touch or no touch by the keeper, the main reason Church went over the way he did was that he slipped on the sodden turf - surface water can be seen as he skids ffs - it was our own fault for watering the damn pitch !! Even if the keeper had touched him, there was not that amount of contact to send a bloke of Church's size over the way he did.
I sit towards the front of the Upper West and did not think it was a penalty. Having seen the video it appears that there was contact and that the right decision would have been a penalty and a red card.
It's not easy for refs though. They don't have the benefit of slow motion replays!! Moreover, I've read many post match threads where posters were equally convinced "live" that we should have had a penalty, but where the video replay then proved us all wrong. If you want a penalty to be awarded you're more likely to see one!!
We've been here so many times before. If we want to avoid this kind of injustice the only answer is video replays. It's entirely unrealistic to expect refs to call it right every time. The authorities need to figure out how to use video. An obvious option is an appeal system, as in cricket, for example - that might actually add to the entertainment. Mind you, had we had that yesterday Bolton may have been awarded a goal when Poyet cleared off the line.
It's not right that an incident like this could end up causing us to be relegated. It's time to start using video technology for such crucial decisions.
I refer the honourable member to the answer I gave some moments ago... :-)
Algarve, you're looking for reasons why technology shouldn't be used. There are even more reasons why it should be used. A limit of 3 or 4 appeals to be used at the discretion of each captain would be more than enough in 90% of games and it would add perhaps 5/6 minutes to the game. Obviously these would only be used up on penalty calls, red cards or ball crossing the line incidents. I think video technology has vastly improved a host of other sports including Rugby, a team sport like football. I am sure the majority of fans would far prefer waiting a minute or two whilst an incident is reviewed, than come away from a game feeling that their team has been cheated and may end up being relegated as a result.
I sit towards the front of the Upper West and did not think it was a penalty. Having seen the video it appears that there was contact and that the right decision would have been a penalty and a red card.
It's not easy for refs though. They don't have the benefit of slow motion replays!! Moreover, I've read many post match threads where posters were equally convinced "live" that we should have had a penalty, but where the video replay then proved us all wrong. If you want a penalty to be awarded you're more likely to see one!!
We've been here so many times before. If we want to avoid this kind of injustice the only answer is video replays. It's entirely unrealistic to expect refs to call it right every time. The authorities need to figure out how to use video. An obvious option is an appeal system, as in cricket, for example - that might actually add to the entertainment. Mind you, had we had that yesterday Bolton may have been awarded a goal when Poyet cleared off the line.
You can avoid it or you can take the view that each club suffers and benefits in equal measure if the referees are impartial. Our need for a leg up might be greater of course, but that's by the by. I though Hamer's save was over the line, for example. Perhaps it evened out in the same game?
EDIT: By which I mean, no team goes down after 46 games because of a referee's decision. They go down because they weren't good enough over those 46.
I sit towards the front of the Upper West and did not think it was a penalty. Having seen the video it appears that there was contact and that the right decision would have been a penalty and a red card.
It's not easy for refs though. They don't have the benefit of slow motion replays!! Moreover, I've read many post match threads where posters were equally convinced "live" that we should have had a penalty, but where the video replay then proved us all wrong. If you want a penalty to be awarded you're more likely to see one!!
We've been here so many times before. If we want to avoid this kind of injustice the only answer is video replays. It's entirely unrealistic to expect refs to call it right every time. The authorities need to figure out how to use video. An obvious option is an appeal system, as in cricket, for example - that might actually add to the entertainment. Mind you, had we had that yesterday Bolton may have been awarded a goal when Poyet cleared off the line.
You can avoid it or you can take the view that each club suffers and benefits in equal measure if the referees are impartial. Our need for a leg up might be greater of course, but that's by the by. I though Hamer's save was over the line, for example. Perhaps it evened out in the same game?
EDIT: By which I mean, no team goes down after 46 games because of a referee's decision. They go down because they weren't good enough over those 46.
I don't buy into the "it evens out over the season" argument. The fact is, if you are down at the bottom, more decisions go against you, not to mention bad luck. You do get seasons where everything seems to be working against you, which is where we are at the moment. I have never known us concede so many deflected goals in my 47 years of supporting the club. Whereas at the top, these things seem to go in your favour. This is probably why once you are in the relegation places it is very hard to claw your way out.
In real time from behind the goal I thought Church slipped.
Looking at the video there was some contact and I can only assume that the referee / linesman considered that there was no intent as both players were committed to going for the ball.
Intent means nothing if there's contact, surely most fouls committed are not intended.
Absolutely this - as my qualified referee mate is always telling me "there is nothing in the laws about intent".
