[cite]Posted By: oohaahmortimer[/cite]i thought sears 'goal' should not have counted cos his foot was up and that's dangerous play......
does anyone know if it was macarthorse who set up bristol city's winner??
[cite]Posted By: Chizz[/cite]I don't agree that a camera will necessarily clear up that kind of incident, simply because the ball is not dead until it crosses the line. And if it crosses the line, it's a goal.
In other words, when do they decide to stop the game to decide whether the ball's dead?
That objection always comes up, but look at the amount of time that everyone bickered for in that case. I believe the ball was dead anyway, because the idiot ref gave a goal kick, but even if he'd not just wait until the ball is next dead, which is rarely more than a minute, no drama. Certainly less drama than there was anyway.
[cite]Posted By: Chizz[/cite]I don't agree that a camera will necessarily clear up that kind of incident, simply because the ball is not dead until it crosses the line. And if it crosses the line, it's a goal.
In other words, when do they decide to stop the game to decide whether the ball's dead?
That objection always comes up, but look at the amount of time that everyone bickered for in that case. I believe the ball was dead anyway, because the idiot ref gave a goal kick, but even if he'd not just wait until the ball is next dead, which is rarely more than a minute, no drama. Certainly less drama than there was anyway.
Exactly. If you look at a game from "text reports" i.e 3min thrown in, 5 min freekick, then it shows that there are actually very few long periods when the ball is in play.
Could a ruling, rather like the challenge in tennis, not come into effect, where teams have a certain number in a game to stop these being used too run down the clock, and if the ruling is against the team challenging then an in-direct freekick be awarded against the challenging team from a pre-determined point on the pitch?
Football is not as flowing as we all think and IMO using technology would not impact on it.
[cite]Posted By: Chizz[/cite]I don't agree that a camera will necessarily clear up that kind of incident, simply because the ball is not dead until it crosses the line. And if it crosses the line, it's a goal.
In other words, when do they decide to stop the game to decide whether the ball's dead?
That objection always comes up, but look at the amount of time that everyone bickered for in that case. I believe the ball was dead anyway, because the idiot ref gave a goal kick, but even if he'd not just wait until the ball is next dead, which is rarely more than a minute, no drama. Certainly less drama than there was anyway.
Exactly. If you look at a game from "text reports" i.e 3min thrown in, 5 min freekick, then it shows that there are actually very few long periods when the ball is in play.
Could a ruling, rather like the challenge in tennis, not come into effect, where teams have a certain number in a game to stop these being used too run down the clock, and if the ruling is against the team challenging then an in-direct freekick be awarded against the challenging team from a pre-determined point on the pitch?
Football is not as flowing as we all think and IMO using technology would not impact on it.
Yes, why don't we all put pads on and play American football?
Managers like Warnock have to understand that part of the game is all about human frailties, including players, officials and managers. Does Warnock really think that everything he did was perfect all afternoon and therefore everything his players and the officials do should be equally perfect? Or maybe, just maybe, we need to understand that sometimes everyone gets something wrong.
You can't use television replays to judge whether a ball crossed the line, landed on the line or move in a certain direction because of wind, weather, spin or an act of God ... unless the "play" is over and the ball's dead. It works very well in cricket, because that game is a series of plays, where judgment can be made after the end of the play (did the ball hit the stumps before or after the players bat was grounded beyond the line? did the ball touch the boundary rope?) In tennis is works less well because the play often has to be stopped, artificially by a player before the "judgment" process is put into place. But as least the ball's not in play while the decision is being made. In rugby it works pretty well because decisions are made, one way or another, after the referee stops the game. In most cases it's a decision of "was a try scored or was there an infringement?" It's never "was a try scored or not?" ("not" equating to "play on").
