Technology, discipline and laws (and not being cheated at Old Trafford every year)

Adam456

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2005
Messages
3,997
Seeing as the subject of the travesty of justice at Old Trafford has just came up again I thought I'd finally get round to giving you my views on how to prevent them. Sorry about the length but it's an article and there's quite a bit to say. Hope you enjoy


*********************************

23 years ago I watched my first professional football match - a 0-0 draw between the mighty Spurs and Man U at Old Trafford. On an otherwise fairly inconspicuous day in the club's history we all walked away raving about marvellous play by Glen Hoddle, Chris Waddle and others, even though nobody had scored. Roll on a couple of decades and after the same fixture, a game of 7 goals, the conversation was dominated by refereeing. In any other sport other than football that would seem absurd and that's a very damning indictment.

The one undeniable thing that this alludes to is that refereeing and discipline are more important now than they have ever been. Why ?

Well many reasons are touted and they probably all contribute. The amount of money at stake for both clubs and players, the increased speed of the game and athleticism of the payers, the spoilt superstar/pre-madonna effect and the importing of continental style simulation (diving, feigning injury). Those factors have increased the number and variety of disciplinary offences with which a referee and the FA have had to deal with and the increase in the severity of punishment of a number of offences (in particular, so called 'professional' fouls) means that the ability of a single decision to affect the outcome of a match is greater than ever.

Does anybody really care ? Well, yes, I do. Aside from the fact that Man U and the big four probably each benefit from bad decisions to the tune of half a dozen points per year and that it can even be the difference between safety and relegation (e.g. Bolton a few years ago), it spoils games week in, week out. I'm still fuming about the Gomes/Carrick decision 3 months later and didn't want to watch football for days. Indeed, a week later, the ruling out of a perfectly good Jermain Defoe goal could have lost another 2 points had it not been for some heroic defending. Didier Drogba was possibly OTT in his reaction to Chelsea's defeat by Barca but you can certainly understand his frustration after several perfectly good shouts were turned down that would have made the game safe. Well, fans of other clubs may not care but winning a game on the back of dodgy decisions is not for me. And it's definitely NOT the Spurs way.

What's the answer. Technology ? Yes. Technology should be brought in as part of a more fundamental change in the way that matches are officiated and reviewed and with a clarification of some of the most important laws. First of all replays during the game.

I've yet to hear a single compelling reason for not bringing in video replays. They can remove the uncertainty from 99% of decisions. Just because, in a fraction of cases, a situation might be open to differing interpretations is no reason to ignore it. It's like saying that a seatbelt won't save your life in every single situation so there's no point wearing one at all. While exploding such arguments here are a few more oft-quoted reasons for not using replays:

Argument: It'll take too long
Answer: Sky manage to pipe the replay into your living room within 5 seconds so that's just not true

Argument: Replays would mean stopping and starting every minute.
Answer: No you'd only use them on goals, penalties, sending offs and bookings for serious foul play. Remember how much more time is wasted week in, week out by players surrounding the ref to complain about decisions.

Argument: It's too expensive for all levels of play
Answer: So are stadiums, floodlights, physios, even team strips or goalposts. Only use it at levels that can easily afford it - starting with Premiership

Argument: Doesn't it spoil the advantage rule and introduce 'what if's ?
Answer: No - just like now the ref can simply allow play to contnue for a few seconds after seeing a potentially foul incident that he might normally blow up for - whether it be for the attacking OR defending team. If the ball happens to cross the goal line in those few seconds then that'll be a goal - subject to replay of the oriignal incident

Secondly, is something even more likely than replays (which can prevent miscarriages in situ) to have a significant downward effect on the number and seriousness of offences and ultimately mean that we have to spend even less time going to replays in the first place. A complete overhaul (you might even simply call it the introduction) of retrospective action. This refers to fixing the ludicrous situation in which, for example taking Palacious vs. Wigan, millions of fans (most with the benefit of replays but a few thousand in the ground) can watch one player floor another with his forearm in an off-the-ball incident and no disciplinary action is taken because the ref didn't see it and it wasn't in his match report.

Or, for example, the keeper fumbles a shot and the ball crosses the line by a good metre in anybody's book before he scoops it out again. The goalkeeper looks very embarassed until he realises that the ref couldn't see it and runs 30 yards to protest that it didn't cross the line. Yes you've got it. Roy Carroll. No action was ever taken against him to punish his blatant dishonesty. What that sort of incident says for the 'respect' campaign for referees I'll leave to you.

