Why cant the FA help the officials, forget the technology route for a moment what do the lino's do that upsets the fans so often. 1. They never keep up with play. 2. They are often sight challenged. 3. Do not help the referee who gets all the flack 4. Miss so many incidents of fouling, pushing, shirt pulling not to mention diving or as I prefer to call it cheating. How on earth are they supposed to officiate from the other side of the pitch. The simple answer is they cant, the game is too fast in the premiership and probably the championship etc. Possible easy solution, double up on Lino's, less running for them, always keep up with play, more likely to spot the dark arts of the game like shirt pulling, diving, cheating anywhere on the pitch. They should all have comms and the referee still has final say. This would improve the officials ability to get more right as a unit, will not slow the game in any way and because they are seen to get more right the fan/official relationship would improve. Got to be worth a try?
I think the officials could do with an animal running around with them during games based on their personality.
Yes! I like it. No cards, just a pet lion that they can unleash on players when they surround the ref. A snake that is trained to strike offside players. Alligators that snap up divers. I'm in.
Exactly. Genuinely, when I go to sink a few pints with my pals after a game, or to watch a game in the pub, the errors are the things that often start great debate. I didn’t start watching or playing football (in my younger days) for the game to be perfect. I like the fact it isn’t perfect. You only have to watch a game of rugby or cricket to see what over-policing the game can do - endless stoppages, every minute under a microscope. eg. I was incredulous at the time of the ‘phantom’ goal against Reading. But soon enough it passed and now I find it hilarious and I’m glad that we were involved in it. The same with Knockaert’s dive. I hate the guy with a passion but if he had dived and they corrected the penalty decision, that ‘Deeney’ moment would never have happened. It could be argued that we gained from his hysterionics. You say forget technology, and just have double the amount of Lino’s. What happens if one flags offside and the other doesnt? How do you solve the impasse? Go with the ref as the final vote?? What if he’s wrong? Then you are back at square one. The endless tinkering of the game should stop. You either go with all the technology you can and play the game perfectly. Or you realise the game isn’t meant to be perfect. I sincerely hope it will always be the latter.
A ridiculous argument. Let's get as many decisions right as possible. Using more tech. needn't slow the game down much at all. Rugby and cricket have always been much slower anyway. But the crowds at those matches have certainly bought into the new tech. And in tennis. And they will when waiting 30 secs. for the correct offside decision. It still won't be perfect. There'll still be plenty to argue about. The use of further technology is inevitable though. Don't be a luddite like the various football authorities.
To suggest I’m a ‘luddite’ would suggest I’m small-minded and I take exception to that. Just because I prefer the game to flow and be managed and overseen by officials making decisions in real-time - the way the game was intended is not a ‘ridiculous argument’. As much as the next guy/girl, I don’t like several nuances that have crept into the game - diving, feigning injury etc. But they have, and personally I find that easier to stomach than a game that will become overrun by stoppages for technology or replays every time something dubious happens. I agree that it is inevitable that more technology will be introduced, but that doesn’t mean that universally every fan will welcome it. Where do you draw the line with the technology? Disputed throw-ins? Corner’s not quite placed in the D? Penalties slightly off the spot? Because these could all constitute gaining an advantage? They work in cricket because it’s an all-day game, they have time to stop. They work in rugby because there are fewer stoppages for infringements. They work in tennis because there are fewer rules, so less to break. If you support it, that’s fine. But for me, the game is already disappearing with money and greed - over-governing the actual matches themselves will send the game further down in the enjoyment stakes.
A ref in each half would be a better solution. They would be able to keep up with the play in their own respective halfs and would be able to have double the input on whether there's a foul, etc.
I'm not suggesting you are small-minded, but I'm not sure about parts of your argument. Goal-line tech. is the only thing so far introduced into football. The ref plays on until he gets a 'bleep' on his 'watch' and if he doesn't get a bleep we play on. How does that slow down the game? And the result is unarguable. Is that not an improvement? 'In rugby there are fewer stoppages than football'. I am assuming you mean Rugby Union. Really? Is that true? I would be interested if you have stats on that. Surely we could be selective as to how tech was used, so that it doesn't slow down play; The referee could be the 'gatekeeper' for its use: If he feels a tricky decision is important enough he could request its use and he could exercise his judgement and ignore petty complaints from the players. This is already done with, for example, exactly where a throw-in is taken. Referees have to exercise judgement on these things already. There might usefully be an adjustment on the use of linos, where their responsibilities are widened and they can advise a ref (who retains final say) over incidents they think are important and which they think they saw. (In the manner of Rugby Union). If the decision is deemed important enough (foul on Chalobah, two off-side goals ??) the ref could quickly review it and and return to the appropriate passage of play. With off-side 'goals', for instance, I can't see where the flow of play would be interrupted - it's been stopped already.