In football, who would decide to stop the match and when? Suppose Charlton shoot and the ball looks like it might have crossed the line, before the defender boots it clear. The opposition run to the other end where Charlton's last defender tackles the opposition forward, bringing him down. Charlton clear, race forward and score. What happens then? Does the fourth official review all of the incidents leading up to the goal? Does the referee decides which bits he wants reviewed? (In which case, along with everything else, the referee will have to keep a mental tally of every time he decides that something's unclear. In effect the referee will have to decide, for every incidednt, "do I award it to team a, team b or decide that it's undecided?) Who decides which bits are worth looking at? If the tackle was a penalty, but the first "goal" was clearly a goal, do you award the first goal and send the Charlton defender off and give the opposition a penalty? If so, what happens to the second goal?
I love football. And, part of the reason I love it is the frailties, the uncertainties and the "luck" that goes with any incident, any game and any season. Take away that bit of human element and, for me, football will be a lot poorer.
Therefore using your example, the 4th official would be looking into the validity of our initial claim whilst play carried on.
If the ball is seen to cross the line then any events following this would be null and void. If it didn't then they count.... You see this situation arising on a fairly regular basis where a team claim one thing (ball cleared off the line) attacking team may claim a goal, only for the ref to play-on and for a incident to happen at the opposite end.
Football isn't actually that much more flowing than Rugby Union so I cant see it having as much impact as you American Football comment would imply.
[cite]Posted By: oohaahmortimer[/cite]i thought sears 'goal' should not have counted cos his foot was up and that's dangerous play......
does anyone know if it was macarthorse who set up bristol city's winner??
[cite]Posted By: Chizz[/cite]
I love football. And, part of the reason I love it is the frailties, the uncertainties and the "luck" that goes with any incident, any game and any season. Take away that bit of human element and, for me, football will be a lot poorer.
I agree that human error must be allowed for, but if the referee isn'r capable of seeing the ball cross the line, hit the back of the goal, and come back into play, from a very good position, then he clearly isn't up to reffing profesional sport.
[cite]Posted By: oohaahmortimer[/cite]i thought sears 'goal' should not have counted cos his foot was up and that's dangerous play......
does anyone know if it was macarthorse who set up bristol city's winner??
[cite]Posted By: Chizz[/cite]
I love football. And, part of the reason I love it is the frailties, the uncertainties and the "luck" that goes with any incident, any game and any season. Take away that bit of human element and, for me, football will be a lot poorer.
I agree that human error must be allowed for, but if the referee isn'r capable of seeing the ball cross the line, hit the back of the goal, and come back into play, from a very good position, then he clearly isn't up to reffing profesional sport.
That wasn't the only reason Palace lost. Had their centre back been "capable" of clearing the ball by hoofing up the pitch, out of play or to another player on the same side (instead of passing to the opponents' striker), Palace would have come away with a draw. He clearly isn't up to playing professional sport. And the manager who signed him and continues to play him can't be up to it either.
[cite]Posted By: Chizz[/cite]
I love football. And, part of the reason I love it is the frailties, the uncertainties and the "luck" that goes with any incident, any game and any season. Take away that bit of human element and, for me, football will be a lot poorer.
I agree that human error must be allowed for, but if the referee isn'r capable of seeing the ball cross the line, hit the back of the goal, and come back into play, from a very good position, then he clearly isn't up to reffing profesional sport.
[cite]Posted By: Chizz[/cite]
I love football. And, part of the reason I love it is the frailties, the uncertainties and the "luck" that goes with any incident, any game and any season. Take away that bit of human element and, for me, football will be a lot poorer.
I agree that human error must be allowed for, but if the referee isn'r capable of seeing the ball cross the line, hit the back of the goal, and come back into play, from a very good position, then he clearly isn't up to reffing profesional sport.
That wasn't the only reason Palace lost. Had their centre back been "capable" of clearing the ball by hoofing up the pitch, out of play or to another player on the same side (instead of passing to the opponents' striker), Palace would have come away with a draw. He clearly isn't up to playing professional sport. And the manager who signed him and continues to play him can't be up to it either.