Every game should be reviewed afterwards and EVEN IF action was taken during the match each incident should be assessed for its severity and the appropriateness of any action. (The FA could even operate a post-match mailbox so that fans can e-mail them over an issue that was not spotted. Like the 3rd eye on Soccer AM). I can't imagine that even a quarter of serious incidents would occur if players knew that they would be virtually certain to be named, shamed and punished. You might even see a new dawn in 'sportsmanship' in which players immedaitely admit that they brought somebody down or touched the ball last etc. like Paulo Di Canio some years ago.

The technology is there. Let's use it and clean up the game.

Finally, it would be wrong to write an article on the subject of discipline without mention of a few laws that desperately need clarification because we see refs mis-interpret them week-in week-out, even when they have a crystal-clear view from 5 yards:

1. The 'winning the ball' is not a foul rule.

The simple fact for me is that a good tackle is about taking the ball away so that the opponent can not immediately use it against you. If you don't do that and you bring the player down then you have fouled him. It is not sufficient to get the feigntest of touches that creates no change in direction and maybe pushes the ball an inch along. The player could still use the ball as before and has been prevented from doing so unfairly

2. The 'ball to hand or hand to ball rule' in the area.

Again the simple fact here is that if a player's hand/arm has blocked a cross, pass or shot when the ball wouldn't otherwise have been blocked by his body then that's a penalty but there should be no punishment. If the ref deems that the player has intentionally done this - e.g. stuck out his hand/arm quite obviously then he should be sent off

3. The 'not interfering with play' rule.

For me, any opposing player in your penalty area is interfering with play. However, if people don't like that then whatever we do have needs to be concrete e.g. any player who was originally offside cannot be involved in the play again for 10 seconds or say, until the ball has been back in their own half.


Thanks for reading

Copyright Adam456 2009 :wink:
 

MattyP

Advises to have a beer & sleep with prostitutes
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
14,006
Interesting well thought out article, though suspect it should be in general football despite the spurs references.

For what it is worth I agree with Sepp Blatter - women footballers should wear tighter shirts and skimpier shorts.

On replays, no I don't think they should be used. There's no natural break in play, unlike other sports where they have been used and pioneers of replays such as American Football have toned them down significantly.

An ice hockey style situation, only available to the referee, whereby he would receive a signal when an electronic aid has signalled the whole of the ball has crossed the line I can agree with.

But replays on all sorts of things, no.

The technology exists so use it - well, they have also invented life like dolls thatp you can stick your cock in and will make you come, but without the nagging. I still prefer it the old fashioned way, despite it's inherent problems.
 

Dharmabum

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2003
Messages
8,274
Those who are against instant replays prefer football to live in the 18 century. Wake and move on.... like the rest of the world.
Do Blatter say no to to-days comfort that was "denied" those living back then when football took off as a sport...? Dentist with no modern drills nor anaesthetics etc.
 

Adam456

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2005
Messages
3,997
Interesting well thought out article, though suspect it should be in general football despite the spurs references.

For what it is worth I agree with Sepp Blatter - women footballers should wear tighter shirts and skimpier shorts.

On replays, no I don't think they should be used. There's no natural break in play, unlike other sports where they have been used and pioneers of replays such as American Football have toned them down significantly.

An ice hockey style situation, only available to the referee, whereby he would receive a signal when an electronic aid has signalled the whole of the ball has crossed the line I can agree with.

But replays on all sorts of things, no.

The technology exists so use it - well, they have also invented life like dolls thatp you can stick your cock in and will make you come, but without the nagging. I still prefer it the old fashioned way, despite it's inherent problems.
Thanks MP

I know what you're saying about natural breaks in play but the fact is that most of the time for serious (and contentious) incidents there is a break resulting, be it because the ref has blown the whistle, a player is on the ground and needs treatment, keeper has gathered, ball is out or in the net or, indeed, the players are surrounding the ref in protest. I would take a few more breaks in play and some drop balls to rectify the 3 or 4 decisions that may spoil a game.

'Technology is there - use it' is just a punch line. It should be technology can really, really help - use it


So what do you think about retrospective action ?
 

dontcallme

SC Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
18,411
I agree in the most part. For a long time I've been against the use of technology. I've always been happy being a traditionalist and if a decision goes against you then it's your opportunity to be a man and accept it or cry like a whiny little bitch and throw your toys out your pram because life is just so unfair.

