And, we're off.....2016/17

[Deleted member 18588]

MM - I'm afraid those days have long gone. The moment we got 20 cameras at a match, sports phone ins, 24hr sports news channels to fill. I actually agree with you and in my own sporting days any question of a decision was done in the bar after a game, camly and politely. Refs/umpires encouraged it, after the match of course, and all parties learnt something from the experience. Sometimes that the ref was a prat but usually why the decision was made, even if it was a wrong decision.

TV cameras don't offer perfection but I bet Michael Oilver wishes he could have seen that tackle again in slow motion and from three different angles. He doesn't get that luxury which is why I have not criticised him at all, just the system that allows the offender to escape. The refs assessor will have seen it and reported it, that's for sure.

But why would the ref wish he had the benefit of the cameras. After all the more dependence upon cameras the less necessity there is for a "real" ref.

I know it is now too late and the genie is out of the bottle but if I could prevail upon sporting authorities to make one rule it would be to ban TV replays. Incidents involving contentious decisions cannot be rerun on the "big screen" in the stadium in order to protect the ref's integrity so they would merely have to extend that ruling to all TV pictures.

BTW I agree that Rojo's tackle was a disgrace but there will have been others this week-end in games where there are few if any cameras so the perpetrators of those will escape.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Cameras certainly don't have a perfect view, they are only two-dimensional so they lack depth perception.

They may help but they are not infallible.

Personally I would like to see a return to the attitude where the ref is right even when he is wrong but I realise that is not going to happen. Too many smart arse analysts and TV viewers with their Super Slow-Mo and 17 different camera angles.

All reflects the society we live in. Don't like a ref's decision, demand a review. Don't like a referendum result, demand a rerun.

So should we just smile when Deli Alli blantantly cheats and fools the Ref into making a genuine mistake, or should we look to help the officials? and stop the cheats?

 

[Lord Tyrion]

If he had the benefit of the camera then he could be more certain of his decision. I can not believe the ref will look back at that decision and think he got it right. All refs want to get decisions correct. They make a decision based on what their eyes tell them based on their view. Have a different angle, closer and without obstruction, and the chances are the decision will be more accurate. It may be the same decision but sometimes it wont.

The last paragraph is the Fifa view on these things on the whole. Either everyone has it or no one does. I don't agree with that. You want to be getting more decisions right, not fewer. I suspect any poor challenge in the PL or Championship will be picked up. That is a pretty good start. Maybe it will drift down to the next division as well but if it doesn't then does that mean the top two divisions ignore bad tackles? The PL is meant to be the elite so they should have everything available to them. Similar to cricket where international cricket gets reviews, county cricket doesn't.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

So should we just smile when Deli Alli blantantly cheats and fools the Ref into making a genuine mistake, or should we look to help the officials? and stop the cheats?

Life is full of disappointments!

No system is perfect so let's just move on and be mature. Like the Stones said:- "you can't always get what you want."

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Liverpool defending that goal......five defenders in touching distance of lone attacker who takes a touch, controls ball and shoots @ best league in the world .com

Cumnock Juniors would have had one defender blocking, one elbowing him in the face, one taking him off at the knees whilst the other two watched and laughed.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Life is full of disappointments!

No system is perfect so let's just move on and be mature. Like the Stones said:- "you can't always get what you want."

Many other sports have embraced the use of modern technology to help the sport and it's officials. Only in football is there this belief that it will undermine the refs. By helping the refs and looking at decisions afterwards it might actually improve the refs performance and might actually give the players something to think about.

Sport is massive in the world now - football for one is huge in financial terms - got to help minimise the risks of mistakes as much as possible - use technology to help and improve the sport as it has done for many others

 

[stokie_93]

Many other sports have embraced the use of modern technology to help the sport and it's officials. Only in football is there this belief that it will undermine the refs. By helping the refs and looking at decisions afterwards it might actually improve the refs performance and might actually give the players something to think about.

