That "goal"
- Thread starter robbieBB
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
You've put a lot of thought into this! On the penalty or not theme, the restart is obvious! If technology says it's a penalty, then the restart is the penalty! If technology says it's not a penalty, the game is restarted by the defending team with a free kick for simulation!
Pargraphs are useful when you've had a touch too much to drink.
I, of course, wouldn't know.....
Why is everyone assuming that the game has to be stopped? I don't understand this.
The referee has an ear piece and can communicate with the other officials- get a video official in. If the ref thinks the ball has gone over the line, he should ask the video off. to check it and only stop play if there is a natural break, otherwise all players should keep playing.
This should work absolutely fine, because all the fourth official needs is a camera in one of the goal posts looking across. Shouldn't take him longer than a couple of seconds to review it and pass on the info. Problem solved.
I may be naive here, but why do people re-post posts that are half a page long?
If people read it the first time and it makes sense and registers with them, they'll read down the thread - and hopefully add to it.
If not, they'll move on to something else?
What am I missing?
If people read it the first time and it makes sense and registers with them, they'll read down the thread - and hopefully add to it.
If not, they'll move on to something else?
What am I missing?
I may be naive here, but why do people re-post posts that are half a page long?
If people read it the first time and it makes sense and registers with them, they'll read down the thread - and hopefully add to it.
If not, they'll move on to something else?
If you don't repost a post that you are specifically replying to, if someone posts before you, it could make your post look out of context!
It's ok, I've got my bike outside!
I know what Cromer means though, pretty annoying having to scroll through all that repetition when the post in question is long. All posts are numbered, you could refer to that maybe?
Incidentally, who stole our banner!
I know what Cromer means though, pretty annoying having to scroll through all that repetition when the post in question is long. All posts are numbered, you could refer to that maybe?
Incidentally, who stole our banner!
A techie problem that is being dealt with by the site owner. Apparently he added something and all the banner went awol.
This should be the final straw now, just get the technology installed and all of this nonsense stops. The other thing I would suggest is that the replay technology extends to any penalty decision because too many games are decided by iffy dives and referees making calls from the angle that they see it from which can be misleading and also the decision has to be made instantaneously of course, it really is difficult. Like umpiring, it looks LBW but you have already had to check to ensure that it wasn't a no ball and see if it pitched in line.
If we had the replay in a screen the whole crowd can see it and have the satisfacton of knowing that their team has not been cheated and in that regard Tottenham were effectively beaten at that point on Sunday which of course was totally wrong. Terry is a liar and should never have tried to celebrate the 'goal' - he just gets lower and lower in every way. Rant over, sorry!
If we had the replay in a screen the whole crowd can see it and have the satisfacton of knowing that their team has not been cheated and in that regard Tottenham were effectively beaten at that point on Sunday which of course was totally wrong. Terry is a liar and should never have tried to celebrate the 'goal' - he just gets lower and lower in every way. Rant over, sorry!
The video has been taken off youtube so I haven't see it in full. But as far as the still photo goes, if you look at the photo I posted from the BBC website, you can see that it is Assou's LEFT foot that kicks the ball out, not his right. In the photo his left foot is well behind the line, more than a ball's diameter inside the goal line. So to me this photo proves nothing; but it does suggest that JT wasn't in a position to say conclusively whether it crossed the line or not.
It amazes me how quickly people jump to conclusions.
My apologies Dave for being sloppy in my wording. IMO there are 2 sorts of diving in the penalty area. There are those where a player just throws himself to the ground without the defender making contact which is blatant cheating and a yellow card offence. Secondly there are cases, such as the incident involving Young, where there is either accidental contact or contact brought about by the attacker moving towards the defender and in accordance with the advice given by Howard Webb and in the words of the pundits goes down easily. It is not a penalty but I do not think that according to the rules of the game it is an offence by the attacker either as long as there has been contact. It was that type of situation I was referring to. For the benefit of the purists - fresh paragraph!
Thurnby - Appreciate all you say my friend but unfortunately you have not dealt with the practicalities raised in my earlier post. Whether we like it or not the man in the middle is in charge and has to give a decision. We cannot have a situation where the ref basically says to the video ref ' I think it was a penalty but I will just play on until you confirm it ' There is also a myth building up that video technology is instant - it isn't. How many camera angles do they sometimes have to look at in slow motion to confirm whether contact has been made? How many times do we see several different angles of a goal before one indicates the scorer was offside. A lot happens in 30secs in a football match and I remain to be convinced that a video ref would not cause more problems than it solves and that it would prove impossible to write a rule covering all eventualities. If there is technology available, as in tennis, which would give an INSTANT decision as to whether the ball crossed the goal line I would go along with that but that is as far as it goes.
not conclusive?!?! they showed three, maybe four angles, and all showed it didn't cross the line! how much more conclusive do you want...?
You have really raised some excellent points 1950. To be honest, I cannot answer them as you right.
I think 1950 has got it spot on. Technology could open a can of worms. Gordon Taylor refers to the financial importance of wrong decisions. The law makers wrote the laws about the game being played between the chalk lines not the implications of a manager getting sacked or missing out on the CL.
Football is the greatest game because it flows, is fast and has few rules to mess it up and make it controversial. Now all of a sudden it is.
To be controversial, ban TV from showing the games at all! Then its down to the decision on the pitch.
That of course will not happen but its the one way of stopping it.
Football is the greatest game because it flows, is fast and has few rules to mess it up and make it controversial. Now all of a sudden it is.
To be controversial, ban TV from showing the games at all! Then its down to the decision on the pitch.
That of course will not happen but its the one way of stopping it.
I agree about cutting out television, but that would upset both sides, clubs would lose a huge income, and exiles such as you and I would lose the chance to watch our team online! Travelling to matches is cost prohibitive for me, apart from a rare away match!