Unfortunately because so many players and fans do the latter there is always a delay after important decisions and as the refs receive no support or respect maybe it is time for an action replay to make the decision for the ref and shut up the whiny, bitch players and fans once and for all.
 

worcestersauce

"I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
21,086
Hands up all those who think Technology will actually prevent us being cheated at Old Trafford every year!
 

Coyboy

The Double of 1961 is still The Double
Joined
Dec 3, 2004
Messages
15,045
I was having this argument with some friends over two much red wine the other night. I am for it for goal line decisions but not much else, including penalties. I think Chelsea should have had at least one or two, and of course Gomes' wasn't a pen, but it is still quite subjective and the rules are so obfuscated and muddy that second referees or whatever you call them could be looking at replays for hours. It works to an extent in cricket, but it gets unclear when talking about things like the ball carrying. It only works for run outs and even then I think the umpires delegate to the third umpire more quickly.

For goaline decisions, it would be simple. But these things happen seldom in football- Carrol, Tevez and the ghost goal at Reading. Penalty claims are constant and fans and pundits seldom agree. I think it will just create another scapegoat. We got fucked twice at Old Trafford. The Mendes goal was unfortunate and so could have been clarified with video technology. The Gomes penalty was clearly not a pen to us but how do we know that the second ref would not have interpreted it equally to Webb? And besides, no one forced us to concede four further goals in that game.

Only goal line decisions are unequivocal and indubitable, as are run outs and line calls in cricket and tennis. Everything else in football, like lbw, is often open to interpretation and I think we need to improve the quality of refereeing organically to reduce bad decisions rather than simply put someone else in front of a TV.
 

bigturnip

Tottenham till I die, Stratford over my dead body
Joined
Oct 8, 2004
Messages
1,640
The problem with technology is that it is only as good as the people operating it and they're just going to be other referees with an agenda.

I'm all for sticking an extra linesman on each goal line to aid the referee in goal line decisions and being an extra pair of eyes with a different perspective on decisions that need to be made in the penalty area, but that's as far as I would go.

The game should be played to the same rules regardless of whether you're playing infornt of 90,000 at Wembley or a man and his dog in the local park.

I agree with the handball thing, if a player gains an advantage from a handball, whether intentional or not, a free kick or penalty should be given and I agree the offside rule needs looking at regarding interference.

I'm against any retrospective action to change a result, when the final whistle goes the result should stand, but retrospective action against players who have blatently cheated or commited a particularly nasty foul is definitely something that needs to happen, otherwise players are going to carry on getting away with it.

Clubs and players should be fined a percentage of their turnover / wages when guilty of wrongdoing, rather than the paltry fines that are handed out now.

Referees should have their contracts torn up and go back to being paid only when they ref, this would incentivise them to perform well and get more money for refereeing the bigger games fairly. At the moment they get a salary that stays the same regardless of how well they perform or what game they are refereeing.

Players found guilty of a violent crime should be banned for 1 year without pay for their first offence and for life if they reoffend, there is no place for thugs on a football field.
 

BringBack_leGin

Audere est facere
Joined
Jul 28, 2004
Messages
21,581
Goal line technology I agree with, but I think any technology should be limited to that. The offside thing is a grey area I guess.

As for hounding referees, it shouldn't really ever happen because it doesn't actually make a difference. The decision is final. The Chelsea players did themselves no good whatsoever with their rantings after the Barca game after all, and amidst their furore at the 1 good penalty shout they were denied (and 3 imaginary penalty shouts) it never dawned on them that, as bad as the ref was, he was bad on both sides of the coin. I'm sure Barcelona weren't thrilled at having their first choice left back sent off for no reason and suspended for the final when they already had a defensive crisis.

I generally don't like the idea of too much technology in the game. I know that to the people on the pitch and to the people in the board room football is a livelyhood and a financial venture, but to the fans football is an emotional experience filled with joy, anger, sadness and confusion, and refereeing mistakes which make us angry are in a way a part of the whole spectacle. I don't go to a match thining "I'm going to see Defoe get his bonus today", I go to a match expecting to see an unpredictable and gripping show.
 

