Football to trial TV referral system, Sepp Blatter reveals

[mrbojangles]

no, the reason were discussing it is because you and a minority of others are in disagreement with the majority ,

Link to the article where you got that stat please. I'd like to hear the reasoning from both sides. I bet it is an interesting read.

[rijit]

Again, I re-iterate what I said above.

it will slow the game down and be the beginning of the end blah, blah is pure conjecture.

not conjecture, of coarse it will slow the game down.

[rijit]

no, the reason were discussing it is because you and a minority of others are in disagreement with the majority ,

Link to the article where you got that stat please. I'd like to hear the reasoning from both sides. I bet it is an interesting read.

just going by the response on here.

And no one has come up with any convincing arguments for it.

[mrbojangles]

Again, I re-iterate what I said above.

it will slow the game down and be the beginning of the end blah, blah is pure conjecture.

not conjecture, of coarse it will slow the game down.

You and I don't even know the full facts of what they intend to introduce, therefore it's conjecture.

Conjecture definition =

noun: conjecture; plural noun: conjectures

1.an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.

"conjectures about the newcomer were many and varied"

synonyms: guess, speculation, surmise, fancy, notion, belief, suspicion, presumption, assumption, theory, hypothesis, postulation, supposition; More

inference, extrapolation, projection;

approximation, estimate, rough calculation, rough idea;

guesswork, guessing, surmising, imagining, theorizing;

informalguesstimate, shot in the dark;

informalballpark figure

"we find his conjectures implausible"

verb

1.form an opinion or supposition about (something) on the basis of incomplete information.

"many conjectured that she had a second husband in mind"

synonyms: guess, speculate, surmise, infer, fancy, imagine, believe, think, suspect, presume, assume, hypothesize, take as a hypothesis, theorize, form/formulate a theory, suppose

"I conjectured that the game was about to end"

[iancnx]

I've read the numerous arguments and some of the scenarios which would make a 'decision review' a waste of time (such as an offside for the offensive team - an offside not called against an offensive team leading to a goal is a different scenario - the defending manager would then make the appeal.)

IF a manager has the opportunity to appeal a decision once in each half you can be assured that the manager will use this very very wisely. It is easy to see such an appeal would only be used for something game changing such as a penalty decision, a red card, an off the ball incident, a foul not spotted leading to a goal, a bite to someone's shoulder etc etc.

Focus on a single appeal in each half and the arguments above regarding time, and the flow of the game etc etc are meaningless.

[mrbojangles]

no, the reason were discussing it is because you and a minority of others are in disagreement with the majority ,

Link to the article where you got that stat please. I'd like to hear the reasoning from both sides. I bet it is an interesting read.

just going by the response on here.

And no one has come up with any convincing arguments for it.

Yep. Didn't think you'd have any.

[jellydog]

I've read the numerous arguments and some of the scenarios which would make a 'decision review' a waste of time (such as an offside for the offensive team - an offside not called against an offensive team leading to a goal is a different scenario - the defending manager would then make the appeal.)

IF a manager has the opportunity to appeal a decision once in each half you can be assured that the manager will use this very very wisely. It is easy to see such an appeal would only be used for something game changing such as a penalty decision, a red card, an off the ball incident, a foul not spotted leading to a goal, a bite to someone's shoulder etc etc.

Focus on a single appeal in each half and the arguments above regarding time, and the flow of the game etc etc are meaningless.

I wouldn't bet the mortgage on this assumption.

[rijit]

Again, I re-iterate what I said above.

it will slow the game down and be the beginning of the end blah, blah is pure conjecture.

not conjecture, of coarse it will slow the game down.

You and I don't even know the full facts of what they intend to introduce, therefore it's conjecture.

Conjecture definition =

noun: conjecture; plural noun: conjectures

1.an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.

"conjectures about the newcomer were many and varied"

synonyms: guess, speculation, surmise, fancy, notion, belief, suspicion, presumption, assumption, theory, hypothesis, postulation, supposition; More

inference, extrapolation, projection;

approximation, estimate, rough calculation, rough idea;

guesswork, guessing, surmising, imagining, theorizing;

informalguesstimate, shot in the dark;

informalballpark figure

"we find his conjectures implausible"

verb

1.form an opinion or supposition about (something) on the basis of incomplete information.

"many conjectured that she had a second husband in mind"

synonyms: guess, speculate, surmise, infer, fancy, imagine, believe, think, suspect, presume, assume, hypothesize, take as a hypothesis, theorize, form/formulate a theory, suppose

"I conjectured that the game was about to end"

please,,, spare me the semantics

it says its a 'referral scheme', ie 1 or more per game , each will be referred to either the referee and or a 3 rd party and it will be dealt with,

ie it will take time and therefore slow the game up,. or do you see something else .