All teams have players who make errors, some which unfortunatly result in either goals scored against you, or strikers missing easy chances. Also all games have decisions made by the ref which can be argued against, such as the goal disallowed in the same game for Bristol City, this is what makes the game so great for us supporters, however the mistake for the Sears GOAL, cannot be excused.
[cite]Posted By: oohaahmortimer[/cite]sears' foot was raised with the keeper nearby dangerous play imo , so inadvertantly a correct decision!
Not forgetting the ball has to enter the the "netty thing" to become a goal, 4 well paid officials said "it didnt go in" so therefore a goal could not be given, rules are rules!
Football is a very different game to Rugby. The difference is with Rugby Union TV technology is after the act of scoring a 'try' the game stops, there a solution for every eventuality that a try has or hasn't been scored the game can restarted. Knock on, held up, not grounded, grounded short all are within the rules once the referee thinks the act of scoring has finished the ref can blow the whistle to check and restart the game.
Video technology will not work in football at all there are no laws in football to deal with it. Looking at Penalty decisions, or freekicks you'd have to continue untill the next break in play - does the time get added on at the end of the game? What happens if the team goes up the other end of the pitch and score? Does play totally stop with a freekick awarded to the defending team if the video technology is found inconclusive? What happens if the ref blows becuase he thinks that a goal might have been scored but just after the whistle goes the ball lands at the feet of a striker who smashes it into the back of the net? Sorry Video technology cannot work for football unless the decision is to check on fouls after the ref has blown the whistle in the course of play - foul inside or outside the box. red or Yellow card etc...
The only solution is one with the ball crossing the line an alarm goes off a simple 'goal' communicated to everyone. That would work. That said how far down the leagues do you need to insist this technology is in place? Down to all teams that enter the league, all teams entering the FA cup, all teams that are professional? One thing i respect the FA for is the fact that the game from professional level all the way down to park football is the same.
[cite]Posted By: T[/cite]
The only solution is one with the ball crossing the line an alarm goes off a simple 'goal' communicated to everyone. That would work. That said how far down the leagues do you need to insist this technology is in place? Down to all teams that enter the league, all teams entering the FA cup, all teams that are professional? One thing i respect the FA for is the fact that the game from professional level all the way down to park football is the same.
Agree with everything, especially this last piece about the ball technology. The good news is that there are several companies with competing products which offer this kind of positive/negative affirmation, based on ball and goal-line technology. The bad news is that none of these companies is Adidas. And, as Adidas are "extremely cosy" in their relationship with FIFA, we won't get to see anything endorsed until Adidas come up with their own technology.
Comments
I noticed that too.
Well done Agent Paddy
Exactly. If you look at a game from "text reports" i.e 3min thrown in, 5 min freekick, then it shows that there are actually very few long periods when the ball is in play.
Could a ruling, rather like the challenge in tennis, not come into effect, where teams have a certain number in a game to stop these being used too run down the clock, and if the ruling is against the team challenging then an in-direct freekick be awarded against the challenging team from a pre-determined point on the pitch?
Football is not as flowing as we all think and IMO using technology would not impact on it.
Managers like Warnock have to understand that part of the game is all about human frailties, including players, officials and managers. Does Warnock really think that everything he did was perfect all afternoon and therefore everything his players and the officials do should be equally perfect? Or maybe, just maybe, we need to understand that sometimes everyone gets something wrong.
You can't use television replays to judge whether a ball crossed the line, landed on the line or move in a certain direction because of wind, weather, spin or an act of God ... unless the "play" is over and the ball's dead. It works very well in cricket, because that game is a series of plays, where judgment can be made after the end of the play (did the ball hit the stumps before or after the players bat was grounded beyond the line? did the ball touch the boundary rope?) In tennis is works less well because the play often has to be stopped, artificially by a player before the "judgment" process is put into place. But as least the ball's not in play while the decision is being made. In rugby it works pretty well because decisions are made, one way or another, after the referee stops the game. In most cases it's a decision of "was a try scored or was there an infringement?" It's never "was a try scored or not?" ("not" equating to "play on").
