Going back to Watford match again, their first goal was scored from a corner with the ball not in the "D", despite the Andy Parsons look a like linesman standing directly behind the taker.
Re pragues 2nd point. If the officials saw that Norris was "at it" all first half then surely they'd go out with a prejudged opinion for the second half increasing the chance of 2 wrongs trying to make a right.
Suppose for example one lino had that suspicion. They surely chat at half time. But its just chat. With video evidence they could see if lino was right. And if ref agreed, at the start of the second half, Ref would have gone to Mr Norris and said, "we've checked it out, and your next misdemeanour is a yellow at best". That might have stopped Norris from doing in particular that lunge which somebody here described as a potential leg-breaker.
I'm talking about better decisions thanks to better information.
Would be interested in what Spankie thinks, though.
The thing that always always winds me up about added time is the people who moan and complain if it doesn't stop dead on 1,2,3, however many minutes exactly. It is the MINIMUM of added time, the announcer says that quite clearly (well at the Valley anyway.) If either team starts timewasting in the added time, the ref is not only well within his rights to keep the game going, he should.
That is true. But why can't we see how much has been added on.
The other night, my second team, Viktoria Plzen, conceded a late losing goal in Madrid to Atletico. The clock on the TV showed that there were 2 minutes of extra time. Atletico scored on +2.07. Maybe there was a sub in injury time, I cannot remember. But right now I am not sure Viktoria were done. I have a right to know (even if in this case I wasn't there as a paying customer)
If my video/transparent timing proposal were adopted, there would be a quid pro quo: Any player other than the captain who clearly disputes the referee' s decision, would get an automatic yellow.
Interesting point. I do think that refs letting things go and letting the game flow causes a gradual erosion of standards. The number of foul throws that are overlooked and the number of times keepers hang onto the ball for too long mean that those things are now seen as being ok.
In regard to keepers holding onto the ball too long, does this rule still even exist? Sometimes they hold it for 15 seconds or more. You see a foul throw every now and then but when was the last time anyone saw this penalised? Refs should be stricter on this imo.
but can somebody give examples where we have benefited from a wrong call? Good luck with that one!
cant remember who it was against but wilson could've been sent off for a stamp on a player. it happened in front of the east stand towards the end of the match. could've been watford.
That was Wilson against Watford, and he didn't stamp on him from my view, their player tried to get him sent off.
Watford's first goal was scored from a corner where the ball was not placed within the corner markings, the whole North stand and NE quadrant was screaming at the lino, but he never pulled it up.
Watford's first goal was scored from a corner where the ball was not placed within the corner markings, the whole North stand and NE quadrant was screaming at the lino, but he never pulled it up.
What is the ruling on that ? I am told just a part of the ball has to be touching the outside of the arc, but I really have no clue.
On the stoppage time issue, im sure i read an article about how the average football match only has 65 minutes of play but yet we don't get that much stoppage time.
In my opinion we should use the Tennis system, each manager gets 1 challenge a game, which the 4th official quickly checks, if they are correct then the decision is reversed and they get there challenge back, it would stop them checking every minor thing but also stop game changing mistakes like BWP goal against Palace which i believe would of seen them crumble.
Completly agree about making a match 60/70 minutes but the clock stops when the ball is out of play.
Watford's first goal was scored from a corner where the ball was not placed within the corner markings, the whole North stand and NE quadrant was screaming at the lino, but he never pulled it up.
What is the ruling on that ? I am told just a part of the ball has to be touching the outside of the arc, but I really have no clue.
I believe that is the case, some of the ball has to be touching the arc. With this particular incident, the whole ball was clearly outside of the arc.