I watch sports like Rugby and it must fill the refs with confidence knowing they won’t get ridiculed for a decision if they get it wrong because they have that backing there.
The amount of abuse they get off players/managers could so easily be cut out by investing in technology like that.
They’ve done it for goal line technology so why can’t it be done for other areas.
All you have to do is look at cricket, there’s so much technology behind it now so why can’t football follow suit?

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Life is full of disappointments!

No system is perfect so let's just move on and be mature. Like the Stones said:- "you can't always get what you want."

A dodgy decision, 2 players fully committed, no issue, blatant cheating!! No I won't accept that, what if it's the difference between promotion and relegation?

 

[Blue in Munich]

Yes, retrospective action is only for incidents where the ref "hasn't seen it" and as Chalobah received a yellow that is not the case for him so end of story.

It's only Fabregas who could be in trouble.

Or possibly not; according to the report in The Times, he was given a yellow card for his part in the handbags so he may be off the hook as well.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Or possibly not; according to the report in The Times, he was given a yellow card for his part in the handbags so he may be off the hook as well.

Just checked Sky and he was booked in the 98th minute, only charges maybe to both teams for failing to control their players, the FA use that when they've ran out of ideas.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

Many other sports have embraced the use of modern technology to help the sport and it's officials. Only in football is there this belief that it will undermine the refs. By helping the refs and looking at decisions afterwards it might actually improve the refs performance and might actually give the players something to think about.

Sport is massive in the world now - football for one is huge in financial terms - got to help minimise the risks of mistakes as much as possible - use technology to help and improve the sport as it has done for many others

Other sports have breaks in play facilitating the use of replays, football does not. Crowds are not going to be happy waiting on the result of a TV replay that is, after all, only being used to satisfy the demands of those not attending the match.

So TV replays would not benefit the game for those at the game.

And if you seriously think that the possible use of retrospective replays will somehow stop or deter players from diving or making dangerous tackles you clearly have not played the game. These sort of actions are instinctive not premeditated and the use of replays has not stopped them yet, nor will it.

As for sport being massive and huge in financial terms; so what?

Refs, like players, make mistakes that affect the outcome of games, that is part of SPORT.

 

[Tashyboy]

What does me about the cameras using them to right wrongs. Is that we already do. Viewers on Sky, BT or whoever you watch your live football with, within seconds have numerous angles to see " said incidents". I want to talk about a game of football when it has finished who was good and who was crap. I want to hear Gary Nevilles excellent analogy of games. But more and more the talk is not about football, but penaltys that were not given or given, Cheating, bad tackles. offside or not offside.
Ironic that now even Dermot Gallacher has said it is time for replays to be involved. Again to not even give it a try I find astounding, bit like goal line technology there are those that did not want it, but now is the norm.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Other sports have breaks in play facilitating the use of replays, football does not. Crowds are not going to be happy waiting on the result of a TV replay that is, after all, only being used to satisfy the demands of those not attending the match.

So TV replays would not benefit the game for those at the game.

And if you seriously think that the possible use of retrospective replays will somehow stop or deter players from diving or making dangerous tackles you clearly have not played the game. These sort of actions are instinctive not premeditated and the use of replays has not stopped them yet, nor will it.

As for sport being massive and huge in financial terms; so what?

Refs, like players, make mistakes that affect the outcome of games, that is part of SPORT.

Big difference between a genuine mistake and deliberately cheating.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Other sports have breaks in play facilitating the use of replays, football does not. Crowds are not going to be happy waiting on the result of a TV replay that is, after all, only being used to satisfy the demands of those not attending the match.

I don't advocate the use of to replays during the game but crowds is every other sport don't seem to have a problem waiting for a replay to ensure the decision is correct - why would football crowds be different ?

So TV replays would not benefit the game for those at the game.

Why not when other sport crowds benefit from them ? Is there something different with a football, crowd ?

And if you seriously think that the possible use of retrospective replays will somehow stop or deter players from diving or making dangerous tackles you clearly have not played the game. These sort of actions are instinctive not premeditated and the use of replays has not stopped them yet, nor will it.

As for sport being massive and huge in financial terms; so what?