What this debate does prove is why video technology should never, ever be used for anything other than factual decisions - that being whether a ball has crossed a line or not. Everything else is down to opinion, so we might as well leave it to the bloke in charge. If they do seem to be getting it wrong more often these days, that is down to high quality cameras, and views from angles we would not have had even five years ago, such as this one.
Ref's still a to**er for missing it though...
;-)
We could easily bring replays in for the officials only. It could be limited to a set amount of appeals per half or game with the captain deciding how to use them. Even with decisions that require an opinion, it works brilliantly in other sports. Look at the NFL, cricket, tennis and rugby.
All games with natural breaks in play, unlike football.
Of course replays would be for officials only, who else would make the decision - the tea lady - LOL...
It works brilliantly with other sports, except where it doesn't - how many times have you seen it take five minutes and eight different angles for no-one to know whether the ball is grounded or a foot is out of play in rugby? The replay has now become the first option in run out decisions in cricket, they call for a replay when the runner is past the bloody stumps when the bails come off. And even in those games, the appeals are limited to certain plays, where would you draw the line in football, throw ins, offsides (given and missed), penalties (given and missed) and so on? Yesterday is a good case in point, the pen not given, play could then go on for five minutes without a break, do you then wipe out five minutes of play?
If you give a limited number of appeals the next one will always be the controversial one, and the media will be calling for an increase in the number of appeals as soon as one of their little favourites is apparently hard done by. And of course, there will still be exactly the kind of debate we have going on here where some people will swear the decision was completely wrong...
The number of cameras available at any one ground and the quality of the operators will create an imbalance - imagine if Arsene Wenger was a cameraman, how many times would he "miss" a controversial incident involving the opposition?
In real time from behind the goal I thought Church slipped.
Looking at the video there was some contact and I can only assume that the referee / linesman considered that there was no intent as both players were committed to going for the ball.
Intent means nothing if there's contact, surely most fouls committed are not intended.
Absolutely this - as my qualified referee mate is always telling me "there is nothing in the laws about intent".
What this debate does prove is why video technology should never, ever be used for anything other than factual decisions - that being whether a ball has crossed a line or not. Everything else is down to opinion, so we might as well leave it to the bloke in charge. If they do seem to be getting it wrong more often these days, that is down to high quality cameras, and views from angles we would not have had even five years ago, such as this one.
Ref's still a to**er for missing it though...
;-)
We could easily bring replays in for the officials only. It could be limited to a set amount of appeals per half or game with the captain deciding how to use them. Even with decisions that require an opinion, it works brilliantly in other sports. Look at the NFL, cricket, tennis and rugby.
All games with natural breaks in play, unlike football.
Of course replays would be for officials only, who else would make the decision - the tea lady - LOL...
It works brilliantly with other sports, except where it doesn't - how many times have you seen it take five minutes and eight different angles for no-one to know whether the ball is grounded or a foot is out of play in rugby? The replay has now become the first option in run out decisions in cricket, they call for a replay when the runner is past the bloody stumps when the bails come off. And even in those games, the appeals are limited to certain plays, where would you draw the line in football, throw ins, offsides (given and missed), penalties (given and missed) and so on? Yesterday is a good case in point, the pen not given, play could then go on for five minutes without a break, do you then wipe out five minutes of play?
If you give a limited number of appeals the next one will always be the controversial one, and the media will be calling for an increase in the number of appeals as soon as one of their little favourites is apparently hard done by. And of course, there will still be exactly the kind of debate we have going on here where some people will swear the decision was completely wrong...
The number of cameras available at any one ground and the quality of the operators will create an imbalance - imagine if Arsene Wenger was a cameraman, how many times would he "miss" a controversial incident involving the opposition?
Why should we have to wait 5 minutes to review an incident? I think a current mis-perception with technology in football is that you have to wait for the game to stop to review an incident. At the moment when goalmouth decisions are reviewed at games this is done without stopping the game so why can't say the 4th official be able to review these incidents on the sidelines without waiting for the game to stop? Then if it's found the decision should be given just go back and award the decision.
Just to be clear football league referees are not full time. Only PL select group referees are fully employed by the FA. Match officials on the FL are also monitored weekly on their fitness with a chip that can be worn during training and the stats downloaded and sent to the FA. The amount of debate on here would suggest it wasn't as clear a penalty as we would have liked. The officials see it once from one angle and at full speed so they have to be 100% clear it was a foul. Judging by the comments an discussion on here no one can decide even after various replays and slo-mos.
In real time from behind the goal I thought Church slipped.
Looking at the video there was some contact and I can only assume that the referee / linesman considered that there was no intent as both players were committed to going for the ball.
Intent means nothing if there's contact, surely most fouls committed are not intended.
Absolutely this - as my qualified referee mate is always telling me "there is nothing in the laws about intent".
