The Kraken Posted 20 June, 2012 Share Posted 20 June, 2012 Because he's a human being and some human beings see things differently to other human beings? He works for UEFA. UEFA run the tournament. Collina has said the ball crossed the line. UEFA's general secretary has said the ball crossed the line. I think its fair to say they had a good look at the footage and concluded that the ball definitely crossed the line. And probably not just some grainy low resolution images that we have seen, they would have been in posession of much better imagery to confirm it one way or the other. Michel Platini is desperate for his 5-officials approach to work and make technology redundant. If there was even the slightest doubt that the ball didn't cross the line then UEFA would have challenged it. They haven't done that, and for good reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 20 June, 2012 Share Posted 20 June, 2012 He works for UEFA. UEFA run the tournament. Collina has said the ball crossed the line. UEFA's general secretary has said the ball crossed the line. I think its fair to say they had a good look at the footage and concluded that the ball definitely crossed the line. And probably not just some grainy low resolution images that we have seen, they would have been in posession of much better imagery to confirm it one way or the other. Michel Platini is desperate for his 5-officials approach to work and make technology redundant. If there was even the slightest doubt that the ball didn't cross the line then UEFA would have challenged it. They haven't done that, and for good reason. Yep....they're all human beings too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyer Posted 20 June, 2012 Share Posted 20 June, 2012 This is the first sensible comment I have seen on this. The tv replay was very indecisive as it appeared to show just a fragement of the ball had not crossed the line. Basically there was no clear space between the ball and the line. In that situation a goal should not be given so well done to the extra official - unlike all the studio pundits he got it absolutely right - and without the help of video technology! Thats because the camera was so far away, Im sure a camera in the post would have showed it in but this is about as close as you can get. Id rather see it not given than a phantom goal given like the one in the FA cup final. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 20 June, 2012 Share Posted 20 June, 2012 Yep....they're all human beings too... Collina isn't. He's clearly at least part robot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 20 June, 2012 Share Posted 20 June, 2012 I don't quite understand this thinking of being so averse to technology for goal line decision. The benchmarks for the technology being introduced insist that a decision must be automatically relayed to the referee within 1 second of a ball crossing the line. There are no stoppages in play for a decision to be reviewed; if the ball crosses the line the technology reports it to the referee almost instaneously so that he can either give the goal or play on. I really don't know why some people are actually opposed to that form of technology. Because it's not needed, and creates an artificial break between the top level of football and everyone else. Let the referees and assistants adjudicate. As I've said before, failing that, you may as well sit them in a tv room the whole time and convey the decisions via video screen. Actually about the only thing yesterday's match proved was that if they want tv replays for goal-line technology they'd better ban white socks as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 20 June, 2012 Share Posted 20 June, 2012 Because it's not needed, and creates an artificial break between the top level of football and everyone else. Let the referees and assistants adjudicate. As I've said before, failing that, you may as well sit them in a tv room the whole time and convey the decisions via video screen. Actually about the only thing yesterday's match proved was that if they want tv replays for goal-line technology they'd better ban white socks as well. How does goal line technology create an artficial break between the top level of football and everyone else, but having 5 officials doesn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 20 June, 2012 Share Posted 20 June, 2012 Does your local park have 5 officials? They could, if they could afford it. They could also have technology, if they could afford it. They're lucky if they get one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 20 June, 2012 Share Posted 20 June, 2012 Thats because the camera was so far away, Im sure a camera in the post would have showed it in but this is about as close as you can get. Id rather see it not given than a phantom goal given like the one in the FA cup final. No, it would have to be outside the post so that the back edge of the near one is in line with the farther one and then you could see if the ball had completely crossed that plane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 20 June, 2012 Share Posted 20 June, 2012 They're lucky if they get one. So there's already a difference between officiating at the top level and at parks level. Technology is just a further extension of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 20 June, 2012 Share Posted 20 June, 2012 I think