teams in the competition from 24 teams to 16 which is the point at which this competition started. UEFA have put on an excellent competition this year with the explicit guarantee they they will never do it again.

[rixalex]

I have never had time for anything Blatter says and i think your right he's probably gutted we made it this far. Even if the goal was given it does not mean we would not have gone through, all if's, but's and maybe's, which just about sums up a game of football.

Quite so. To say they were denied a draw is a nonsense as had the offside but over the line "goal" been given, that would have changed the dynamics of the game. Perhaps they would have gone on and won, or perhaps throwing men forward, we would have caught them on the break and gone back ahead. Dealing with complete unknowns.

Far more understandable if the ball was a yard over the line, but the fractions we are dealing with here, officials can not be expected to get the call right every time when making decisions in real time without the video replays we see. The officials don't deserve any flack for this. Yes in my opinion goal line technology should be introduced, but neither this incident or this tournament has particularly thrown more weight behind that argument.

Collina. What a man. Whether he be reffing or speaking, it all makes such sense.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18517132

[rixalex]

I am afraid to say I think Platini is nearly as awful as Blatter. UEFA's decision to extend the Euros from 16 teams to 24 is going to ruin the competition.

Oh without a doubt. As bad as each other. Only difference for me is that Platini did start with everyone's respect.

[Abrak]

Actually the 'Ukrainian incident' rather supports Platini's argument about 'goal line technology'. His argument is not that it doesnt work or isnt more accurate merely that it is the 'thin end of the wedge'. If you introduce it, then next there will be demands for technology to be introduced for 'handball decisions' and 'offside decisions'.

And this is true. What is the difference between the offside not being given due to human error and the goal not being given due to human error? There obviously isnt any.

And once you deem that human error by referees that can be corrected by technology is ruining the game, you cant just stop with goal line technology.

[StevieH]

Actually the 'Ukrainian incident' rather supports Platini's argument about 'goal line technology'. His argument is not that it doesnt work or isnt more accurate merely that it is the 'thin end of the wedge'. If you introduce it, then next there will be demands for technology to be introduced for 'handball decisions' and 'offside decisions'.

And this is true. What is the difference between the offside not being given due to human error and the goal not being given due to human error? There obviously isnt any.

And once you deem that human error by referees that can be corrected by technology is ruining the game, you cant just stop with goal line technology.

good post. yes, that's always been my biggest fear with goalline technology (or 'cameras' as they're usually known) - that once you do it for the goalline then the cry will go up for replays for anything and everything. and then eventually you might as well not have a referee on the pitch. and colllina's comments above are spot on about referees getting it right almost all of the time.

i've never heard a decent counter-argument to this from those who are pro-goalline technology either.

[brit1984]

Actually the 'Ukrainian incident' rather supports Platini's argument about 'goal line technology'. His argument is not that it doesnt work or isnt more accurate merely that it is the 'thin end of the wedge'. If you introduce it, then next there will be demands for technology to be introduced for 'handball decisions' and 'offside decisions'.

And this is true. What is the difference between the offside not being given due to human error and the goal not being given due to human error? There obviously isnt any.

And once you deem that human error by referees that can be corrected by technology is ruining the game, you cant just stop with goal line technology.

I understand your point that it will create demands for ever more use of technology to minimise human errors by referees.

However, as with cricket, technology can be introduced just for certain specified errors by the officials, and that does not imply that it must be introduced for other errors.

The sport's governing bodies just need to discuss the use of technology on a regular basis, such that everyone agrees that we have the right balance.

Goal-line technology is an absolute no brainer because there could just be a light that flashes when the ball has crossed the line.

All other refereeing decisions (including in this case the offside decision) could be left unchanged as long as everyone agrees these decisions are best left with the referee and linesmen.

Sent from iPhone; please forgive any typos or violations of forum rules

[rixalex]

Actually the 'Ukrainian incident' rather supports Platini's argument about 'goal line technology'. His argument is not that it doesnt work or isnt more accurate merely that it is the 'thin end of the wedge'. If you introduce it, then next there will be demands for technology to be introduced for 'handball decisions' and 'offside decisions'.

And this is true. What is the difference between the offside not being given due to human error and the goal not being given due to human error? There obviously isnt any.

And once you deem that human error by referees that can be corrected by technology is ruining the game, you cant just stop with goal line technology.

I think the difference though between helping the refs in terms of balls over lines and helping refs with other matters, is that a ball over a line is a matter of irrefutable fact that is very easily proved with technology. Other matters are either not so easily proved with technology, or they are subject to human interpretation. So i think a line can be drawn.

[skybluestu]

Jim is spot on! http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/jim-white/england-got-us-dreaming-113415862.html

[Bangkokhatter]

Still not sure about adding the technology, human error is part and parcel of the game. It's not just referees that get it wrong, players make errors in games that can have a direct impact on the result and it all adds to the drama.