What this debate does prove is why video technology should never, ever be used for anything other than factual decisions - that being whether a ball has crossed a line or not. Everything else is down to opinion, so we might as well leave it to the bloke in charge. If they do seem to be getting it wrong more often these days, that is down to high quality cameras, and views from angles we would not have had even five years ago, such as this one.
Ref's still a to**er for missing it though...
;-)
We could easily bring replays in for the officials only. It could be limited to a set amount of appeals per half or game with the captain deciding how to use them. Even with decisions that require an opinion, it works brilliantly in other sports. Look at the NFL, cricket, tennis and rugby.
All games with natural breaks in play, unlike football.
Of course replays would be for officials only, who else would make the decision - the tea lady - LOL...
It works brilliantly with other sports, except where it doesn't - how many times have you seen it take five minutes and eight different angles for no-one to know whether the ball is grounded or a foot is out of play in rugby? The replay has now become the first option in run out decisions in cricket, they call for a replay when the runner is past the bloody stumps when the bails come off. And even in those games, the appeals are limited to certain plays, where would you draw the line in football, throw ins, offsides (given and missed), penalties (given and missed) and so on? Yesterday is a good case in point, the pen not given, play could then go on for five minutes without a break, do you then wipe out five minutes of play?
If you give a limited number of appeals the next one will always be the controversial one, and the media will be calling for an increase in the number of appeals as soon as one of their little favourites is apparently hard done by. And of course, there will still be exactly the kind of debate we have going on here where some people will swear the decision was completely wrong...
The number of cameras available at any one ground and the quality of the operators will create an imbalance - imagine if Arsene Wenger was a cameraman, how many times would he "miss" a controversial incident involving the opposition?
Why should we have to wait 5 minutes to review an incident? I think a current mis-perception with technology in football is that you have to wait for the game to stop to review an incident. At the moment when goalmouth decisions are reviewed at games this is done without stopping the game so why can't say the 4th official be able to review these incidents on the sidelines without waiting for the game to stop? Then if it's found the decision should be given just go back and award the decision.
The pace that football is played at would not allow this; a quick breakwaway goal could be scored while checking the replay, what then happens to that goal? In other sports where video is used such as cricket and rugby there are times when several replays are needed and the same would happen in football. Video for penalty decisions would have to mean stopping play and for that reason I hope it never happens
In real time from behind the goal I thought Church slipped.
Looking at the video there was some contact and I can only assume that the referee / linesman considered that there was no intent as both players were committed to going for the ball.
Intent means nothing if there's contact, surely most fouls committed are not intended.
Absolutely this - as my qualified referee mate is always telling me "there is nothing in the laws about intent".
What this debate does prove is why video technology should never, ever be used for anything other than factual decisions - that being whether a ball has crossed a line or not. Everything else is down to opinion, so we might as well leave it to the bloke in charge. If they do seem to be getting it wrong more often these days, that is down to high quality cameras, and views from angles we would not have had even five years ago, such as this one.
Ref's still a to**er for missing it though...
;-)
We could easily bring replays in for the officials only. It could be limited to a set amount of appeals per half or game with the captain deciding how to use them. Even with decisions that require an opinion, it works brilliantly in other sports. Look at the NFL, cricket, tennis and rugby.
All games with natural breaks in play, unlike football.
Of course replays would be for officials only, who else would make the decision - the tea lady - LOL...
It works brilliantly with other sports, except where it doesn't - how many times have you seen it take five minutes and eight different angles for no-one to know whether the ball is grounded or a foot is out of play in rugby? The replay has now become the first option in run out decisions in cricket, they call for a replay when the runner is past the bloody stumps when the bails come off. And even in those games, the appeals are limited to certain plays, where would you draw the line in football, throw ins, offsides (given and missed), penalties (given and missed) and so on? Yesterday is a good case in point, the pen not given, play could then go on for five minutes without a break, do you then wipe out five minutes of play?
If you give a limited number of appeals the next one will always be the controversial one, and the media will be calling for an increase in the number of appeals as soon as one of their little favourites is apparently hard done by. And of course, there will still be exactly the kind of debate we have going on here where some people will swear the decision was completely wrong...
The number of cameras available at any one ground and the quality of the operators will create an imbalance - imagine if Arsene Wenger was a cameraman, how many times would he "miss" a controversial incident involving the opposition?
Just to be clear football league referees are not full time. Only PL select group referees are fully employed by the FA. Match officials on the FL are also monitored weekly on their fitness with a chip that can be worn during training and the stats downloaded and sent to the FA. The amount of debate on here would suggest it wasn't as clear a penalty as we would have liked. The officials see it once from one angle and at full speed so they have to be 100% clear it was a foul. Judging by the comments an discussion on here no one can decide even after various replays and slo-mos.