that's a bit of a frightened way to look at technology and how it can improve the game. Which is the be all and end all; has technology improved the games of rugby, cricket and tennis? Irrefutably yes. Would goal line tech improve football, within the benchmarks laid down by FIFA? Irrefutably yes, it would be more accurate and with no interruption to the game. I would refute that. Were any of these sports worse 30, 40, or 50 years ago? Just as exciting, just as historic. Does it make any difference if a human decides instead of a machine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 20 June, 2012 Share Posted 20 June, 2012 How does goal line technology create an artficial break between the top level of football and everyone else, but having 5 officials doesn't? I'm also against that, though firstly there are 6 officials, and secondly there's no significant cost actually stopping parks games from having 6 officials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 20 June, 2012 Share Posted 20 June, 2012 I would refute that. Were any of these sports worse 30, 40, or 50 years ago? Just as exciting, just as historic. Does it make any difference if a human decides instead of a machine? Technology has made these games better by ensuring the decisions made by the officials are correct more often. That is clearly a good thing. And as you say they are just as exciting, so the introduction of technology has not diluted the viewing enjoyment. If a machine makes a more accurate job of officating (in conjunction with a human referee) and the sports content is just as exciting, I don't see how that is a bad thing, or why people are scared of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 20 June, 2012 Share Posted 20 June, 2012 How does goal line technology create an artficial break between the top level of football and everyone else, but having 5 officials doesn't? does the park have professional refs, 30k seater stadiums, the best changing rooms, the best goals (no big holes in the nets) unbiased officials..etc etc that argument is silly....park football is so far removed from premier league football it unreal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S-Clarke Posted 20 June, 2012 Share Posted 20 June, 2012 To sum it up, the ball was over the line. The goal wasn't given. The player was off side anyway. If that goal was given, it wouldn't have changed anything based on the other results. We'd have still won the group on 5pts and the Ukraine would have still finished 3rd. The goal we weren't given against Germany was much more pivotal because it would have equalized the scores and it would have changed the game, which as a one-off knock out match. That was clearly over the line. Swings and roundabouts and all that. It all evens it's self out in time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 20 June, 2012 Share Posted 20 June, 2012 I'm also against that, though firstly there are 6 officials, and secondly there's no significant cost actually stopping parks games from having 6 officials. Is there a significant cost stopping park's football from having the tech? We simply don't know yet what the costs will be. But there is the possibility, if they choose to do so, for any team ti implement either 6 officials or the technology. And kets be honest here, even at local level officiating costs a fair bit of money. Add 6 officials, based over 20 odd games per season, and that's already a hefty bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legod Third Coming Posted 20 June, 2012 Share Posted 20 June, 2012 If every decision is right, wont that spoil the game for you? would for me. Good part of the game for me is talking about this sort of thing in the pub etc... I can see why most clubs want it as a wrong decision could cost millions of quid and wouldn't surprise me if its in within 2 or 3 seasons. Oh..and what was the point of the 5th official on goal line duties when he misses it...wasn't even close I'm at the other end of the scale. When a sportsman has worked their whole life to achieve something and fails not through their own inability but the incompetence of an official, I hate it. I can't think of a single sport that hasn't been improved by technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 20 June, 2012 Share Posted 20 June, 2012 does the park have professional refs, 30k seater stadiums, the best changing rooms, the best goals (no big holes in the nets) unbiased officials..etc etc that argument is silly....park football is so far removed from premier league football it unreal The point is that they can; if they can afford it. People are saying its a different set of rules; it clearly isn't, its just a cost issue. Some clubs can barely afford linesmen so don't have proper officials. Some clubs have designated linesmen. Further up the league you have fourth officials. Further up still, you have the extra official by the goal. Goal line technology is simply an extra step on top of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 20 June, 2012 Share Posted 20 June, 2012 Technology has made these games better by ensuring the decisions made by the officials are correct more often. That is clearly a good thing. And as you say they are just as exciting, so the introduction of technology has not diluted the viewing enjoyment. I don't think it's in any way essential that every decision is correct, only