StevieH Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 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. i think it's more like 53-55 mins a game. but that doesn't justify stopping it to look at the telly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommysboy Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 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. wise words, with good discussion all round from posters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brit1984 Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 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. i think it's more like 53-55 mins a game. but that doesn't justify stopping it to look at the telly. I completely agree. Other than goal-line decisions it is difficult to see how other technology could practically be used, because there isn't necessarily a break in play when a decision is needed. The only other possible use of technology I can think of is for clear red card off the ball incidents (missed by the referee) that happen in the first-half of a game. These could be shown to the referee at half-time and, if he agrees, he could send the player off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokie36 Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 No gents...you are being myopic here....those of us who watch Rugby League regularly know the truth....it can be easily applied to any decision and adds excitement rather than detracting...so long as it is not abused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nev Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 No gents...you are being myopic here....those of us who watch Rugby League regularly know the truth....it can be easily applied to any decision and adds excitement rather than detracting...so long as it is not abused. Yes nothing more exciting than looking up at the screen for 3 or 4 minutes waiting for the decision TRY or NO TRY, it really is riveting stuff smokie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abrak Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 See England are now slight favourites with the bookies to beat Italy in the quarters on Sunday. Seems relatively optimistic to me all things considered. I saw these stats on England v Italy earlier. The Italy numbers are really about what you would expect for a team that has qualified for the quarter finals - it is the England numbers that are more revealing. The possession stat is hardly a surprise - the third lowest of any team in the tournament. Ireland was lowest - 3 guesses which team was 2nd lowest (it isnt entirely obvious.) More worrying is the shot ratio - 10.3 for/17.7 against or 36.8% of total shots. That is not good. In fact it is worse than any team in the premiership (Bolton 40.1%, Wolves 40.6% and they were both relegated, City top 63.6%). And with just 3.3 shots on target per match you are not likely to score many goals. It is just that England has a 50% conversion ratio (virtually double the average of the premier league) which is unlikely to be sustainable. I mean we didnt expect England to get many shots on goal so we didnt expect them to score many goals. In the event they didnt get many shots on goal and have scored quite a few. But it looks a bit lucky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SantiSuk Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 I repeat, England were lucky to win against Ukraine and draw against France. All this increasing optimism on the `anything can happen when you reach the knock-out stages` is not borne out by fact. The myth is perhaps borne out of the triumphs by Greece and maybe Denmark - the only two from the many European and World tournaments of my lifetime, as far as I can recall. Fact: the better teams win games more often than do the lucky plucky cr@p teams. Ok, we are not cr@p, but we are hardly top class either. Maybe we can beat Italy as they are similarly unsettled and maybe we can improve (though I saw us go backwards against Ukraine). Thereafter any thoughts of progressing further are delusional - IMO. Cue the St George flag-waving brigade. Mr Red? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rixalex Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 I repeat, England were lucky to win against Ukraine and draw against France. All this increasing optimism on the `anything can happen when you reach the knock-out stages` is not borne out by fact. The myth is perhaps borne out of the triumphs by Greece and maybe Denmark - the only two from the many European and World tournaments of my lifetime, as far as I can recall. Fact: the better teams win games more often than do the lucky plucky cr@p teams. Ok, we are not cr@p, but we are hardly top class either. Maybe we can beat Italy as they are similarly unsettled and maybe we can improve (though I saw us go backwards against Ukraine). Thereafter any thoughts of progressing further are delusional - IMO. Cue the St George flag-waving brigade. Mr Red? I don't think anyone is particularly fancying our chances. The feeling is i think more a sense of we have achieved as much as we dared hope for, so happiness and relief at that, and now we can relax and just take what comes, because anything beyond where we are now is going to be an unexpected bonus. Hopefully the players go into the game with that same attitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skybluestu Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 See England are now slight favourites with the bookies to beat Italy in the quarters on Sunday. Seems relatively optimistic to me all things considered. I saw these stats on England v Italy earlier. The Italy numbers are really about what you would expect for a team that has qualified for the quarter finals - it is the England numbers that are more revealing. The possession stat is hardly a surprise - the third lowest of any team in the tournament. Ireland was lowest - 3 guesses which team was 2nd lowest (it isnt entirely obvious.) More worrying is the shot ratio - 10.3 for/17.7 against or 36.8% of total shots. That is not good. In fact it is worse than any team in the premiership (Bolton 40.1%, Wolves 40.6% and they were both relegated, City top 63.6%). And with just 3.3 shots on target per match you are not likely to score many goals. It is just that England has a 50% conversion ratio (virtually double the average of the premier league) which is unlikely to be sustainable. I mean we didnt expect England to get many shots on goal so we didnt expect them to score many goals. In the event they didnt get many shots on goal and have scored quite a few. But it looks a bit lucky. More stats here http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/chance-glory-england-9-7-212347655.