The PL select group referees are not employed by the FA, but the Professional Game Match Officials Board (PGMOB).
How can the referee please everybody? If you look at the comments above, there is almost equal measure "it was a penalty, it wasn't a penalty".
But the ref is a professional as are all the officials. We say Church should do this or that and that Harriot is rubbish, but none of us could even play at a level close to their abilities. But we can still say it, because whilst we can't do what they do, we do know what they should be able to do. The same goes with refs or linos - they should be good enough to spot these things. I spotted it on Friday so I expected the lino who was well placed to (I still call them that because that is what they are). I think we are being hard on the ref for this incident as he has to rely on the view of the official in the perfect position and he had a decent game.
I think the point you have made makes my point which I have made on previous occasions. Some of us could see it at the time, some of us can't even see it on video replay. Surely, if you need to be a good athlete to be a footballer, you need to be able to see these things if you are an official. It can be done as some of us- non professionals can do it!
One of the problems is, having played the game, when Church got past the keeper I was instinctively looking for contact. If I was the keeper, that is what I would do. Having said that, I'm not sure the keeper actually meant to foul Church having seen the replay (it wasn't his finest hour), but I was looking for the foul and that is what the lino and ref should have been looking for. That brings me to my main critisism of them. Many haven't played the game so they just don't know what to look for!
How can the referee please everybody? If you look at the comments above, there is almost equal measure "it was a penalty, it wasn't a penalty".
But the ref is a professional as are all the officials. We say Church should do this or that and that Harriot is rubbish, but none of us could even play at a level close to their abilities. But we can still say it, because whilst we can't do what they do, we do know what they should be able to do. The same goes with refs or linos - they should be good enough to spot these things. I spotted it on Friday so I expected the lino who was well placed to (I still call them that because that is what they are). I think we are being hard on the ref for this incident as he has to rely on the view of the official in the perfect position and he had a decent game.
I think the point you have made makes my point which I have made on previous occasions. Some of us could see it at the time, some of us can't even see it on video replay. Surely, if you need to be a good athlete to be a footballer, you need to be able to see these things if you are an official. It can be done as some of us- non professionals can do it!
One of the problems is, having played the game, when Church got past the keeper I was instinctively looking for contact. If I was the keeper, that is what I would do. Having said that, I'm not sure the keeper actually meant to foul Church having seen the replay (it wasn't his finest hour), but I was looking for the foul and that is what the lino and ref should have been looking for. That brings me to my main critisism of them. Many haven't played the game so they just don't know what to look for!
Umm, but the referee on this occasion is an ex-footballer (at an admittedly lower level) who had to give up the game because of a knee injury. So, surely, that's precisely the type of individual that should be doing this job? (But he still got it wrong!)
But I am not criticising the ref in this incident- I said I thought he had a decent game. I didn't know he was an ex player, but that fact only backs up my point.
I take it the lino wasn't an ex footballer - I already know the answer to that
I find it incredulous that people (Algarve) believe replays arent to the benefit of football. Your comment about natural breaks is also incorrect. If you use Rugby League as an example, there are as many 'natural breaks' in play as there is in football and they use the TMO to ensure more correct decisions are made. Also, having TMO decisions in cricket actually ADDS to the excitement with the crowd. Its something that would add to the excitement in football - we cant stay in the Blatter dark ages forever.
Yes, It would improve the game - you could even limit it to one call per team (which obviously they retain if correct). You could also stipulate that it can only be used for key decisons - bookings/red cards, penalties, in range free kicks and goals. Would only be good for the game entertainment wise and would help the officials.
The old argument from the football authorities was always their desire for football to be basically the same game at Hackney Marshes on a Sunday as it is in the Nou Camp - but that is crap. But FIFA and UEFA are crap too. I just don't understand why they are so conservative when traditionally conservative sports have embraced the technology.
Okay, taking the points made by the supporters of video technology one at a time.
Queensland: Limit on number of appeals - I thought I already explained my problem with that in my original post, but I will repeat it. The first time a fourth, or fifth decision is wrong, and Liverpool have used up their appeals, Thompson will be howling for unlimited appeals, and eventually so will other people. How do we prevent this happening? We don't even go there in the first place. YOU might be happy with three appeals, others will not, and, like you will be on forums and phone ins telling me how ridiculous it is that we can utilise technology for three/four incidents, but not five or six.
They "will only be used on penalty calls, red cards..." (It's already used on ball over the line, and I have never had a problem with that - that is a matter of FACT not judgement). So the famous Fulham "throw given the wrong way" incident would still have stood, that game would still have been a draw and people like you would have been howling that "The technology is available, why not use it...". We know that particular error of judgement cost Charlton two points, and a winning start for Pardew which could have changed the whole dynamic of that season, but your rules would not have changed that, and we still would have been relegated as a result, and you would have complained in exactly the same way you are now. As soon as you start using it for any matter of judgment, then you have no excuse not to use it at every turn.