[Chicog]

It's a dumb idea, and Blatter proved it by coming up with it.

[mrbojangles]

All I'm saying rijit, is let them come up with their idea. Trial it and if it works, great. If not, can it.

If it is a referral, the it suggests that a decision has already been made by the ref, to enable the manager to make his referral. Therefore, the game has probably already stopped. And if it is a major decision, the chances are the ref is surrounded by players arguing the toss. Video replays are done in seconds nowadays, so this could save some time and let them get on with the game quicker knowing justice has been carried out. But then I'm speculating

[mjj]

The pure fact that we are discussing it, shows there is something wrong with the current system.

What?

We're discussing it because that sphincter Blatter is messing with our game again.

Think how ridiculous this could get.

Look at Suarez' handball on the line in the WC.

Say the ref didn't spot it, the Uruguayans had run up the other end and banged it in the net.

Then you get your review.

And the referee disallows the goal, and awards a penalty at the other end, how stupid would that be?

Or how about a referee watching on the TV telling the ref to blow his whistle and award a free kick or something.

Ludicrous.

Fraught with danger it is.

Tbh, with that scenario I would rather the truth come out, even at the expense of free flowing football. I don't want a team gaining that kind of advantage through blatant cheating. A knock on effect might be that players will not try to con the ref as much because they know big brother is watching.

Football is a human sport and I don't want to take that away, refs bad decisions included. But for simple decisions that have a major impact, I don't see why technology can't help the ref. Decisions I would include are borderline penalty decisions and reds where the accused is protesting his innocence. To stop the accused just protesting for the sake of it, if they have, say 3 or 5 protests upheld they get a ban or a couple of games.

I wouldn't want it being used for throw ins, corners, and petty such things. As I said, it is a human sport and mistakes will be made.

[Chicog]

Disallowing goals already given because of a decision up the other end of the pitch. Yeah, that doesn't make a mockery of the game does it?

[BangrakBob]

Sterling's goal at the Empty-had would have counted, no replay's would have been needed "have you watched the replay Mr. Fourth Official?" "Watched it Ref?" "I could have seen that from row Z with me own eye, ya dick-ead"

[mjj]

Disallowing goals already given because of a decision up the other end of the pitch. Yeah, that doesn't make a mockery of the game does it?

Are you suggesting that blatant cheating with a handball on the goal line doesn't make a mockery??

Also, Suarez would probably admitted the mistake anyway as he would have known the cameras picked it up.

[rijit]

All I'm saying rijit, is let them come up with their idea. Trial it and if it works, great. If not, can it.

If it is a referral, the it suggests that a decision has already been made by the ref, to enable the manager to make his referral. Therefore, the game has probably already stopped. And if it is a major decision, the chances are the ref is surrounded by players arguing the toss. Video replays are done in seconds nowadays, so this could save some time and let them get on with the game quicker knowing justice has been carried out. But then I'm speculating

saving time Really, video evidence done in seconds, i don't think so, , how many times in the last ?? games have you seen players chasing down refs

, banter and questioning yes, but the ref moves the game quickly on and the players quickly as well, tbh your argument, though about the strongest that's been put on here, is weak

[NiwPix]

Guys guys guys...why fight and insult over this?

There will be people that are against it. Good for them and nothing needs to be changed. Main reason they're against it, from what I understood, is because it slows the game down

There are people that are for it ( I am ). BUT not the way it has been proposed. Main reason we're for it, because there are many significant wrong calls.

Why not think outside the box. Work on a solution from different angles and just throw some ideas out...that's way more effective than insulting and not listening to the other side.

Here just an idea. Since a main concern is, that it slows down the game....

Let's say a player gets fouled in box and is not awarded a penalty and the game goes on. The coach clearly saw it was a foul. He goes to the fourth official and wants a review ( keep in mind, the game is still going without interruption ). The fourth official then buzzes the FIFTH official to review the questionable penalty.

It turns out the coach is right and he should have been awarded a penalty.

What now? The fifth official lets the ref on the pitch know that the defender committed a foul and wasn't "caught". The ref now sends the player off the field for....let's say...10 minutes. After 10 minutes he's allowed back on. And everything continues as normal.

Again, this is just an idea. I know it's not great and could use some or quite a bit of improvement, but Maybe this just gave another member a better idea of what can be done without slowing the game down.

[rijit]

Guys guys guys...why fight and insult over this?