that the arbiters are making their decisions genuinely and as fairly as possible. I don't care in any way that there are bad decisions, the problem is a lack of respect for the officials irrespective of their decision making ability, and the refusal to accept that human error can in fact impact on multi-million pound companies, not the fact that they occasionally get things wrong. Actually, I see the existence of the humanity of refereeing decisions as a kind of weak link in the money making machine as a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 20 June, 2012 Share Posted 20 June, 2012 The point is that they can; if they can afford it. People are saying its a different set of rules; it clearly isn't, its just a cost issue. Some clubs can barely afford linesmen so don't have proper officials. Some clubs have designated linesmen. Further up the league you have fourth officials. Further up still, you have the extra official by the goal. Goal line technology is simply an extra step on top of that. The reason parks teams don't have 6 officials is nothing to do with money, it's because the number of officials are declining because of the behaviour of players and people don't want to do it. The issue is to educate players to accept decisions are made in good faith, not to put decision making in the hands of a bunch of the money obsessed - and saying "actually you're right, they ARE crap at it, let's get some cameras in" is not supporting that cause. I will say I'm being a massive hypocrite having only ever been booked or sent off for dissent... but that's by the by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legod Third Coming Posted 20 June, 2012 Share Posted 20 June, 2012 The reason parks teams don't have 6 officials is nothing to do with money, it's because the number of officials are declining because of the behaviour of players and people don't want to do it. The issue is to educate players to accept decisions are made in good faith, not to put decision making in the hands of a bunch of the money obsessed - and saying "actually you're right, they ARE crap at it, let's get some cameras in" is not supporting that cause. I will say I'm being a massive hypocrite having only ever been booked or sent off for dissent... but that's by the by. I also agree with this. I am stunned at the professional cheating at all levels of football now. Shirt pulling, nudges in the back, dragging feet across an opponent's leg... Can you name one other sport where cheating is ignored? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 20 June, 2012 Share Posted 20 June, 2012 Is there a significant cost stopping park's football from having the tech? We simply don't know yet what the costs will be. But there is the possibility, if they choose to do so, for any team ti implement either 6 officials or the technology. And kets be honest here, even at local level officiating costs a fair bit of money. Add 6 officials, based over 20 odd games per season, and that's already a hefty bill. As I've said, it's not actually a cost issue anyway. Just as having replays for every team in every park is as much a logistics and practicality issue as a cost one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 20 June, 2012 Share Posted 20 June, 2012 I don't think it's in any way essential that every decision is correct, only that the arbiters are making their decisions genuinely and as fairly as possible. I don't care in any way that there are bad decisions, the problem is a lack of respect for the officials irrespective of their decision making ability, and the refusal to accept that human error can in fact impact on multi-million pound companies, not the fact that they occasionally get things wrong. Actually, I see the existence of the humanity of refereeing decisions as a kind of weak link in the money making machine as a good thing. And that's your opinion. I simply don't agree; particularly for decisions which can be proven 100% without impacting the flow of the game. If those decisions can be made correctly every single time and without as I say negatively impacting the game's flow (which is what we have right now and what the benchmarks of GLT will ensure) then I really cannot see a down side to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 20 June, 2012 Share Posted 20 June, 2012 I also agree with this. I am stunned at the professional cheating at all levels of football now. Shirt pulling, nudges in the back, dragging feet across an opponent's leg... Can you name one other sport where cheating is ignored? It's not ignored in football - it's just not practical to call every single incident. You might want to talk to the NHL officials about "legal" fighting, or to "non-contact" basketball officials ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 20 June, 2012 Share Posted 20 June, 2012 And that's your opinion. I simply don't agree; particularly for decisions which can be proven 100% without impacting the flow of the game. If those decisions can be made correctly every single time and without as I say negatively impacting the game's flow (which is what we have right now and what the benchmarks of GLT will ensure) then I really cannot see a down side to it. Yeah, and that's your opinion and fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 20 June, 2012 Share Posted 20 June, 2012 The reason parks teams don't have 6 officials is