Cannot really compare with cricket because the games are so different, but even in cricket it's not perfect. We still have debatable calls and technology can only be called on for certain decisions. Add into the fact that some teams ( India ) do not support it and it's a kind of mish mash affair with some games using certain technology and others using none.

Personally am a bit against bringing in any change to the laws of any sport that cannot be copied right down to the grass roots of the sport.

As an aside my team ( Luton Town ) were beaten in this years play-off final by an obvious offside goal, while it pissed me off big time I still think we should leave it up to the officials on the pitch.

[StevieH]

I think the difference though between helping the refs in terms of balls over lines and helping refs with other matters, is that a ball over a line is a matter of irrefutable fact that is very easily proved with technology. Other matters are either not so easily proved with technology, or they are subject to human interpretation. So i think a line can be drawn.

irrefutable fact would then be extended to offside decisions, whether the ball is over the touchline or the sideline for a throw or a corner etc. even penalty shouts for fouls and handballs then by those who really advocate technology in football.

technology works just fine in cricket and tennis because they are much more stop-start sports by their very nature. think in football all it can do is disrupt the game and undermine the authority of the officials.

[rixalex]

I think the difference though between helping the refs in terms of balls over lines and helping refs with other matters, is that a ball over a line is a matter of irrefutable fact that is very easily proved with technology. Other matters are either not so easily proved with technology, or they are subject to human interpretation. So i think a line can be drawn.

irrefutable fact would then be extended to offside decisions, whether the ball is over the touchline or the sideline for a throw or a corner etc. even penalty shouts for fouls and handballs then by those who really advocate technology in football.

technology works just fine in cricket and tennis because they are much more stop-start sports by their very nature. think in football all it can do is disrupt the game and undermine the authority of the officials.

Irrefutable fact that is easily proved was what i said. I think the other stuff you mention comes into three categories that make them less justifiable:

1) not easily proved (eg offside)

2) subject to human interpretation (hand ball, penalty shouts)

3) generally not considered game changing or crucial (throw ins, corner kicks)

You speak as if technology is potentially some sort of out of control train that once started will be beyond everyone's power to stop. Personally i see this as irrational scare-mongering.

[Abrak]

I think the difference though between helping the refs in terms of balls over lines and helping refs with other matters, is that a ball over a line is a matter of irrefutable fact that is very easily proved with technology. Other matters are either not so easily proved with technology, or they are subject to human interpretation. So i think a line can be drawn.

Well that's a tricky argument isnt it?

I mean the guy was a 'yard' offside. The 'video technology' clearly showed that. The linesman missed it.

The ball cleared the line by say '3 inches'.

The problem is that 'offside' is just as much 'irrefutable fact' as the 'ball over the line'.

[rixalex]

The problem is that 'offside' is just as much 'irrefutable fact' as the 'ball over the line'.

But not in the same way easily provable way. You have to calculate the precise point at which the ball left one man's boot and the position at that time of another player at possibly the other end of the pitch, and the position of the opposing players. Many more factors involved that don't allow simple and basic hawk eye type technology to instantly emit a bleep or a flash when it occurs, as is the case with balls over goal lines.

What you are talking about is people sitting studying videos, which whilst likely to be more accurate than officials making decisions in real time, will take extra time and will still be subject to human error. Goal line technology won't take any more time than a computer takes to bleep, and it won't be subject to any human error whatsoever. Therefore it makes a far more compelling case for introduction.

[Abrak]

What you are talking about is people sitting studying videos, which whilst likely to be more accurate than officials making decisions in real time, will take extra time and will still be subject to human error. Goal line technology won't take any more time than a computer takes to bleep, and it won't be subject to any human error whatsoever. Therefore it makes a far more compelling case for introduction.

I agree with what you say but unlike both you and Stevie I do think that a 'video referee' can have a role to play in football. We have seen it introduced in rugby and it hasnt really disrupted the flow of play or taken much time. You just need to be careful about how you go about introducing it.

So for instance one option would be to give the captain of each team 3 appeals to the 'video referee' of the referees decision during a match. So if the Ukrainian goal had been given Gerrard could have appealed for 'offside' to the 'video referee'. Another good example would have been the Greek captain, Karagounis, who was booked for 'simulation' against Russia when he was 'tripped' in the penalty area. In both cases the referee had already stopped play, so the flow of play would not be disrupted, and with appeals limited, time would not be unduly wasted by a video referee.

[rixalex]

What you are talking about is people sitting studying videos, which whilst likely to be more accurate than officials making decisions in real time, will take extra time and will still be subject to human error. Goal line technology won't take any more time than a computer takes to bleep, and it won't be subject to any human error whatsoever. Therefore it makes a far more compelling case for introduction.

I agree with what you say but unlike both you and Stevie I do think that a 'video referee' can have a role to play in football. We have seen it introduced in rugby and it hasnt really disrupted the flow of play or taken much time. You just need to be careful about how you go about introducing it.