In football, who would decide to stop the match and when? Suppose Charlton shoot and the ball looks like it might have crossed the line, before the defender boots it clear. The opposition run to the other end where Charlton's last defender tackles the opposition forward, bringing him down. Charlton clear, race forward and score. What happens then? Does the fourth official review all of the incidents leading up to the goal? Does the referee decides which bits he wants reviewed? (In which case, along with everything else, the referee will have to keep a mental tally of every time he decides that something's unclear. In effect the referee will have to decide, for every incidednt, "do I award it to team a, team b or decide that it's undecided?) Who decides which bits are worth looking at? If the tackle was a penalty, but the first "goal" was clearly a goal, do you award the first goal and send the Charlton defender off and give the opposition a penalty? If so, what happens to the second goal?
I love football. And, part of the reason I love it is the frailties, the uncertainties and the "luck" that goes with any incident, any game and any season. Take away that bit of human element and, for me, football will be a lot poorer.
Therefore using your example, the 4th official would be looking into the validity of our initial claim whilst play carried on.
If the ball is seen to cross the line then any events following this would be null and void. If it didn't then they count.... You see this situation arising on a fairly regular basis where a team claim one thing (ball cleared off the line) attacking team may claim a goal, only for the ref to play-on and for a incident to happen at the opposite end.
Football isn't actually that much more flowing than Rugby Union so I cant see it having as much impact as you American Football comment would imply.
I agree that human error must be allowed for, but if the referee isn'r capable of seeing the ball cross the line, hit the back of the goal, and come back into play, from a very good position, then he clearly isn't up to reffing profesional sport.
Agent Ambrose must have reminded him.
When it come to embracing new technology football is still in the dark ages...
Ah crap.
Was unlucky and Lino was 100% at fault as ref checked with him as he was unsure.
Feel the same Daz
pppfffft
ppppppppfffffffftttttt
ppppppppppppppfffffffffffffffffffffffffftttttttttttt
MMMMMMMMWWWWWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
STOP......IT.......CANT.......BREATHE
If its an "instant" decision what's the difference between this and the ref running 50 yrds to 30 sec chat to the Lino?
All teams have players who make errors, some which unfortunatly result in either goals scored against you, or strikers missing easy chances. Also all games have decisions made by the ref which can be argued against, such as the goal disallowed in the same game for Bristol City, this is what makes the game so great for us supporters, however the mistake for the Sears GOAL, cannot be excused.
Not forgetting the ball has to enter the the "netty thing" to become a goal, 4 well paid officials said "it didnt go in" so therefore a goal could not be given, rules are rules!
And as we know, the referee's decision is final.......... ha ha
A couple of Palace fans had Sears to score the first goal, and they didn't get paid out.
Video technology will not work in football at all there are no laws in football to deal with it. Looking at Penalty decisions, or freekicks you'd have to continue untill the next break in play - does the time get added on at the end of the game? What happens if the team goes up the other end of the pitch and score? Does play totally stop with a freekick awarded to the defending team if the video technology is found inconclusive? What happens if the ref blows becuase he thinks that a goal might have been scored but just after the whistle goes the ball lands at the feet of a striker who smashes it into the back of the net? Sorry Video technology cannot work for football unless the decision is to check on fouls after the ref has blown the whistle in the course of play - foul inside or outside the box. red or Yellow card etc...
The only solution is one with the ball crossing the line an alarm goes off a simple 'goal' communicated to everyone. That would work. That said how far down the leagues do you need to insist this technology is in place? Down to all teams that enter the league, all teams entering the FA cup, all teams that are professional? One thing i respect the FA for is the fact that the game from professional level all the way down to park football is the same.