nothing to do with money, it's because the number of officials are declining because of the behaviour of players and people don't want to do it. The issue is to educate players to accept decisions are made in good faith, not to put decision making in the hands of a bunch of the money obsessed - and saying "actually you're right, they ARE crap at it, let's get some cameras in" is not supporting that cause. I will say I'm being a massive hypocrite having only ever been booked or sent off for dissent... but that's by the by. I don't disagree with what you're saying. But I think you're missing the point of what I'm saying. People are saying GLT should not be brought in, simply because its a different set of rules to lower league football. I'm saying that's not true. And I'm saying ANY football team can emulate the top level of football; whether that be by using 6 officials, or by implementing GLT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legod Third Coming Posted 20 June, 2012 Share Posted 20 June, 2012 It's not ignored in football - it's just not practical to call every single incident. You might want to talk to the NHL officials about "legal" fighting, or to "non-contact" basketball officials ? But is it as prevalent in those sports? I've been watching this ultra motion coverage of the football and at the very top level it just seems to be all the time. It isn't practical to call every single incident, true. But is that because we've been too lenient... Rugby refs seem to do a great job of better policing the game... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VectisSaint Posted 20 June, 2012 Share Posted 20 June, 2012 Because he's a human being and some human beings see things differently to other human beings? Never been totally convinced that Collina is a human being. I think maybe he is the Mekon. I only have one problem with goal line technology, and that is that it cannot be applied at all levels of the game. The cost is enormous, and would be prohibitive even at semi-pro level, can you imagine the Tyro League or other kids footy having Hawkeye systems installed? But it will come because football is no longer a sport or a passtime but a multi-billion pound industry. Its the same as having 4th officials, we have a desparate shortage of referees in this country, yet every week now hundreds spend their time standing on the touchline holding up boards with numbers on, and checking that players studs are ok before they come on the pitch. You don't need to be a qualified ref to do that. The game's arbitraters forget the beauty of the game, that the rules are simple and can be applied universally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 20 June, 2012 Share Posted 20 June, 2012 Never been totally convinced that Collina is a human being. I think maybe he is the Mekon. I only have one problem with goal line technology, and that is that it cannot be applied at all levels of the game. The cost is enormous, and would be prohibitive even at semi-pro level, can you imagine the Tyro League or other kids footy having Hawkeye systems installed? But it will come because football is no longer a sport or a passtime but a multi-billion pound industry. Its the same as having 4th officials, we have a desparate shortage of referees in this country, yet every week now hundreds spend their time standing on the touchline holding up boards with numbers on, and checking that players studs are ok before they come on the pitch. You don't need to be a qualified ref to do that. The game's arbitraters forget the beauty of the game, that the rules are simple and can be applied universally. neither can most things in premier league football...that give the players a huge advantage over their sunday league counterparts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VectisSaint Posted 20 June, 2012 Share Posted 20 June, 2012 I don't disagree with what you're saying. But I think you're missing the point of what I'm saying. People are saying GLT should not be brought in, simply because its a different set of rules to lower league football. I'm saying that's not true. And I'm saying ANY football team can emulate the top level of football; whether that be by using 6 officials, or by implementing GLT. Its you that is missing the point. Kids football, Sunday League, lucky if you can get a referee let alone 6 officials, and the cost of Hawkeye is way beyond the reach of these types of teams (at least for the foreseeable future). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 20 June, 2012 Share Posted 20 June, 2012 I only have one problem with goal line technology, and that is that it cannot be applied at all levels of the game. First of all; it can. It is not a new rule; just like having 6 officials at the very top level. Extra officials and GLT can be replicated at any league level. Of course the cost could prove prohibitive, but it can be implemented. Without seeing costs yet, I wonder how a season of GLT stacks up against the addition of extra officials. Especially over, say, a 5 year period. Secondly; cricket, rugby and tennis have all benefitted from Hawkeye and video replays, which only exists at the top level of the game, and this is not a problematic factor. Football would be just the same; officiating gets better in quality (and numbers) the higher up the pyramid you go, GLT is a further extension