Refs, like players, make mistakes that affect the outcome of games, that is part of SPORT.

The use of retrospective bans and checking of the game video would ensure players that have gone over the line face the punishment their actions deserve - plenty players over the years have gotten away with it in football - other sports ensure those players don't so again why is football any different - why can't a panel look at the video from the weekend and decide that clearly Rojo should have had a red , Barnes a red , Chalaboh and Fabregas red - then players haven't got away with their actions

Refs do make mistakes in other sports but they also happy and confident that if they do miss something it will be picked up later - and it can work both ways - reds and yellow that shouldn't have been given are removed

The sooner football embraces the further use of technology the better the sport will be

 

[Deleted member 18588]

Football crowds are not different. The game is.

In Rugby there are set-plays; scrums, line-outs etc; Cricket effectively has a break in play after each delivery.

Football does not have these breaks and, as a frequent attendee at matches, I believe it is better for that.

Goal-line technology is OK since it is instantaneous and does not require any interruption.

With regard to your penultimate paragraph I would say that we already have most of that. Players are issued with a retrospective red card for incidents not covered by the ref's report and red cards issued at the time can be appealed against. Yellow cards cannot.

I am sorry but realistically I cannot see how the increased use of technology can improve the game. After all you have frequently reminded us of the financial success that is the EPL so it can't be that bad.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Football crowds are not different. The game is.

In Rugby there are set-plays; scrums, line-outs etc; Cricket effectively has a break in play after each delivery.

Football does not have these breaks and, as a frequent attendee at matches, I believe it is better for that.

Goal-line technology is OK since it is instantaneous and does not require any interruption.

With regard to your penultimate paragraph I would say that we already have most of that. Players are issued with a retrospective red card for incidents not covered by the ref's report and red cards issued at the time can be appealed against. Yellow cards cannot.

I am sorry but realistically I cannot see how the increased use of technology can improve the game. After all you have frequently reminded us of the financial success that is the EPL so it can't be that bad.

Corners, throw ins, free kicks, goal kicks, fouls, substitutions etc plenty of breaks in play. The last study in to time the ball is actually in play found it was only in play for 64 minutes.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

Corners, throw ins, free kicks, goal kicks, fouls, substitutions etc plenty of breaks in play. The last study in to time the ball is actually in play found it was only in play for 64 minutes.

If you, like me, actually attend matches you will not want to be sat around waiting for a review of an incident involving slow-mo and several camera angles.

Crowds already get restless if they think too much time is being taken over a goal-kick or throw in. We do not want the game to become like the NFL.

 

[MegaSteve]

Sadly, in my opinion, video reviews will eventually come to the prem... Reason being the TV audience is now way more important than the folk that come through the turnstiles... Don't go too often these days but have spent way too much time freezing me proverbials off standing on windy terraces to have the patience for multiple reviews only for the powers that be to still get it wrong... As I have witnessed in recent times at rugby...

 

[Papas1982]

If you, like me, actually attend matches you will not want to be sat around waiting for a review of an incident involving slow-mo and several camera angles.

Crowds already get restless if they think too much time is being taken over a goal-kick or throw in. We do not want the game to become like the NFL.

Im fully in this camp. Retro punishment, absolutely. But once we agree to replays for one thing, say penalties, people will want offside, fouls, corners.

Cricket lasts a day, the extension is minimal, rugby I can't comment on really as don't watch enough. But IMO games would end up being nearer 2hours minimum with replays.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

If you, like me, actually attend matches you will not want to be sat around waiting for a review of an incident involving slow-mo and several camera angles.

Crowds already get restless if they think too much time is being taken over a goal-kick or throw in. We do not want the game to become like the NFL.

That's a culture thing, why do you think it is going to add so long? Some games will have no incidents, others may have a few, middle ground could be so many challenges per side, ie 2 per half.
I rather be at a match taking a few minutes longer and decisions were correct rather than travelling home feeling we were robbed.
The England v Australia Rugby match was a perfect example of how it works without adding much time.
The fear it's going to add 10-30 minutes to a game is unfounded and used as a scare tactic.