Dharmabum

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2003
Messages
8,274
Why be affraid of technology in football? Sure, it won't solve all the problems but it sure is a much better solution than what we have to day.
Re off-side:

BMJ 2004;329:1470-1472 (18 December), doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7480.1470
Experts' eye view

Can the human eye detect an offside position during a football match?

Francisco Belda Maruenda, specialist in family medicine (general practice)1

1 Centro de Salud de Alquerías, C/ R Fernández Miñarro, No 1, Alquerías, 30580, Murcia, Spain fbeldam@meditex.es

One of the most controversial rules in football is the offside rule. A possible explanation is that the human eye and brain are incapable of processing all the necessary visual information to apply the rule

Football is regulated by rules. One referee and two assistant referees direct every game. When the rules are not applied correctly, the final result may be affected. This is often blamed on human error, but is this always true? In this review I analyse the physiology of the human eye to clarify if it is able to process all the information required to apply effectively one of these rules, the offside position.

Eye physiology

The eyes move to focus on objects and maintain them within their visual field. In doing so, they perform saccadic movements, smooth pursuit movements, vergence movements, vestibular movements, and accommodation.
Saccadic movements
Saccadic movements are rapid, brief, conjugate movements (that is, the eyes move as a pair).1 They occur when the eyes are inspecting an object, when the gaze shifts from one object to another, and during reading. They are necessary for locating objects rapidly in the fovea or for changing the depth of focus of the eye from one object to another within the visual field. This type of movement can be intentional or unintentional.2 Unintentional movements are prompted by an object entering the visual field or by the detection of movement.

The latency from onset of the stimulus to onset of the saccadic eye movement is 200 ms, but this depends on the distance of the object, and a shorter interval may be possible.3 When the range of movement is greater than 10° the response time may increase. Other factors—type of stimulus, feature of stimulus, and observer's attention and age—may also affect the latency of saccadic movement.4 The speed of movement between objects varies from 10 ms to 80 ms and is affected by the angle between the objects.5 It is slower with tiredness and lack of attention6 and varies with the circadian rhythm.7
Smooth pursuit movements
These are necessary for following or tracking a moving object smoothly.8 The latency period is 125-150 ms, and the speed is influenced by the circadian rhythm and tiredness.7

Vergence movements
Convergence occurs when the gaze shifts from a far to a near object or when it tries to focus on an approaching object.1 Divergence is the opposite—transferring the gaze from an intermediate distance to a far or receding object, and more usually gazing into infinity (daydreaming). Latency is 160 ms.



Ruling offside has long been one of the most controversial decisions a referee has to make Credit: EMPICS/PA PHOTOS

Vestibular movements
These are necessary for maintaining visual fixation when the head moves. The latency time is about 100 ms, and the movements often involve rotatory trajectories.

Accommodation
To keep objects in focus on the retina, the eye changes the convexity of the lens.9 360 ms. The time required to change fixation from far to close vision is about 640 ms, while changing from close to far takes 560 ms.9
This process has a latency of about

The offside law

The law was introduced in 1866 and was written in the current version in 1925.10 It clarifies the regular position of the players during the game. To be in an offside position, a player must not only be between the opponents' goal line and the last two players from the defending team, but must be actively involved with the game play at the moment when he or she is passed the ball (fig 1).


Fig 1 The offside position

Is the human eye able to detect an offside offence?

To detect an offside position, the human eye must be capable of detecting at least five moving objects at the same time and determining their positions relative to each other. If these objects are not all in the visual field, an offside cannot be judged, and so the referee and the assistant referees will have to move their heads, thus initiating saccadic movements of the eyes, to locate the objects. The time that the eye needs to detect all the objects is the sum of the eye movements and the accommodation that it has to do.
The ideal condition would be when all the players and the ball are within the visual field. The fixation point would be the ball, and to focus on the relevant players the eye would need for perform saccadic movements. The latency would be 130 ms.3 It would then take 140 ms to focus on the second player, 150 ms for the third player, and 160 ms for the fourth. If all the players are within the visual field of the referee or his assistants and there is no need for accommodation, the minimum time needed to detect the three players relevant to an offside position is 160 ms, because of the capacity of the central nervous system for parallel processing of different objects moving at the same time and the visual capacity to store and integrate.