As far as I know it is only used in rugby when a try is scored. It is not used to decide whether a ball is put into a scrum straight, or whether a player passed forward in a phase of play that does not lead directly to a try, or whether a player has tackled someone high. The try is "scored" the play stops and then the referee calls for a replay while play has ceased, in football neither red card nor penalty incidents necessarily lead to a break in play.
The Red Robin: Yes football does have breaks in play, but not always in the places you need them to judge the incidents that some would have technology used for; again I said in my original post that Friday's penalty call was a good example. And of course, in theory you could play forty five minutes of football without any break in play...
MartinhoCAFC: I did not say we should wait five minutes for a decision, I said it COULD TAKE five minutes, as it sometimes does in rugby. How many times have we looked at the Church "penalty" and still some swear it is, others swear it isn't... In all team games where video technology is used the man in the middle calls for the video ref/umpire/judge to look at an incident when he is not sure, that third or fourth official never makes his own call, as you are advocating. And what if there are two or three "incidents" in quick succession - while the video ref is looking at incident one, he can't see incident two at the same time can he? Again you talk of "goalmouth decisions", by which I assume you mean whether a ball is over the line or not, as I said earlier, a matter of FACT that is decided in an instant, and something I am happy with.
The President: As explained earlier, my comment about natural breaks in this context, is correct. I am incredulous that you think rugby league has as many natural breaks as football - every time a tackle is made the play stops, or had you missed that? In cricket after every ball, the play stops, in NFL after every "play" the game stops. I have no idea why you think a five minute break in play while a fourth official looks at an incident from eight different angles will make a game more exciting, I can only speak from my point of view and say it wouldn't do it for me...
Muttley: Again, I hope I have covered most of the points you raise in the above explanation - number of calls, what decisions it's used for etc, and just saying "but that is crap" without any reason for you coming to that conclusion isn't really bolstering your argument.
Of course I am looking for reasons not to use technology Queensland, because that is my point of view, and I hope that if you read properly the points I am making that you will see the validity in my argument, or that you and others will come back with counter arguments that I have not previously considered.
Quite right. You are simply looking for reasons not to use technology. Do you work for FIFA?!! :-).
If we'd had some trial and error, in preseason tournaments, for example, or perhaps in the Capital One Cup, and in game video had proved ineffective and impractical then I might have some sympathy, but we haven't. The reason Football is one of the few major sports not using technology (other than goal line) is not for any rational or considered reason, but because it's Sepp Blatter's point of view too.
I have no doubt that we will see in game video at some stage and when we do everybody will be saying "I don't know why we didn't introduce it sooner".
By the way, if a team had used all its appeals prior to a controversial incident then the response would be " .. then you shouldn't have wasted one should you. ..." We can all play the "what if" game. That's why some thoughtful experimentation is needed rather than outright resistance based on arguments that don't stand scrutiny.
What other sports have managed and what football could easily emulate is to use the technology, not just to make the sport fairer, but to improve the spectacle. I agree if teams were calling for reviews every five minutes it would grind - but if you only give them one precious review they won't abuse it and it will add to the excitement and anticipation waiting for the correct decision.
When I said it is crap - I was meaning that you can't compare hackney marshes with the Nou Camp or even the Valley. It is a higher level of the game played for high stakes and requires the standard of decisons to be better. If that means using technolgy - well that is an option we have in the 21st century so no reason why we shouldn't use it. You do have to draw a line, so yes it wouldn't have helped with that throw in - but you always have to draw a line. But don't be nostalgic when you decide where that line should be.
What annoys me more than the well thought out introduction of technolgy would, is to have to watch some of the clowns we get affecting games through their poor officiating skills. The standard is so low and technology would raise it.
How can the referee please everybody? If you look at the comments above, there is almost equal measure "it was a penalty, it wasn't a penalty".
If you disregard those who looked at the video on their phones you will find the vast majority say it was a penalty.
From my view in the East, almost above the lino, it was a definite penalty. The ref and the lino have no excuse whatsoever. They had plenty of time to se what was possibly going to happen - it didn't come out of the blue. There were no players in the way and nothing else that could distract them. The touch by Church and consequent change of direction was clear and must have been seen by the lino - perhaps more difficult for the ref. With the keeper's leg swinging towards the ball there was only one outcome. Between the ref and the lino they should have made called a penalty but both will probably blame (or congratulate ?) each other's indecision. It was a joint bottle-job.
Quite right. You are simply looking for reasons not to use technology. Do you work for FIFA?!! :-).