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exsexyman Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport/sport-headlines/hodgson-convinced-weve-won-euro-2012-2012062031176 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokie36 Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 No gents...you are being myopic here....those of us who watch Rugby League regularly know the truth....it can be easily applied to any decision and adds excitement rather than detracting...so long as it is not abused. Yes nothing more exciting than looking up at the screen for 3 or 4 minutes waiting for the decision TRY or NO TRY, it really is riveting stuff smokie. When its a goal line decision against your lot nev its three or four minutes of smug grins we'll be enjoying. No more manure refereeing decisions please! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evadgib Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) I'm curious as to why a British company (Tescos) is using this to promote England's participation in the tournament... (Checkout the string of flags next time you visit your local branch). Edited June 22, 2012 by evadgib Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rixalex Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 I'm curious as to why a British company (Tescos) is using this to promote England's participation in the tournament... (Checkout the string of flags next time you visit your local branch). Get your point, but surely first rule of business is to appeal to your customer base, and for many Thais, the Union Jack symbolises England. I daresay if Tescos in the UK was doing some sort of promotion on Thai products, they wouldn't be awfully worried about accuracy in the imaging used, but worried about the customers identifying the images as being representative in their eyes of Thailand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brit1984 Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 I'm curious as to why a British company (Tescos) is using this to promote England's participation in the tournament...(Checkout the string of flags next time you visit your local branch). Maybe they hope to encourage all Brits to get together and support (while drinking beer bought at Tesco) the only home nation in the competition. Just like Smokie... cheering every England kick! Sent from iPhone; please forgive any typos or violations of forum rules Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokie36 Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 I'm curious as to why a British company (Tescos) is using this to promote England's participation in the tournament...(Checkout the string of flags next time you visit your local branch). Maybe they hope to encourage all Brits to get together and support (while drinking beer bought at Tesco) the only home nation in the competition. Just like Smokie... cheering every England kick! Sent from iPhone; please forgive any typos or violations of forum rules Thibk you meant every England player kicked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brit1984 Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 I'm curious as to why a British company (Tescos) is using this to promote England's participation in the tournament...(Checkout the string of flags next time you visit your local branch). Maybe they hope to encourage all Brits to get together and support (while drinking beer bought at Tesco) the only home nation in the competition. Just like Smokie... cheering every England kick! Sent from iPhone; please forgive any typos or violations of forum rules Thibk you meant every England player kicked. Just admit it, you love England and have a life-sized poster of Theo Walcott... Sent from iPhone; please forgive any typos or violations of forum rules Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucidLucifer Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 I'm curious as to why a British company (Tescos) is using this to promote England's participation in the tournament... (Checkout the string of flags next time you visit your local branch). Get your point, but surely first rule of business is to appeal to your customer base, and for many Thais, the Union Jack symbolises England. I daresay if Tescos in the UK was doing some sort of promotion on Thai products, they wouldn't be awfully worried about accuracy in the imaging used, but worried about the customers identifying the images as being representative in their eyes of Thailand. I'd noticed it too, and I think you're right about making it recognisable to the average Thai, that is the conclusion I came to. What puzzled me more, is why did they use a version of the Union Flag that hasn't been use for over 200 years? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rixalex Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 What puzzled me more, is why did they use a version of the Union Flag that hasn't been use for over 200 years? Yes that is strange. Guess they googled it from somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nev Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 I'm curious as to why a British company (Tescos) is using this to promote England's participation in the tournament... (Checkout the string of flags next time you visit your local branch). Get your point, but surely first rule of business is to appeal to your customer base, and for many Thais, the Union Jack symbolises England. I daresay if Tescos in the UK was doing some sort of promotion on Thai products, they wouldn't be awfully worried about accuracy in the imaging used, but worried about the customers identifying the images as being representative in their eyes of Thailand. I'd noticed it too, and I think you're right about making it recognisable to the average Thai, that is the conclusion I came to. What puzzled me more, is why did they use a version of the Union Flag that hasn't been use for over 200 years? Yes that flag has not been used for 200 years, not sure if my memory is correct think it was called Queen Anne flag? