It would make sense Monarch, but as all us fans know, since when have the arseholes that run football spoken, or indeed done anything that makes sense? Yes, I can the justice that would prevail using all the technology, but to be honest I think it would take the 'human' element of the game away to a certain extent. Do I want technology, or do I want the human element to remain, complete with all the errors? Simple answer is......... I aint got a scooby <completely bamboozled/confuddled emoticon>
This would probably be the best and easiest solution all round and personally I would love to see it happen - but it ain't going to. More is the pity.
The only problem is not all games have SKY HD cameras filming the whole match, granted most prem fixtures do and technology can always go wrong.....
You do not need SKY to televise it to make it work. A camera with a direct link to a monitor in the same ground is required and a trained cameraman of course. If you watch football on TV you will know that this facility (camera) is at every ground every Saturday already to show the highlights on BBC 1. Just need to link up a monitor at each ground to receive the signal
Thing with FIFA and refusing to bring it in is because it takes to long(rubbish) to make a decision but also that you wouldn't be able to have it all grounds which is also rubbish. Why not just use it in football league and premier league. Take tennis for example, hawk eye is only on the top courts where as outside courts are not not privileged for this benefit. This would be no different on football and they just get on with it.
You are talking to two directly opposite sets of people with these debates. 1. One lot are the fans and some managers who want it to created transparent fairness in competition and 2 The others who simply do not want to listen as they have their own agenda's or fear the consequences of it's introduction
For the prem it is workable and most Championship clubs, when you get to lg 1 and beyond just having lights is a luxury....... I want it used too Thai, and the tennis argument is valid
It works in cricket, it works in tennis and it works in rugby. So why can't it work in football? Rugby is very similar to football in terms of the flow of the game and it isn't interrupted that often. I remember in the 2007 Rugby World Cup final. Robinson went for a try in the corner and there was huge debate as to whether it was a try or not. The decision made by television replays was crucial in the result. Had England been awarded the try incorrectly South Africa could have potentially lost the game.
Dermot Gallagher (I think that's his name, the former ref) said it was a penalty and a red card. He also said the penalty we conceded was soft and in the context of the game we should have had a penalty awarded for one of the countless fouls olsson comitted by pulling people over in the box. Game has gone now but perhaps refs will be a bit more careful next time
from my point of view, i'm more in agreement with monarch that there shouldn't be decisions made via tv AFTER a match has finished. i do think technology has a part to play but in two simple ways - both of which could be implemented immediately. 1) goal line technology. whether a ball crosses the line is not a matter of opinion, it is a fact. either its a goal or it isn't. the technology is already about to send a buzz to a wrist strap on the refs arm that indicates if a ball has crossed the line - use it. 2) let the fourth official, whose job is pretty much pointless, overrule the referee IF, and only IF he has seen him make a mistake IN HIS OPINION via his tv feed. even then, the referee is in charge and is allowed to go with his first choice of action, a bit like if a linesman flags and he chooses to overrule. there is no need for us fans to see pictures, no need for the ref to go over and view it, no need for the game to stop for more than a few seconds, no more than if he went over to consult a linesman. its crazy that this hasn't been embraced in my eyes. the referee will still have total control of the decision making!
He has been issued with a three match ban. Statement on Baggies website goes something along the lines of: It wasn't intentional, but it would be very difficult to prove that it wasn't intentional, therefore we admit that it was intentional.
I looked at the clip a few times and i defy anyone to argue that he didn t purposely set out to cause Vaughan harm. In that situation with second left in the match, if the officials offer no protection i would have probably retaliated and bust the Romanians nose...
I do not know if James Vaughan was in too much pain or too dazed to react but congratulations should goes his way for not reacting in anyway, shape or form
He would have almost certainly been given a lengthy ban if he retaliated, he showed a very cool head.