of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 20 June, 2012 Share Posted 20 June, 2012 Its you that is missing the point. Kids football, Sunday League, lucky if you can get a referee let alone 6 officials, and the cost of Hawkeye is way beyond the reach of these types of teams (at least for the foreseeable future). No. the point is that its IS possible to utilise the same set of rules at any level of football. We already have deviations of numbers of officials from top to bottom, from 6 at the top down to a manager reffing with subs as linesmen at local level. So i don't know why its inconceivable to add in one further level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david in sweden Posted 20 June, 2012 Share Posted 20 June, 2012 (edited) Just another fiasco for the Blatter camp. He bleated on for years about the integrity of the referee blah, blah, and refused to even discuss goal line technology. Came out with a load of bluff about it wasting time and stopping the match... Hey Sepp, have you timed how long it takes to line-up before the ref. OK's to take a free kick, or a corner. ? (sometimes more than a minute from the time of the offence)....so a TV replay 5-10 secs. after an incident can hardly be time wasted. What on earth is the fourth official for ? ..he should be watching the game on a monitor, seeing replays and informing the ref. in the game way that the linesmen do), and see .......as the many millions of TV fans ......what " really happened". Then after the Lampard incident he was forced to admit there was a case for it, but even using two extra goal-line officials didn't resolve last night's incident. Only after the penalty shoot out in the Chelsea v.Bayern game did he submit the idea that it wasn't a good way to resolve games (doubtless prompted by Beckenbauer's objections to Bayerns defeat) After decades of these type of incidents, I'm disgusted at the way an official can play " Hollywood director " and create a scenario that is totally unreal. Your time is up Sepp Blatter - go now, you won't have those crooked FIFA officials around next time to vote you in - yet again. Edited 20 June, 2012 by david in sweden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 20 June, 2012 Share Posted 20 June, 2012 Technology has made these games better by ensuring the decisions made by the officials are correct more often. That is clearly a good thing. And as you say they are just as exciting, so the introduction of technology has not diluted the viewing enjoyment. If a machine makes a more accurate job of officating (in conjunction with a human referee) and the sports content is just as exciting, I don't see how that is a bad thing, or why people are scared of it. Because there's no need for it. It doesn't work for every decision made all over the pitch, and we don't know that the decisions are any more correct. I've also seen bad decisions made on the basis of slow-motion replays, England's disallowed try in the rugby World Cup final for one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 20 June, 2012 Share Posted 20 June, 2012 (edited) Because there's no need for it. It doesn't work for every decision made all over the pitch, and we don't know that the decisions are any more correct. I've also seen bad decisions made on the basis of slow-motion replays, England's disallowed try in the rugby World Cup final for one. Says you. The head of FIFA and many, many people within the game see it as an entirely logical and necessary next step. It's not supposed to work for every decision all over the pitch. Its extremely focussed on one minor but important area. If it works as FIFA demand, it has no downsides. At all. Edit: And I don't consider that English try decision was a bad one by any means. The referee had doubts that the player had stayed in play, so referred it to video. The video couldn't conclusively prove that the player hadn't stepped in to touch, therefore (rightly) the referee couldn't award the try. That's how its supposed to work in rugby (although IMO video replays would never work in football and should never be implemented). Edited 20 June, 2012 by The Kraken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 20 June, 2012 Share Posted 20 June, 2012 Says you. The head of FIFA and many, many people within the game see it as an entirely logical and necessary next step. It's not supposed to work for every decision all over the pitch. Its extremely focussed on one minor but important area. If it works as FIFA demand, it has no downsides. At all. Edit: And I don't consider that English try decision was a bad one by any means. The referee had doubts that the player had stayed in play, so referred it to video. The video couldn't conclusively prove that the player hadn't stepped in to touch, therefore (rightly) the referee couldn't award the try. That's how its supposed to work in rugby (although IMO video replays would never work in football and should never be implemented). No, the referee specifically said "is there any reason why I should not award the try", which is a different presumption. The video official decided that the player had stepped into touch, by brushing a couple of blades of grass with his toe, it appeared to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 20 June, 2012 Share Posted 20 June, 2012 No, the referee specifically said "is there any reason why I should not award the try", which is a