There will be people that are against it. Good for them and nothing needs to be changed. Main reason they're against it, from what I understood, is because it slows the game down

There are people that are for it ( I am ). BUT not the way it has been proposed. Main reason we're for it, because there are many significant wrong calls.

Why not think outside the box. Work on a solution from different angles and just throw some ideas out...that's way more effective than insulting and not listening to the other side.

Here just an idea. Since a main concern is, that it slows down the game....

Let's say a player gets fouled in box and is not awarded a penalty and the game goes on. The coach clearly saw it was a foul. He goes to the fourth official and wants a review ( keep in mind, the game is still going without interruption ). The fourth official then buzzes the FIFTH official to review the questionable penalty.

It turns out the coach is right and he should have been awarded a penalty.

What now? The fifth official lets the ref on the pitch know that the defender committed a foul and wasn't "caught". The ref now sends the player off the field for....let's say...10 minutes. After 10 minutes he's allowed back on. And everything continues as normal.

Again, this is just an idea. I know it's not great and could use some or quite a bit of improvement, but Maybe this just gave another member a better idea of what can be done without slowing the game down.

weird cos there was me thinking how polite everyone was being to each other on this thread !!!! so lets reiterate, stopping a game ? mins after the event and sending a player off , wont send players and coach's alike ballistic? and create chaos and take even more time up ? not quite a bit more improvement needed, scrapping would be best .or actually working through what your suggesting b4 posting . The games flows ok as it is, and generally the ref's, certainly in the prem, give a very good account of themselves. Goal line technology ,,,needed, the rest definitely not.

[P45Mustang]

I agree totally with bojangles. Trial it, get it to work.

It works fine in tennis. It wasn't Blatter's idea.

It is not right for the result of an important game to be affected by a referee's error where he is totally impotent.

Can I respectfully suggest that everybody reads the view of a top referee like Graham Poll who says 'it isn't fair.'

It isn't fair on the ref let alone anybody else.

The game either needs a challenge/referral system as proposed by Blatter, or something along the lines of what I think mjj is suggesting.

Football appears to be behind tennis, rugby, and cricket in the use of technology.

Why the f is that?

[iancnx]

One appeal per half. Simple. Won't slow the game. Will have a profound effect on the players knowing there will be consequences for surreptitious actions. Will support the referees to reach a correct decision over a crucial incident which they may not have seen clearly (or at all). Will make the game much fairer than what it is at the moment.

[rijit]

tennis stops every ?? anyway so does cricket and dont really know or care how rugby works, but we've all told u why and how it'll f the game up, all i've heard from thw yes camp is ' a bleet of it aint fair or theyve got toys , we aint,!!!! NOT ONE GOOD WAY to solve it. either your thick as shit or it aint quite so easy or there just aint a way of doing it without slowin the game up.

[alfieconn]

Again, I re-iterate what I said above.

it will slow the game down and be the beginning of the end blah, blah is pure conjecture.

not conjecture, of coarse it will slow the game down.

You and I don't even know the full facts of what they intend to introduce, therefore it's conjecture.

Conjecture definition =

noun: conjecture; plural noun: conjectures

1.an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.

"conjectures about the newcomer were many and varied"

synonyms: guess, speculation, surmise, fancy, notion, belief, suspicion, presumption, assumption, theory, hypothesis, postulation, supposition; More

inference, extrapolation, projection;

approximation, estimate, rough calculation, rough idea;

guesswork, guessing, surmising, imagining, theorizing;

informalguesstimate, shot in the dark;

informalballpark figure

"we find his conjectures implausible"

verb

1.form an opinion or supposition about (something) on the basis of incomplete information.

"many conjectured that she had a second husband in mind"

synonyms: guess, speculate, surmise, infer, fancy, imagine, believe, think, suspect, presume, assume, hypothesize, take as a hypothesis, theorize, form/formulate a theory, suppose

"I conjectured that the game was about to end"

Shouldn't this post be on the dippers thread

[alfieconn]

The pure fact that we are discussing it, shows there is something wrong with the current system.

What?

We're discussing it because that sphincter Blatter is messing with our game again.

Think how ridiculous this could get.

Look at Suarez' handball on the line in the WC.

Say the ref didn't spot it, the Uruguayans had run up the other end and banged it in the net.

Then you get your review.

And the referee disallows the goal, and awards a penalty at the other end, how stupid would that be?

Or how about a referee watching on the TV telling the ref to blow his whistle and award a free kick or something.

Ludicrous.

Fraught with danger it is.