The way forward is no tech. Tennis and cricket players going bezerk after bad decisions is sorely missed. In the old days a tennis freak would be about to break and then get a dodgy call before losing 24 points in a row. I miss revelling in these mental meltdowns.
Okay. I accept my rugby comparison was somewhat off but what I meant was that there is more gaps in play in rugby than football to assess situations that may have come before. So no, I have no stats. But from watching rugby at Twickenham, I can assure you that fans get annoyed with the referee's inability to back himself/herself on decisions and an increasing desire to hold up play over any issue, big or small, to get the correct decision rather than having the belief in his or her instinct of what happened. If you allow technology into the game, this will become the norm in football too after time. I'm not disagreeing with goal line technology. But thats a very obvious situation where a beep on a watch will work. It cost a fortune to install and the camera's for it to work are situated at the same place all the time. How do you make that work for offsides etc? I'm not even sure there would be a company or technology capable. You only have to look at NFL to see what multiple officials in various areas of the pitch will do - there will be flags for coaches and all sorts if we continue to increase the policing of the game thats is played on the pitch. You say allow the referee to be gatekeeper and let them exercise their judgement - isn't that the issue? That there are so many cameras and angles etc and 50,000 odd fans each week that don't allow their judgment to be deemed correct on first glance and therefore scrutinised/criticised from every viewpoint. So why increase the technology but still have his/her word as gospel? Surely we go all in on technology or we accept the game isn't perfect. I don't think theres a halfway-house on this matter. Thats my argument. I don't want to go to VR every 2 weeks and have the game endlessly stopped in search of the correct decision being sought every time. That isn't the game I fell in love with that is already being changed far too much as it is.
The problem is that offside is really difficult to adjudicate live, as you have to look in two directions at once or rely on hearing the ball being struck, which is impossible in a big match crowd. Unless of course it's a dead ball kick, when there's much less excuse. The answer is to allow each side one unsuccessful appeal per half, as in cricket. That should avoid frivolous appeals and too much delay
Well, I think we might both agree on this point: This tech is never going to make it to Sunday League, Division 3, and this divorces it more from professional football. The two could become increasingly different. That's not desirable, I'm sure. I'm certainly not an advocate of technology for its own sake. & I think it would have to be introduced extremely carefully- fully trialed and so on. But I'm struck by the number of people who seem to prefer the uncertainty and controversy to certainty; I can't really argue against that - if it's a person's preference then it's a person's preference. I'd rather the correct decisions were made, but that's just me, I suppose. Some prefer blondes, some brunettes. But behind this discussion I increasingly suspect there's a huge amount of stuff about what football means to different people. Far too complex to be adequately discussed in our little posts - even if we put them all together.