Offside position: what does the law say? A player is in an offside position if he is nearer to his opponents' goal line than both the ball and the second last opponent. A player is not in an offside position if he is in his own half of the field of play or he is level with the second last opponent or level with the last two opponents.
It is not an offence in itself to be in an offside position. A player in an offside position is penalised only if, in the precise moment when the ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by interfering with play, interfering with an opponent, or gaining an advantage by being in that position. There is no offside offence if a player receives the ball directly from a goal kick, a throw in, or a corner kick.
A decision of the International Football Association Board points out that the offside should not be judged when the player receives the ball but when the ball was sent by another team member. A player who is not offside when his team mate sends him the ball or sends a free kick is not penalised for an offside if he runs ahead while the ball is in flight.

By this time all the players would have moved and changed their position. If one of the players is more than 6 metres away from the referee and another is closer than 6 metres, a further accommodation is required. This will take more time and increase the error: latency of the accommodation is 360 ms, and the time required to change fixation from far to close vision is 640 ms (whereas changing from close to far takes 560 ms).9
As more than four players are usually involved in a football action, focusing on all of them requires more time, thus increasing the chance of error. Clearly the change in position is more important when the defending and attacking players are in a borderline position—that is, almost on the same line—and even a small difference in position is relevant.
Football is a dynamic sport where players move fast and across the full area of the pitch. If we assume that an average player runs at a speed of 7.14 m/s (equivalent to running 100 metres in 14 seconds), in 100 ms he will move by 71 cm. If he moves in a direction opposite to the defensive player, the relative change in position between the two will be even greater (fig 2).



Fig 2 Top: No offside, players in correct position. Bottom: 100 ms later (players' velocity 7.14 m/s), offside

Discussion

Competition in most leagues is fierce, and when referees make errors of judgment the consequences can be far reaching. Many rules in soccer are straightforward and are almost always applied correctly, but others are more prone to misjudgment. One of the most controversial rules to apply is that of offside.11 An offside position by one of the attacking players is penalised with an indirect free kick to the defending team, which ends the attackers' attempt to score a goal. Thus, when an offside is wrongly given or when an offside is not detected, a team may be wrongly deprived of or allowed a goal.
Sometimes, it is evident that a referee has misjudged the position of players and unduly penalised one of the teams, but why does this happen? To apply the offside rule correctly, the referee should be able to keep in his visual field at least five objects at the same time (two players of the attacking team, the last two players of the defending team, and the ball), and this may not be compatible with the normal eye function—especially as these five objects can be anywhere within the defenders' half of the pitch, an area of at least 3200 m2. This may explain at least some of the instances when television replays of a game clearly show that the offside rule was not properly implemented. The key factor in applying this rule correctly is that the player in question must be in the offside position at the exact time when the ball is passed from a team mate, not when the player receives the ball or when the ball is en route between the players.

Summary points To apply the offside rule correctly in a football game, the referee must be able to keep in his visual field at least five objects at the same time—two players of the attacking team, the last two players of the defending team, and the ball
This is beyond the capacity of the human eye, which may explain why so many offside decisions are controversial
The use of modern technology such as freeze frame television to aid referees' decisions is necessary for the offside rule to be applied correctly

By reviewing the physiology of the eye movements likely to be involved in assessing an offside position, I have shown that the relative position of four players and the ball cannot be assessed simultaneously by a referee, and unavoidable errors will be made in the attempt. The use of modern technology during games—freeze frame television and frame by frame analysis—is advisable to limit these errors.


I thank Nuria Navarro Zaragoza for her translation of the paper into English and Joaquín Zaragoza Celdrán for producing the figures. Funding: None.
Competing interests: None declared.