Interesting and enjoyable debate and many points flying about with their own levels of validity. As I said before every fan will have their own subjective slant on decisions. Charlton fans thought Forrestieri's sending off was fully justified after a clear case of simulation, Watford fans castigate the referee who sent him off for an obvious slip. I think the thing PragueAddick is saying is more transparency in reffing which I would welcome. Letting people know a decision is going to be reviewed if 4th official video monitoring ever came in. Letting people know there are a minumum of X minutes left and having the clock up. Just clarifies things for everyone in the ground. To clarify time added on if a referee adds 2 minutes this is a minumum of so the actual time added on is between 2:00 and 2:59. There are often subs, injuries or goals during the added on time adding further time on. I was talking to a mate of mine who plays amateur rugby for Bexley and he was saying the difference in rugby and football and the usual debate of how rugby players really do respect the referee and in football they are ridiculed to a certain degree. They said that rugby referees don't take any dissent of any kind and if a decision is questioned it is reversed and pushed on 10 yards. I certainly think the laws on dissent and foul and abusive need tightening up. It's one thing to talk to players and open the channels of communication and it's another to be sworn at for giving a throw the wrong way. I was at a Ryman Prem game recently on the line and gave one foul and two throw ins under my nose in quick succession and three times I was told to "F*ck off" by a player nearby. I know for a fact the referee wouldn't want to call him over to deal with that and if I asked for yellow or red cards I'd be public enemy number 1. It's expected for us to just take it! If the refs are clamping down then it has to be for that IMHO. Get the cards out and soon see it disappear. Mike the ref up during the game also as they do in rugby to further make his decision transparent. The amount of times I've been to Charlton and a decision has been given and no one knows what for - be it for or against Charlton. So in summary I would say the following to help the standard of officiating certainly at football league level and above:
Use of video replays by 4th officials to help get KMIs correct (key match incidents) Goal-line technology - work in progress Further transparency in officiating - miking up the ref and also clarifying time added on.
This should hopefully add to football and make it a better experience for all involved - fans, players, club officials and match officials.
Fantastic, Spankie. If you are typical of refs attitudes then there may actually be hope that some of this stuff may be implemented one day. Unfortunately I tend to think of refs as having the characters of those two FAPL refs, now retired I think, but such prima donnas. They made a video making them out to be the referee hard-men. One of them gave Konchesky an outrageous red card against Chelsea after just 26 minutes..the other one, I remember now, Graham Poll. Serious personality disorders :-)
One of my pet hates is when a ref blows for a foul in the middle of the pitch, yet the same type of foul (holding, pulling etc) happens in the penalty area...nothing. I've even heard 'pundits' saying that there is a difference if an offence happens in the area or outside, surely a foul is a foul. Ridiculous.
Also, can the ref an linos visit the dressing rooms before the game and explain that they will not tolerate, foul throws, the breach of the keeper 6 second rule (which no one enforces), holding for corners (its like a bloody wrestling match now) etc???
I agree it's annoying Greenie but most of the pundits/commentators I've heard usually say "if that had been anywhere else on the pitch it would have been given". Don't know why refs dont penalise these types of fouls more, thought they wanted games to be more exciting with more goals thesedays?!
What do people think about that tackle on Solly at the Barnsley game? It was an excellent tackle really, but because of from where it was made from, it would have been given as a foul anywhere else on the pitch. I'm actually in favour of a safe tackle from behind or from the side to be acceptable as it is one of the skills of the game, but as this type of tackle is clearly deemed unacceptable by the powers that be - why does a ref who clearly saw it decide to forget it because it was in the area?
I think hearing from refs after the game would be a good thing as it becomes very confusing and frustrating for fans when they can't fathom why decisons are made.
A good point by Spankie in relation to miking the refs up - I think it would add to my enjoyment of the game. Footabll is not a progressive sport in that respect though, so whilst it will come in, it is probably many years away.
They do it in rugby and enhances the relationship between the referee and the officials and the crowd who know exactly why he has or hasn't given a certain decision. At least trial it. What is there to lose? As you say, no progression in football. I watch 'The Big Match' on Saturday and Sunday mornings on ITV4. They are currently showing the 1978/79 season and apart from the headsets the officials wear nowadays and the buzzer flags technology hasn't moved on for officials in 30 odd years. It has for the club staff in nutrition, the gyms they work in, the stadia are now modern, DVDs (prozone etc) - I could go on but referees seem to have to put up with such a lack of technology and I don't see why that is the case!
Haven't seen the challenge so cannot comment on it. I was on FA Cup duty at Hastings on Saturday. All I can say is the ref has to be 101% sure it is definitely a foul before giving a penalty. I reckon that there are tackles that happen in the middle of the park (in neutral areas) the ref is probably only 70-80% sure it's a foul as the outcome of the foul is only a free-kick in a neutral area of the pitch and not a direct strike on goal. We hear managers talking about referees' decisions changing matches so penalties and red cards are the biggest two things to decide on so you have to be so, so certain it's a foul. So many factors to consider these days too - was player in control of body, was tackle reckless, did he win the ball or get the man first (although admittedly you can get the ball nowadays and still commit a foul) etc etc etc
Tackle wasn't reckless but was from behind - got the ball but had to contact the player to do that although the contact not worthy of a foul. Sort of tackle that you would have said was a brilliant one a few years back before refs started coming down hard on this aspect of play. There is no way th eref wouldn't have seen it was made from behind. My objection was that it was made from behind- every tackle I see made from behind anywhere else on the pitch is given as a foul. Is there a more subtle interpretation for refs? Morally it was a fair tackle but refs don't use this as the basis for their decisions do they?