This is a great debate and it's too late for me to go into full detail of what I think about tech and football, but I will say that I am for it. One of the biggest reasons I am for it is simply because the game has changed in terms of the money involved. Imagine Watford being relegated on the last day of the season because of a wrong call. Whether that be a penalty against us, an offside goal, red card etc, but we go down because of it. A club like us needs the money the Prem can offer. While we have great owners and we are certainly not poor, but the Pozzo's won't always be around. We need to make as much money as possible now and make a name for ourselves as much as we can. I don't like the fact that football has gone in this direction but it had and like most teams that get relegated you have to bounce back immediately. Once relegated and you spend more than two seasons in the championship, you basically start over again. Imagine doing that without the Pozzo's in charge. We definitely need to enjoy this journey that we are on because it won't last forever. While everyone loves the highs and lows of football, the debatable calls to talk about over a pint and the ability to release the frustration on a dart board down the pub with Anthony Taylor's face on it, there is simply too much money at stake for football to not move in a tech direction. I agree that it needs to be limited but I think all goals, red cards and penalty decisions can easily be watched in a matter of seconds and word sent to the ref. While the team is off celebrating their goal, by the time the player is just about to start his FIFA celebration the ref can easily make the call against the goal. Same with red cards, before the player(s) have even finished arguing, you would have word sent to the ref whether it was or was not a red card. Penalties are a bit harder unless the ball goes out for a corner or goal kick, in which case before the ball has even been placed down, you would a decision. It's when the ball stays on the pitch, a team clears it and breaks on the counter, now all of a sudden the ref is getting word it was a pen and has to bring play back. Annoying, yes but it's justified. Another idea, and this is totally out of the box and probably a rubbish idea as I just thought of it is this; going in at HT, the refs are sent word about the incorrect calls and at the start of the 2nd half, pens that should have been awarded are taken, offside goals are scratched off and penalties that were given which shouldn't have been, those goals are also scratched off. If a player was red carded unfairly, he is now allowed back into the game. Same at FT, the ref blows the whistle but the players have to stay on the pitch for a moment, the video ref makes the ref aware of the wrong decisions and at the end of the game, penalties are awarded, goals are scratched off if they were offside etc and players that received a red card unfairly are no longer banned for the next game. This idea sounds horrible but I had to transfer it from my brain to paper, so sorry.
Luddite. "A person opposed to increased new technology". Bang on I'd say. It isn't synonymous with 'small mindedness' which wasn't my accusation. More later ...
Make the ball square. It'll slow the game down so we can have large, out of condition refs like the good old days, like plodder McPlod face
Might make headers a bit ouchy if you got the corner. Jordan Stewart would still not be able to tell which direction the ball would bounce off his head.
Interesting that you mentioned the Deeney moment. You're right, with video technology we wouldn't have had it. Instead, we'd have been still celebrating promotion after a penalty and red card for a foul on Hogg in the early part of the game vs Leeds.
But if we'd had a great coach who'd put two keepers on the bench against Leeds, we'd have gone up anyway
We just need a challenge system like they have in tennis. 3 challenges a match, challenge not upheld then you lose one. Can only be applied in dead ball situations. Penalty, card, goal, offside. Initiated by the manager. Plenty of tennis matches manage to not have hawk-eye and therefore no challenge system. Plenty of football matches don't have goal-line technology. To suggest that this can't be implemented because it makes the game different at the top level is balls. Replays need to be at full speed though. Running it frame by frame makes things look different.
Keep it the way it is, it's only Football at the end of the day and the controversy around it at times is part of the game. **** going to a 7.45 pm kick off that finishes at 11 pm because we had to stop start every few minutes.
Wrote quite a lengthy piece on all this which disappeared off the screen when I was almost ready to press the button. Probably for the best really. Anyway, I can't be arsed with reproducing it all again now although if a 'window of opportunity' arises between now and Christmas I might be tempted ...
It's happened before but not often. Only really frustrating when it's a long one. As far as I can remember it's only happened on the laptop rather than on the phone.
We should get a second ‘Meister’. Then they can go back and look at it again, listen to their watches and retrospectively reinstate your post...
I am glad we have goal line tech and think the virtual ref should be introduced gradually. For the next step I would start with goals Every time a goal is scored (natural break in play) the goal is reviewed and the ref informed if it is good or not. So for example the spuds goal scored against us a couple of yrs back would not have been given. After all this is the most crucial aspect of the game. Eventually more decisions ie penalties, yes/no etc can be introduced gradually when the system is sorted and can be implemented without breaking the game up with long waiting times before a decision is decided upon.
Yes it is . So why do you take up your valuable time frequently posting on a football forum? Presumably because it isn't 'only' football.
So.....artificially leave in referees' incompetence so as to generate 'controversy'? (This is more or less what I accused the FA, FIFA and TV of doing in another thread). There are loads of other types of controversy in football which I would rather be discussing.
No no no. I don't think anyone on here has advocated that, but several of us have indicated technical aid should only be introduced in carefully- trialed ways which do not do that. Crikey, Mr Beard, that post of your's is so far out you should change your name to 'Cassini's Beard'.
The current forum software regularly saves drafts as you go along. The previous one did too but to a lesser extent and the recall wasn't automatic.