So for instance one option would be to give the captain of each team 3 appeals to the 'video referee' of the referees decision during a match. So if the Ukrainian goal had been given Gerrard could have appealed for 'offside' to the 'video referee'. Another good example would have been the Greek captain, Karagounis, who was booked for 'simulation' against Russia when he was 'tripped' in the penalty area. In both cases the referee had already stopped play, so the flow of play would not be disrupted, and with appeals limited, time would not be unduly wasted by a video referee.

Abrak i wasn't saying i was against video refereeing. It happens that like you, i'm not. My point was simply that making the argument for goal line technology is a much easier sell and as such, it should be the first step before any other changes are even considered. Let's get this aspect of the game changed first and take some time to see what the positive/negative effects are.

[mrbojangles]

So for instance one option would be to give the captain of each team 3 appeals to the 'video referee' of the referees decision during a match. So if the Ukrainian goal had been given Gerrard could have appealed for 'offside' to the 'video referee'. Another good example would have been the Greek captain, Karagounis, who was booked for 'simulation' against Russia when he was 'tripped' in the penalty area. In both cases the referee had already stopped play, so the flow of play would not be disrupted, and with appeals limited, time would not be unduly wasted by a video referee.

Totally agree.

All of this "it evens itself out" thought is total lunacy in my mind. The best result for a game, especiallywith the current stakes, is to have the most honest result possible. As for the "stop, start" discussion in other sports. Maybe there are stats out there somewhere but my feeling is that football is absolutely full of stop, starts as well.

[smokie36]

So for instance one option would be to give the captain of each team 3 appeals to the 'video referee' of the referees decision during a match. So if the Ukrainian goal had been given Gerrard could have appealed for 'offside' to the 'video referee'. Another good example would have been the Greek captain, Karagounis, who was booked for 'simulation' against Russia when he was 'tripped' in the penalty area. In both cases the referee had already stopped play, so the flow of play would not be disrupted, and with appeals limited, time would not be unduly wasted by a video referee.

Totally agree.

All of this "it evens itself out" thought is total lunacy in my mind. The best result for a game, especiallywith the current stakes, is to have the most honest result possible. As for the "stop, start" discussion in other sports. Maybe there are stats out there somewhere but my feeling is that football is absolutely full of stop, starts as well.

Three each in a game would add no more that 5 mins. Also it would cut down much of the moaning from the players. Use the three for any refereeing decision at all and i would add that the ref should be able to add more video decisions later in the game for extenuating circumstance if he so wishes....this would prevent teams from taking advantage of the rule.

[brit1984]

So for instance one option would be to give the captain of each team 3 appeals to the 'video referee' of the referees decision during a match. So if the Ukrainian goal had been given Gerrard could have appealed for 'offside' to the 'video referee'. Another good example would have been the Greek captain, Karagounis, who was booked for 'simulation' against Russia when he was 'tripped' in the penalty area. In both cases the referee had already stopped play, so the flow of play would not be disrupted, and with appeals limited, time would not be unduly wasted by a video referee.

Totally agree.

All of this "it evens itself out" thought is total lunacy in my mind. The best result for a game, especiallywith the current stakes, is to have the most honest result possible. As for the "stop, start" discussion in other sports. Maybe there are stats out there somewhere but my feeling is that football is absolutely full of stop, starts as well.

On average, in the Premier league, the ball is only in play for around 60 minutes per game. The average is (slightly) higher in continental Europe because there are generally more (often pointless) passes in each move, but there is always at least 20 minutes of non-play time.

Sent from iPhone; please forgive any typos or violations of forum rules

[smokie36]

So for instance one option would be to give the captain of each team 3 appeals to the 'video referee' of the referees decision during a match. So if the Ukrainian goal had been given Gerrard could have appealed for 'offside' to the 'video referee'. Another good example would have been the Greek captain, Karagounis, who was booked for 'simulation' against Russia when he was 'tripped' in the penalty area. In both cases the referee had already stopped play, so the flow of play would not be disrupted, and with appeals limited, time would not be unduly wasted by a video referee.

Totally agree.

All of this "it evens itself out" thought is total lunacy in my mind. The best result for a game, especiallywith the current stakes, is to have the most honest result possible. As for the "stop, start" discussion in other sports. Maybe there are stats out there somewhere but my feeling is that football is absolutely full of stop, starts as well.

On average, in the Premier league, the ball is only in play for around 60 minutes per game. The average is (slightly) higher in continental Europe because there are generally more (often pointless) passes in each move, but there is always at least 20 minutes of non-play time.

Sent from iPhone; please forgive any typos or violations of forum rules

That was introduced to give the Man Yoo fans time to munch their prawn sarnies.

[Abrak]

Also it would cut down much of the moaning from the players.

Well it would certainly cut down the en-masse arguing with the referee. From what I remember from rugby league you have a 30 second window after the referee blows his whistle in which to appeal. That should concentrate players minds.