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucidLucifer Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 What puzzled me more, is why did they use a version of the Union Flag that hasn't been use for over 200 years? Yes that is strange. Guess they googled it from somewhere. Or done by an Irishman, trying to disassociate themsleves....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokie36 Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 I'm curious as to why a British company (Tescos) is using this to promote England's participation in the tournament...(Checkout the string of flags next time you visit your local branch). Maybe they hope to encourage all Brits to get together and support (while drinking beer bought at Tesco) the only home nation in the competition. Just like Smokie... cheering every England kick! Sent from iPhone; please forgive any typos or violations of forum rules Thibk you meant every England player kicked. Just admit it, you love England and have a life-sized poster of Theo Walcott... Sent from iPhone; please forgive any typos or violations of forum rules Fetch me a pizza and glass of Barolo won't you old chap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JacknDanny Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 I'm curious as to why a British company (Tescos) is using this to promote England's participation in the tournament... (Checkout the string of flags next time you visit your local branch). Get your point, but surely first rule of business is to appeal to your customer base, and for many Thais, the Union Jack symbolises England. I daresay if Tescos in the UK was doing some sort of promotion on Thai products, they wouldn't be awfully worried about accuracy in the imaging used, but worried about the customers identifying the images as being representative in their eyes of Thailand. I'd noticed it too, and I think you're right about making it recognisable to the average Thai, that is the conclusion I came to. What puzzled me more, is why did they use a version of the Union Flag that hasn't been use for over 200 years? Yes that flag has not been used for 200 years, not sure if my memory is correct think it was called Queen Anne flag? Your memory nev? So you are like 200 years old? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rixalex Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 What puzzled me more, is why did they use a version of the Union Flag that hasn't been use for over 200 years? Yes that is strange. Guess they googled it from somewhere. Or done by an Irishman, trying to disassociate themsleves....... Yes possibly. I'm sure the Irish would want to put some distance between themselves and a crap football team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nev Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 Italy>Germany>Spain. now that is the route to England winning it, should we just pack our bags and go home now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucidLucifer Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 What puzzled me more, is why did they use a version of the Union Flag that hasn't been use for over 200 years? Yes that is strange. Guess they googled it from somewhere. Or done by an Irishman, trying to disassociate themsleves....... Yes possibly. I'm sure the Irish would want to put some distance between themselves and a crap football team. You'd have thought so....but apparently they still sing their hearts out when watching the Republic, even after being thrashed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wNrRF9d6Jo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abrak Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 By the way it is interesting to look back at the World Cup when we were generally regarded to have played crap... In the group stages.... possession 53.0% (42.3% Euros) shots for 15.3 (10.3 Euros) shots against 12.7 (17.7 Euros) SOT 6.0 (3.3 Euros) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevieH Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 anyone know what odds balotelli is to get sent off against england? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucidLucifer Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 By the way it is interesting to look back at the World Cup when we were generally regarded to have played crap... In the group stages.... possession 53.0% (42.3% Euros) shots for 15.3 (10.3 Euros) shots against 12.7 (17.7 Euros) SOT 6.0 (3.3 Euros) I was looking at this today on the BBC. Looking at that, our possession isn't too bad. It's never going to hit the heights of Spain, but is on par with a fair few other teams. Our minutes per goal just shows we are actually quite dangerous when we have the ball. I'd have liked to have seen the minutes not in possesion versus goals conceded stats for the complete picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abrak Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 By the way it is interesting to look back at the World Cup when we were generally regarded to have played crap... In the group stages.... possession 53.0% (42.3% Euros) shots for 15.3 (10.3 Euros) shots against 12.7 (17.7 Euros) SOT 6.0 (3.3 Euros) I was looking at this today on the BBC. Looking at that, our possession isn't too bad. It's never going to hit the heights of Spain, but is on par with a fair few other teams. Our minutes per goal just shows we are actually quite dangerous when we have the ball. I'd have liked to have seen the minutes not in possesion versus goals conceded stats for the complete picture. The only problem is our very high conversion rate tends to make us look more dangerous than other measures. So in terms of total shots at goal during our 86 minutes we took 31 which was the 4th lowest of the 16 teams and had 10 on target which was 5th lowest. By comparison Portugal in their 78 minutes had 50 attempts on goal of which 17 were on target and that was against Germany, Holland & Denmark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucidLucifer Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 Of course, stats don't tell the whole story, but I found it quite interesting. Regarding Portugal, for all their shots (both on and off target) how many more goals did they score than England? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now