References



  1. Burde RM. Control de los movimientos de los ojos. In: Moses R, ed. Fisiología del ojo de Adler. 8th ed. Buenos Aires: Panamericana, 1988: 122-54.
  2. Maños Pujol M. Fisiología del sistema sacádico. In: Gavilán C, Gavilán J eds. Fisiología y fisiopatología del sistema óculomotor. Madrid: Garsi, 1987: 43-53.
  3. Gavilán J, Gavilán C, Sarriá MJ. Saccadic movements: a computerized study of their velocity and latency. Acta Otolaryngol 1983;96: 429-36.[Medline]
  4. Leigh RJ, Zee DS. The saccadic system. In: Leigh RJ, Zee DS, eds. The neurology of the eye movements. Philadelphia: FA Davis, 1983: 39-68.
  5. Shickman GM. Funciones visuales que dependen del tiempo. In: Moses R, ed. Fisiología del ojo de Adler. 8th ed. Buenos Aires: Panamericana, 1988: 591-633.
  6. Schmidt D, Abel LA, Del
    Osso LF, Daroff RB. Saccadic velocity characteristics. Intrinsic variability and fatigue.
    Aviat Space Environ Med 1979;50: 393.[Medline]
  7. Schalén L, Pyykkö I, Juhola M, Magnusson M, Jänti V, Henriksson N. Intraindividual variation in oculomotor performance in man. Acta Otolaryngol 1984;406(suppl): 212-7.
  8. Gavilán C, Gavilán J. Fisiología y fisiopatología del sistema óculomotor. Madrid: Garsi, 1987: 56-66.
  9. Moses RA. Acomodación. In: Fisiología del ojo de Adler. 8th ed. Buenos Aires: Panamericana, 1988: 285-302.
  10. Olivós Arroyo R. Teoría del fútbol. Seville: Wanceulen, 1992.
  11. International Football Association Board. Laws of the game. Zurich: Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), 2003: 24.
 

Adam456

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2005
Messages
3,997
Bouncing this after the thread about the bad decisions at Chelsea and all of the talk about diving. I've said it before. Don't moan about bad decisions but slag off the use of the perfectly good technology at our fingertips to help prevent them both during the game (replays) and after (restrospective punishment).

Would have been harsh on Eduardo to ban him for diving as little precedent so far but we could draw the line from beginning of next season and then they'd be a level playing field. 5 game ban for any cheating or serious unsportsmanlike behaviour (e.g. Roy Caroll lying to ref) though - not 2. And straight red and said ban if caught during the game
 

soup

On the straightened arrow
Joined
May 26, 2004
Messages
3,051
I agree with the handball thing, if a player gains an advantage from a handball, whether intentional or not, a free kick or penalty should be given and I agree the offside rule needs looking at regarding interference.
The trouble is that on the flip side of this you'd get a fair few players deliberately aiming to chip/smash the ball into a crowd of players, about forearm height, then run around screaming for penalties every 10 minutes.

Rooney would be trying it 10 times a match. That's a fact.
 

Beni

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
4,444
I personally think technology should be introduced for the following:-

1. Goal line Technology.

2. Offsides contributing to a goal - Meaning, that if a goal has been scored, and for example, the captain of the team that has had the goal scored against, can appeal against the goal, if he thinks there was an offside in the build up to the goal. This will then be referred to the Video Referee to rule the decision, based upon replays.

3. Penalties - If a penalty is given, the captain can oppose the decision if he thinks that it is incorrect ie Dived, or defender got the ball. Again, this would go to the video referee to view replays and make the decision.

4. Diving - After the game, a panel to be judge games upon players diving, giving out relevant punishments to the offender.

The appeal system would work like Tennis.

These new rules would not slow the game down at all, as there would already be a stoppage in play, ie 1. After a goal is scored rejoining your own half and 2. Waiting for the penalty to be taken etc.
 

WexfordTownSpur

preposition me arse
Joined
Aug 2, 2007
Messages
2,615
But isn't the real problem the fact that the so called big four, seem to get the decisions that other teams do not?

I agree, goal line technology should and could be brought in, but we also need to look at the conduct of players and managers when dealing with officials!
 

GilzeansGrandad

Standing up for Martin Jol
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
1,777
Good thread. I'm with you on the question of technology; get it in, and the sooner the better.
 

Adam456

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2005
Messages
3,997
I personally think technology should be introduced for the following:-

1. Goal line Technology.

2. Offsides contributing to a goal - Meaning, that if a goal has been scored, and for example, the captain of the team that has had the goal scored against, can appeal against the goal, if he thinks there was an offside in the build up to the goal. This will then be referred to the Video Referee to rule the decision, based upon replays.

3. Penalties - If a penalty is given, the captain can oppose the decision if he thinks that it is incorrect ie Dived, or defender got the ball. Again, this would go to the video referee to view replays and make the decision.

4. Diving - After the game, a panel to be judge games upon players diving, giving out relevant punishments to the offender.

The appeal system would work like Tennis.