If it was a fair tackle then probably he saw it that way. No more subtle interpretation for refs other than what's in the laws and any game-specific training (we have seminars with DVDs detemining what is a foul, what isn't, what is yellow, red etc). It's how the laws are interpreted by the ref on that particular incident at that time.
So you can tackle from behind then. I think what we have is an interpretation issue - 100% of foreign refs and most premiership ones don't allow a tackle from behind because they interprit it to be potentially dangerous even if it is well timed. I've even seen them start penalising good tackles from the side. Other refs may take the tackle on it's merits and use their common sense. I suppose this is to be applauded but does highlight a big issue in the game for me.
I suspect most refs estimate 6 seconds rather than check their watches. If you estimate, you have to be on the generous side. Also, a goalkeeper may have to negotiate obstacles - including obstructing opponents - I would assume you would have to take this into consideration.
Comments
I'm talking about better decisions thanks to better information.
Would be interested in what Spankie thinks, though.
The other night, my second team, Viktoria Plzen, conceded a late losing goal in Madrid to Atletico. The clock on the TV showed that there were 2 minutes of extra time. Atletico scored on +2.07. Maybe there was a sub in injury time, I cannot remember. But right now I am not sure Viktoria were done. I have a right to know (even if in this case I wasn't there as a paying customer)
But wouldn't you agree that my proposals would make for a better experience - for all of us.?
If my video/transparent timing proposal were adopted, there would be a quid pro quo: Any player other than the captain who clearly disputes the referee' s decision, would get an automatic yellow.
In my opinion we should use the Tennis system, each manager gets 1 challenge a game, which the 4th official quickly checks, if they are correct then the decision is reversed and they get there challenge back, it would stop them checking every minor thing but also stop game changing mistakes like BWP goal against Palace which i believe would of seen them crumble.
Completly agree about making a match 60/70 minutes but the clock stops when the ball is out of play.
I think the thing PragueAddick is saying is more transparency in reffing which I would welcome. Letting people know a decision is going to be reviewed if 4th official video monitoring ever came in. Letting people know there are a minumum of X minutes left and having the clock up. Just clarifies things for everyone in the ground. To clarify time added on if a referee adds 2 minutes this is a minumum of so the actual time added on is between 2:00 and 2:59. There are often subs, injuries or goals during the added on time adding further time on.
I was talking to a mate of mine who plays amateur rugby for Bexley and he was saying the difference in rugby and football and the usual debate of how rugby players really do respect the referee and in football they are ridiculed to a certain degree. They said that rugby referees don't take any dissent of any kind and if a decision is questioned it is reversed and pushed on 10 yards. I certainly think the laws on dissent and foul and abusive need tightening up. It's one thing to talk to players and open the channels of communication and it's another to be sworn at for giving a throw the wrong way. I was at a Ryman Prem game recently on the line and gave one foul and two throw ins under my nose in quick succession and three times I was told to "F*ck off" by a player nearby. I know for a fact the referee wouldn't want to call him over to deal with that and if I asked for yellow or red cards I'd be public enemy number 1. It's expected for us to just take it! If the refs are clamping down then it has to be for that IMHO. Get the cards out and soon see it disappear.
Mike the ref up during the game also as they do in rugby to further make his decision transparent. The amount of times I've been to Charlton and a decision has been given and no one knows what for - be it for or against Charlton.
So in summary I would say the following to help the standard of officiating certainly at football league level and above:
Use of video replays by 4th officials to help get KMIs correct (key match incidents)
Goal-line technology - work in progress
Further transparency in officiating - miking up the ref and also clarifying time added on.
This should hopefully add to football and make it a better experience for all involved - fans, players, club officials and match officials.
Also, can the ref an linos visit the dressing rooms before the game and explain that they will not tolerate, foul throws, the breach of the keeper 6 second rule (which no one enforces), holding for corners (its like a bloody wrestling match now) etc???
I think hearing from refs after the game would be a good thing as it becomes very confusing and frustrating for fans when they can't fathom why decisons are made.
A good point by Spankie in relation to miking the refs up - I think it would add to my enjoyment of the game. Footabll is not a progressive sport in that respect though, so whilst it will come in, it is probably many years away.