If we'd had some trial and error, in preseason tournaments, for example, or perhaps in the Capital One Cup, and in game video had proved ineffective and impractical then I might have some sympathy, but we haven't. The reason Football is one of the few major sports not using technology (other than goal line) is not for any rational or considered reason, but because it's Sepp Blatter's point of view too.
I have no doubt that we will see in game video at some stage and when we do everybody will be saying "I don't know why we didn't introduce it sooner".
By the way, if a team had used all its appeals prior to a controversial incident then the response would be " .. then you shouldn't have wasted one should you. ..." We can all play the "what if" game. That's why some thoughtful experimentation is needed rather than outright resistance based on arguments that don't stand scrutiny.
Your response might be "you shouldn't have wasted one", others would not. I shan't repeat my reasoning for a third time.
And there is no bigger critic of Blatter than me! :-D
What other sports have managed and what football could easily emulate is to use the technology, not just to make the sport fairer, but to improve the spectacle. I agree if teams were calling for reviews every five minutes it would grind - but if you only give them one precious review they won't abuse it and it will add to the excitement and anticipation waiting for the correct decision.
When I said it is crap - I was meaning that you can't compare hackney marshes with the Nou Camp or even the Valley. It is a higher level of the game played for high stakes and requires the standard of decisons to be better. If that means using technolgy - well that is an option we have in the 21st century so no reason why we shouldn't use it. You do have to draw a line, so yes it wouldn't have helped with that throw in - but you always have to draw a line. But don't be nostalgic when you decide where that line should be.
What annoys me more than the well thought out introduction of technolgy would, is to have to watch some of the clowns we get affecting games through their poor officiating skills. The standard is so low and technology would raise it.
I have explained why it does not fit in with football. You have not made a single suggestion or a counter to any of my points Muttley, other than expanding on your statement about "crap". Which is your opinion, and I respect that. I disagree, but I respect it.
Quite right. You are simply looking for reasons not to use technology. Do you work for FIFA?!! :-).
If we'd had some trial and error, in preseason tournaments, for example, or perhaps in the Capital One Cup, and in game video had proved ineffective and impractical then I might have some sympathy, but we haven't. The reason Football is one of the few major sports not using technology (other than goal line) is not for any rational or considered reason, but because it's Sepp Blatter's point of view too.
I have no doubt that we will see in game video at some stage and when we do everybody will be saying "I don't know why we didn't introduce it sooner".
By the way, if a team had used all its appeals prior to a controversial incident then the response would be " .. then you shouldn't have wasted one should you. ..." We can all play the "what if" game. That's why some thoughtful experimentation is needed rather than outright resistance based on arguments that don't stand scrutiny.
Your response might be "you shouldn't have wasted one", others would not. I shan't repeat my reasoning for a third time.
And there is no bigger critic of Blatter than me! :-D
Your suggestion that Managers would request more appeals if clear mistakes were made after the last appeal had been used is well made. However, I'd make two points.
First, if teams retained an appeal if it were successful then they'd only be out of appeals if they made one/two/three in error. That would even things up a bit, making it harder to make a big fuss when a mistake had been made by the referee. The key takeaway might be "don't waste the appeals you have" rather than "lets have more". I don't watch much tennis, but my understanding is that the ranting about line calls has almost stopped. If nothing else the players know they can get it wrong too.
Second, right now we have a huge amount of controversy around refereeing errors. Almost every game is impacted. That's because its an impossible job. The idea of using technology is to reduce this controversy and everything that goes with it. I suspect it would increase respect for referees, for example. However, no system will ever be perfect. It just needs to be better than what we have today. It's an unhelpful feature of much of the defence of the status quo that it tends to focus on all of the potential problems the introduction of technology might bring, seeking a perfection which will never be achieved. Moreover, many of these issues might be resolved with experience.
I'm pleased we agree that Sepp Blatter is the real enemy!! :-)
What other sports have managed and what football could easily emulate is to use the technology, not just to make the sport fairer, but to improve the spectacle. I agree if teams were calling for reviews every five minutes it would grind - but if you only give them one precious review they won't abuse it and it will add to the excitement and anticipation waiting for the correct decision.
When I said it is crap - I was meaning that you can't compare hackney marshes with the Nou Camp or even the Valley. It is a higher level of the game played for high stakes and requires the standard of decisons to be better. If that means using technolgy - well that is an option we have in the 21st century so no reason why we shouldn't use it. You do have to draw a line, so yes it wouldn't have helped with that throw in - but you always have to draw a line. But don't be nostalgic when you decide where that line should be.
What annoys me more than the well thought out introduction of technolgy would, is to have to watch some of the clowns we get affecting games through their poor officiating skills. The standard is so low and technology would raise it.