These new rules would not slow the game down at all, as there would already be a stoppage in play, ie 1. After a goal is scored rejoining your own half and 2. Waiting for the penalty to be taken etc.
This is the myth about stoppages. It takes far more time to deal with a gang of players surrounding the ref and pushing and shoving than it would to simply check the replay, not to mention the obvious benefits of not having fisticuffs, ref abuse etc. but yes you're right about natural breaks after goals and before penalties

The tennis system has been excellent and it really re-inforces the 'best player won' philosophy. My only worry in applying that to football is that if you run out of challenges in tennis you lose one point in one game in one set and that is less likely to be important. If you've used your challenges in a particularly dirty game then have two major incidents in quick succession that really could be the difference between winning and losing

And like I say, if players know they're at very least near 100% likely to be punished after the game it will cut out so much of the silly stuff they do

The point is we should be looking to introduce replays and retospective punishment and debating thse very points until we come up with a comprehensive, fair and understandable system.
 

Adam456

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2005
Messages
3,997
But isn't the real problem the fact that the so called big four, seem to get the decisions that other teams do not?

I agree, goal line technology should and could be brought in, but we also need to look at the conduct of players and managers when dealing with officials!
Some of it is that the referee simply can't see or analyse quickly enough. Some of it is favouritism and much of it towards the big four I agree. Therefore, make it indefensible for a referee to use such bias. All they have do to now is apologise after the game and pretty much all is forgiven.

And, yes, we should change their behavouir towards the officials by slapping them with big bans which we can re-inforce with coverage of the game
 

MattyP

Advises to have a beer & sleep with prostitutes
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
14,006
So what do you think about retrospective action ?
Disagree with it on every level.

If a player from the opposition team had seriously fouled one of our players but it had been missed by the referee, how is punishing him after the game going to help us.

Had it been seen, he would have been sent off. Eleven against ten, you'd like to think we'd have an advantage.

They can't go back and replay the amount of the game that he would have missed, so no advantage. More often than not, the player that would have been sent off is stronger than the one that comes in to replace them in the games they would miss if retrospective punishment was applied.

Therefore, the next three teams benefit more than we do, as we do not benefit at all. That could be the difference between relegation and survival, between Europe or not.

The next argument would be to introduce technology in the game to catch it when it happens and advise the referee there and then, but where do you draw the line, every bit of contact could potentially have some intent/naughtiness, we'd end up having games lasting 9 hours.
 

vegassd

The ghost of Johnny Cash
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Messages
2,951
Disagree with it on every level.

If a player from the opposition team had seriously fouled one of our players but it had been missed by the referee, how is punishing him after the game going to help us.
The idea is that the player would not have done it in the first place because they know they would get punished for it. Why put a murderer in prison AFTER he has killed? To stop others doing the same.

Regarding in-game technology, I think that it should be limited to goal line decisions for now. Referee decisions are part of the game but I would prefer to watch a sport where such a defining part is aided by technology.

And I think that if such a thing as a "dubious goals committee" exists to allocate goals correctly then why can't the same thing exist to allocate proper punishments? Limit it to serious foul play to begin with.
 

WexfordTownSpur

preposition me arse
Joined
Aug 2, 2007
Messages
2,615
This is the myth about stoppages. It takes far more time to deal with a gang of players surrounding the ref and pushing and shoving than it would to simply check the replay, not to mention the obvious benefits of not having fisticuffs, ref abuse etc. but yes you're right about natural breaks after goals and before penalties

The tennis system has been excellent and it really re-inforces the 'best player won' philosophy. My only worry in applying that to football is that if you run out of challenges in tennis you lose one point in one game in one set and that is less likely to be important. If you've used your challenges in a particularly dirty game then have two major incidents in quick succession that really could be the difference between winning and losing

And like I say, if players know they're at very least near 100% likely to be punished after the game it will cut out so much of the silly stuff they do

The point is we should be looking to introduce replays and retrospective punishment and debating thse very points until we come up with a comprehensive, fair and understandable system.
How bout this then - A player can challenge the ref's decision, and fourth official watches replay on monitor, If he agrees with the ref, the player who said it was a penalty and in fact dived, gets a yellow card! I am sure that would stop all the arm waving and moaning from a lot of these players, who lets face it, dived in the first place! if they are that sure they will challenge, if not, they will keep there fat mouths closed knowing they will end up with a card! problem is, at the moment they have nothing to loose, they argue with the officials and even if they don't succeed, they are hoping the next decision the ref will go with them! :bs: seems to work for Chelsea and Man U:wink:
 
Top