different presumption. The video official decided that the player had stepped into touch, by brushing a couple of blades of grass with his toe, it appeared to me. That's the question that rugby referees give to the video ref; to clarify if there's anything they are uncertain of. Referees are not obliged to go to the video ref; it is their choice if they have even the slightest of doubt. A bit like run outs in cricket, the umpire can refer it if there is any doubt whatsoever, or give it in/out if he is already 100% certain. If the ref is 100% certain its a try, he gives it. If the ref is in any doubt, he can refer it. And if the video is not 100% conclusive that it's a try, then the try isn't given. Exactly how it should be. I'm genuinely surprised this approach is seen as a bad thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 21 June, 2012 Share Posted 21 June, 2012 That's the question that rugby referees give to the video ref; to clarify if there's anything they are uncertain of. Referees are not obliged to go to the video ref; it is their choice if they have even the slightest of doubt. A bit like run outs in cricket, the umpire can refer it if there is any doubt whatsoever, or give it in/out if he is already 100% certain. If the ref is 100% certain its a try, he gives it. If the ref is in any doubt, he can refer it. And if the video is not 100% conclusive that it's a try, then the try isn't given. Exactly how it should be. I'm genuinely surprised this approach is seen as a bad thing. I'm genuinely surprised that human beings don't appreciate that other human beings have different opinions and that neither their opinion or someone else's opinion is right or wrong. I'm with you, let's give this technology malarkey a go. Nothing to lose. But I understand why the human nature in others is reluctant to give things a go. Some people will always prefer some things the way they are, other people will prefer to change. That's life. No surprises there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulwantsapint Posted 21 June, 2012 Share Posted 21 June, 2012 Lets set the scene Last game of the season saints need a result to stay up/ make europe Rickie hits last min shot that either gets cleared or bounces millimetres behind the line is it fair not to give it because the local pub team can't afford the technology? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 21 June, 2012 Share Posted 21 June, 2012 Exactly. I don't like Blatter at all, but a lot of his comments get twisted. The idea that him and Platini hate all things English is completely false. Sadly a lot of people seem to fall for the media spin. B*ll*cks. You may be right to some degree about Blatter, but for me it is clear he sees the English FA as a threat to his power, but Platini absolutely despises the English. I think he animosity has always been there, but was certainly amplified by the Heysel Stadium Disaster. Some of you might recall he scored the "penalty". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 21 June, 2012 Share Posted 21 June, 2012 Any kind of video replay or anything that would stop the flow of the game just wouldn't work. If they can get a Hawkeye type system to flash up when the ball has crossed the line that might just about be workable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 21 June, 2012 Share Posted 21 June, 2012 Any kind of video replay or anything that would stop the flow of the game just wouldn't work. If they can get a Hawkeye type system to flash up when the ball has crossed the line that might just about be workable. Hmm. Cricket is so slow anyway that replays dont matter. Replays dont seem to screw up ice hockey too much... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 21 June, 2012 Share Posted 21 June, 2012 I've got a radical idea....let's give it a go for one season and see what happens. I'm guessing no-one will die as a result of trying it out. Next week I shall be mainly having a crack at rocket science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyer Posted 21 June, 2012 Share Posted 21 June, 2012 That's the question that rugby referees give to the video ref; to clarify if there's anything they are uncertain of. Referees are not obliged to go to the video ref; it is their choice if they have even the slightest of doubt. A bit like run outs in cricket, the umpire can refer it if there is any doubt whatsoever, or give it in/out if he is already 100% certain. If the ref is 100% certain its a try, he gives it. If the ref is in any doubt, he can refer it. And if the video is not 100% conclusive that it's a try, then the try isn't given. Exactly how it should be. Thats the way it works in ice hockey except the video room can let the ref know it needs to be checked. People come up with all excuses why we shouldnt have it but we have it in ice hockey rugby and even the most traditional of spots, cricket. I think it should be mandatory for top leagues in Europe and I would use it for red cards, penalties and goals (not just over the goal line but was it handball, was the ball out of play etc) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 21 June, 2012 Share Posted 21 June, 2012 Thats the way it works in ice hockey except the video room can let the ref know it needs to be checked. People come up with all excuses why we shouldnt have it but we have it in ice hockey rugby and even the most traditional