I have explained why it does not fit in with football. You have not made a single suggestion or a counter to any of my points Muttley, other than expanding on your statement about "crap". Which is your opinion, and I respect that. I disagree, but I respect it.
Well I respect your position but completely disagree with that. You made points about it 4th or 5th decisons, I explained how that can easily be avoided. Of course we have different positions, but you are as guilty as what you are accusing me of.
I'm afraid you quite obviously dont understand/watch Rugby League. When a tackle is made the play does not 'stop' ( or maybe YOU had missed that) - the defending side has to immediately retreat by 10 metres and the play continues almost immediately by 'as long as it takes the tackled player to return to his feet' - a tad quicker than any footballer methinks after a free-kick! . I think you will find that free-kicks/throw-ins in football have a FAR longer stop than anything in RL - were you at Barnsley game mid-week? - that would have proved that point !
Comments
It's not easy for refs though. They don't have the benefit of slow motion replays!! Moreover, I've read many post match threads where posters were equally convinced "live" that we should have had a penalty, but where the video replay then proved us all wrong. If you want a penalty to be awarded you're more likely to see one!!
We've been here so many times before. If we want to avoid this kind of injustice the only answer is video replays. It's entirely unrealistic to expect refs to call it right every time. The authorities need to figure out how to use video. An obvious option is an appeal system, as in cricket, for example - that might actually add to the entertainment. Mind you, had we had that yesterday Bolton may have been awarded a goal when Poyet cleared off the line.
EDIT: By which I mean, no team goes down after 46 games because of a referee's decision. They go down because they weren't good enough over those 46.
Whereas at the top, these things seem to go in your favour. This is probably why once you are in the relegation places it is very hard to claw your way out.
The amount of debate on here would suggest it wasn't as clear a penalty as we would have liked. The officials see it once from one angle and at full speed so they have to be 100% clear it was a foul. Judging by the comments an discussion on here no one can decide even after various replays and slo-mos.
The pace that football is played at would not allow this; a quick breakwaway goal could be scored while checking the replay, what then happens to that goal? In other sports where video is used such as cricket and rugby there are times when several replays are needed and the same would happen in football. Video for penalty decisions would have to mean stopping play and for that reason I hope it never happens
I think the point you have made makes my point which I have made on previous occasions. Some of us could see it at the time, some of us can't even see it on video replay. Surely, if you need to be a good athlete to be a footballer, you need to be able to see these things if you are an official. It can be done as some of us- non professionals can do it!
One of the problems is, having played the game, when Church got past the keeper I was instinctively looking for contact. If I was the keeper, that is what I would do. Having said that, I'm not sure the keeper actually meant to foul Church having seen the replay (it wasn't his finest hour), but I was looking for the foul and that is what the lino and ref should have been looking for. That brings me to my main critisism of them. Many haven't played the game so they just don't know what to look for!
I take it the lino wasn't an ex footballer - I already know the answer to that
Its something that would add to the excitement in football - we cant stay in the Blatter dark ages forever.
The old argument from the football authorities was always their desire for football to be basically the same game at Hackney Marshes on a Sunday as it is in the Nou Camp - but that is crap. But FIFA and UEFA are crap too. I just don't understand why they are so conservative when traditionally conservative sports have embraced the technology.
Queensland: Limit on number of appeals - I thought I already explained my problem with that in my original post, but I will repeat it. The first time a fourth, or fifth decision is wrong, and Liverpool have used up their appeals, Thompson will be howling for unlimited appeals, and eventually so will other people. How do we prevent this happening? We don't even go there in the first place. YOU might be happy with three appeals, others will not, and, like you will be on forums and phone ins telling me how ridiculous it is that we can utilise technology for three/four incidents, but not five or six.
They "will only be used on penalty calls, red cards..." (It's already used on ball over the line, and I have never had a problem with that - that is a matter of FACT not judgement). So the famous Fulham "throw given the wrong way" incident would still have stood, that game would still have been a draw and people like you would have been howling that "The technology is available, why not use it...". We know that particular error of judgement cost Charlton two points, and a winning start for Pardew which could have changed the whole dynamic of that season, but your rules would not have changed that, and we still would have been relegated as a result, and you would have complained in exactly the same way you are now. As soon as you start using it for any matter of judgment, then you have no excuse not to use it at every turn.
As far as I know it is only used in rugby when a try is scored. It is not used to decide whether a ball is put into a scrum straight, or whether a player passed forward in a phase of play that does not lead directly to a try, or whether a player has tackled someone high. The try is "scored" the play stops and then the referee calls for a replay while play has ceased, in football neither red card nor penalty incidents necessarily lead to a break in play.
The Red Robin: Yes football does have breaks in play, but not always in the places you need them to judge the incidents that some would have technology used for; again I said in my original post that Friday's penalty call was a good example. And of course, in theory you could play forty five minutes of football without any break in play...