Tbh, with that scenario I would rather the truth come out, even at the expense of free flowing football. I don't want a team gaining that kind of advantage through blatant cheating. A knock on effect might be that players will not try to con the ref as much because they know big brother is watching.

Football is a human sport and I don't want to take that away, refs bad decisions included. But for simple decisions that have a major impact, I don't see why technology can't help the ref. Decisions I would include are borderline penalty decisions and reds where the accused is protesting his innocence. To stop the accused just protesting for the sake of it, if they have, say 3 or 5 protests upheld they get a ban or a couple of games.

I wouldn't want it being used for throw ins, corners, and petty such things. As I said, it is a human sport and mistakes will be made.

That's probably your best post mjj

[mrbojangles]

tennis stops every ?? anyway so does cricket and dont really know or care how rugby works, but we've all told u why and how it'll f the game up, all i've heard from thw yes camp is ' a bleet of it aint fair or theyve got toys , we aint,!!!!

And all we have heard from the "No" camp is a bleet about it slowing the game up, when you don't even know the full details of what they intend to trial and how they intend to implement it. I'm so glad the "No" camp are not in charge of technology advancement within the Government, we'd all still be living in caves and hearing speeches about how change is bad for you.

either your thick as shit

Mmmm. Nice.

[P45Mustang]

tennis stops every ?? anyway so does cricket and dont really know or care how rugby works, but we've all told u why and how it'll f the game up, all i've heard from thw yes camp is ' a bleet of it aint fair or theyve got toys , we aint,!!!! NOT ONE GOOD WAY to solve it. either your thick as shit or it aint quite so easy or there just aint a way of doing it without slowin the game up.

Rugby is a very good analogy rijit.

It's closer to football than cricket or tennis.

Need to embrace new technology and make it work without it causing disruption.

It WILL happen.......eventually.

[Chicog]

And all we have heard from the "No" camp is a bleet about it slowing the game up, when you don't even know the full details of what they intend to trial and how they intend to implement it.

That's because Blatter doesn't know either!

[oldgit]

I'd be in favour of off the field technology for diving, especially in the penalty area where the perpetrators get more value for their actions. Referees already give cards for a fouls retrospectively but ,in case he's been duped by the cheating scumbag, the fourth/fifth official gives him the heads up and he issues a caution....red preferably. But Blatter and his cronies wouldn't sanction that in a million years because it's seen as 'gamesmanship' on the continent.

I don't agree with coaches being given the chance of a review as it will be open to abuse. What I would like to see are leaner,meaner looking arbiters who are able to keep up with the play. Jon Moss looks like he's been on a pub crawl when he waddles on to the pitch.

[P45Mustang]

I'd be in favour of off the field technology for diving, especially in the penalty area where the perpetrators get more value for their actions. Referees already give cards for a fouls retrospectively but ,in case he's been duped by the cheating scumbag, the fourth/fifth official gives him the heads up and he issues a caution....red preferably. But Blatter and his cronies wouldn't sanction that in a million years because it's seen as 'gamesmanship' on the continent.

I don't agree with coaches being given the chance of a review as it will be open to abuse. What I would like to see are leaner,meaner looking arbiters who are able to keep up with the play. Jon Moss looks like he's been on a pub crawl when he waddles on to the pitch.

You are not listening to the truth oldgit.

No referree, however fit he is, will it get it right all the time.

[P45Mustang]

And all we have heard from the "No" camp is a bleet about it slowing the game up, when you don't even know the full details of what they intend to trial and how they intend to implement it.

That's because Blatter doesn't know either!

That's why they need to trial it and make it work.

But chicog will resist because the initiative has come from Blatter.

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is the phrase I believe.

Blinkered reactionary dogma.

[rijit]

I'd be in favour of off the field technology for diving, especially in the penalty area where the perpetrators get more value for their actions. Referees already give cards for a fouls retrospectively but ,in case he's been duped by the cheating scumbag, the fourth/fifth official gives him the heads up and he issues a caution....red preferably. But Blatter and his cronies wouldn't sanction that in a million years because it's seen as 'gamesmanship' on the continent.

I don't agree with coaches being given the chance of a review as it will be open to abuse. What I would like to see are leaner,meaner looking arbiters who are able to keep up with the play. Jon Moss looks like he's been on a pub crawl when he waddles on to the pitch.

yeah, retrospectively for diving, elbows and violent conduct ect ect missed by the ref . would work for me, yellows or even reds retro'ly, no need to stop the game. just awarded after or during? by the ref. Defo agree,, coach's with referrals,,, nah,,,,, they'de cheat or as near to it as they could.

[smokie36]

I want something to moan about or laugh at the rest of you moaning about so I can take the piss.