of spots, cricket. I think it should be mandatory for top leagues in Europe and I would use it for red cards, penalties and goals (not just over the goal line but was it handball, was the ball out of play etc) This is exactly why we should not introduce it. Leave the game as it it, pure and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 21 June, 2012 Share Posted 21 June, 2012 I think it should be mandatory for top leagues in Europe and I would use it for red cards, penalties and goals (not just over the goal line but was it handball, was the ball out of play etc) No, no and thrice no for me. I absolutely think it should be brought in for GLT. But I simply don't think football would stand up to referrals for all the things you mention. Technology will only work IMO for issues which are 100% cut and dried such as a ball going out of play. Fouls, dives etc etc are sometimes subjective and you'd completely dimish the authority of the ref by taking that sort of decision making out of his hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Bob Posted 21 June, 2012 Share Posted 21 June, 2012 No, no and thrice no for me. I absolutely think it should be brought in for GLT. But I simply don't think football would stand up to referrals for all the things you mention. Technology will only work IMO for issues which are 100% cut and dried such as a ball going out of play. Fouls, dives etc etc are sometimes subjective and you'd completely dimish the authority of the ref by taking that sort of decision making out of his hands. And can you imagine how stop-start the game would become. "Ref he pulled my shirt in the box, it's a penalty" "OK son we'll send it upstairs" 3 minutes later...... An extreme example but you see what I mean! Sent from my HTC VLE_U using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 21 June, 2012 Share Posted 21 June, 2012 And can you imagine how stop-start the game would become. "Ref he pulled my shirt in the box, it's a penalty" "OK son we'll send it upstairs" 3 minutes later...... An extreme example but you see what I mean! Sent from my HTC VLE_U using Tapatalk 2 Yep, and its exactly what would happen. Referrals work in other sports because there are natural break points. Rugby referrals after a try; there's a conversion to wait for anyway, (which the kicker is allowed 1 minute to prepare for) so adding a few seconds on top of that is nothing. Cricket, you have the time it takes the bowler to get back to his mark so again a natural break. Tennis stops after each point. Football is entirely based around a fast paced games with few interruptions. There have been many innovations to make this happen better (backpass rule, offside rule changed, advantage rule adapted, injured players get treated off the field etc etc). Video replays would be a massivley detrimental change IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 21 June, 2012 Share Posted 21 June, 2012 Yep, and its exactly what would happen. Referrals work in other sports because there are natural break points. Rugby referrals after a try; there's a conversion to wait for anyway, (which the kicker is allowed 1 minute to prepare for) so adding a few seconds on top of that is nothing. Cricket, you have the time it takes the bowler to get back to his mark so again a natural break. Tennis stops after each point. Football is entirely based around a fast paced games with few interruptions. There have been many innovations to make this happen better (backpass rule, offside rule changed, advantage rule adapted, injured players get treated off the field etc etc). Video replays would be a massivley detrimental change IMO. And there we can agree... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 21 June, 2012 Share Posted 21 June, 2012 I would refute that. Were any of these sports worse 30, 40, or 50 years ago? Just as exciting, just as historic. Does it make any difference if a human decides instead of a machine? I think it needs to be placed in context of the fact that TV coverage has meant that the viewing public gets to see the mistakes that the officials miss through natural human error. In the past this was not a problem as we simply had to assume that the ref had the best view, and had no chnace of seeing a more deatiled slow motion reply. Thats the problem, If you are going to show teh audience replays and detail, then there is far greater pressure on the decsions being accurate. No replays, no need, replays especially with the 30+ cameras and extreme slow mo means a very strong need to get decsions right, or else you lose the integrity from the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 21 June, 2012 Share Posted 21 June, 2012 B*ll*cks. You may be right to some degree about Blatter, but for me it is clear he sees the English FA as a threat to his power, but Platini absolutely despises the English. I think he animosity has always been there, but was certainly amplified by the Heysel Stadium Disaster. Some of you might recall he scored the "penalty". TBF, I dont think Blatter has an issue pe se with the FA, but one in general about the disproportionate vote /seat that the home nations have on the governing body/rules thing, simply because we invented the game... in every other sport that is now global, this is no longer the case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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