MartinhoCAFC: I did not say we should wait five minutes for a decision, I said it COULD TAKE five minutes, as it sometimes does in rugby. How many times have we looked at the Church "penalty" and still some swear it is, others swear it isn't... In all team games where video technology is used the man in the middle calls for the video ref/umpire/judge to look at an incident when he is not sure, that third or fourth official never makes his own call, as you are advocating. And what if there are two or three "incidents" in quick succession - while the video ref is looking at incident one, he can't see incident two at the same time can he? Again you talk of "goalmouth decisions", by which I assume you mean whether a ball is over the line or not, as I said earlier, a matter of FACT that is decided in an instant, and something I am happy with.
The President: As explained earlier, my comment about natural breaks in this context, is correct. I am incredulous that you think rugby league has as many natural breaks as football - every time a tackle is made the play stops, or had you missed that? In cricket after every ball, the play stops, in NFL after every "play" the game stops. I have no idea why you think a five minute break in play while a fourth official looks at an incident from eight different angles will make a game more exciting, I can only speak from my point of view and say it wouldn't do it for me...
Muttley: Again, I hope I have covered most of the points you raise in the above explanation - number of calls, what decisions it's used for etc, and just saying "but that is crap" without any reason for you coming to that conclusion isn't really bolstering your argument.
Of course I am looking for reasons not to use technology Queensland, because that is my point of view, and I hope that if you read properly the points I am making that you will see the validity in my argument, or that you and others will come back with counter arguments that I have not previously considered.
If we'd had some trial and error, in preseason tournaments, for example, or perhaps in the Capital One Cup, and in game video had proved ineffective and impractical then I might have some sympathy, but we haven't. The reason Football is one of the few major sports not using technology (other than goal line) is not for any rational or considered reason, but because it's Sepp Blatter's point of view too.
I have no doubt that we will see in game video at some stage and when we do everybody will be saying "I don't know why we didn't introduce it sooner".
By the way, if a team had used all its appeals prior to a controversial incident then the response would be " .. then you shouldn't have wasted one should you. ..." We can all play the "what if" game. That's why some thoughtful experimentation is needed rather than outright resistance based on arguments that don't stand scrutiny.
When I said it is crap - I was meaning that you can't compare hackney marshes with the Nou Camp or even the Valley. It is a higher level of the game played for high stakes and requires the standard of decisons to be better. If that means using technolgy - well that is an option we have in the 21st century so no reason why we shouldn't use it. You do have to draw a line, so yes it wouldn't have helped with that throw in - but you always have to draw a line. But don't be nostalgic when you decide where that line should be.
What annoys me more than the well thought out introduction of technolgy would, is to have to watch some of the clowns we get affecting games through their poor officiating skills. The standard is so low and technology would raise it.
From my view in the East, almost above the lino, it was a definite penalty. The ref and the lino have no excuse whatsoever. They had plenty of time to se what was possibly going to happen - it didn't come out of the blue. There were no players in the way and nothing else that could distract them. The touch by Church and consequent change of direction was clear and must have been seen by the lino - perhaps more difficult for the ref. With the keeper's leg swinging towards the ball there was only one outcome. Between the ref and the lino they should have made called a penalty but both will probably blame (or congratulate ?) each other's indecision. It was a joint bottle-job.
And there is no bigger critic of Blatter than me! :-D
First, if teams retained an appeal if it were successful then they'd only be out of appeals if they made one/two/three in error. That would even things up a bit, making it harder to make a big fuss when a mistake had been made by the referee. The key takeaway might be "don't waste the appeals you have" rather than "lets have more". I don't watch much tennis, but my understanding is that the ranting about line calls has almost stopped. If nothing else the players know they can get it wrong too.
Second, right now we have a huge amount of controversy around refereeing errors. Almost every game is impacted. That's because its an impossible job. The idea of using technology is to reduce this controversy and everything that goes with it. I suspect it would increase respect for referees, for example. However, no system will ever be perfect. It just needs to be better than what we have today. It's an unhelpful feature of much of the defence of the status quo that it tends to focus on all of the potential problems the introduction of technology might bring, seeking a perfection which will never be achieved. Moreover, many of these issues might be resolved with experience.
I'm pleased we agree that Sepp Blatter is the real enemy!! :-)
When a tackle is made the play does not 'stop' ( or maybe YOU had missed that) - the defending side has to immediately retreat by 10 metres and the play continues almost immediately by 'as long as it takes the tackled player to return to his feet' - a tad quicker than any footballer methinks after a free-kick! . I think you will find that free-kicks/throw-ins in football have a FAR longer stop than anything in RL - were you at Barnsley game mid-week? - that would have proved that point !