I'm passionate about this issue, as it's a FIFA lead farce, that technology hasn't been embraced to rid the game of a high percentage of the bloody awful, game defining decisions, that we, as the paying 'consumer' of the football product have to endure, week after ****ing week. The prime drivers for them swerving the issue has been the poor referees delicate little ego's & the nonsense 'grass roots' issue. The WC brought the issue of goaline technology back to the fore, due to the England 'goal' vs Germany. FIFA felt obliged to act, as it's such a basic issue that can be resolved with the help of existing technology & it's not subjective i.e it's a matter of fact whether the ball crosses the line or not. Having allowed trials etc & been shown that the systems work, then they've had to endorse them, & in doing so have finally killed the 'grass roots' nonsense excuse for doing **** all. It's notable though, that ****ehawk Platini has NOT insisted that the CL clubs have this technology under the pretext of cost - but the reality is, that he knows that this is the thin end of the wedge......the technology door has finally been prised open & once Goal line tech is in place & working, then the debate will re-open into off field assistance for referees.....so the introduction of this product is therefore vital in the entire process. The day that the referee becomes nothing more than a cog in the wheel of ensuring that the game is run within the rules & with the margin for human error reduced to the smallest margin possible - rather than, the situation now, where the referee sees himself as some form of focal point of the game, with decision making powers that somehow can't be questioned, however ****e they are - the ****ing better!
See my previous post about 'tradition'. Playing/watching the game the same way because of tradition is a poor arguement/excuse. It's for those who don't want to accept that there are flaws in the game which can be fixed by borrowing ideas from other sports. Instead, the obvious answer is that those flaws 'add' to the game in some way. I'd find a fair game much more exciting than a game decided by an awful decision due to incompetant refs. I buy a ticket to watch football. I don't buy a ticket to watch players walk off the pitch on 88 minutes to waste time, or a player walking along the touchline and cleaning the ball on his shirt for 1 minute before taking a throw, or a keeper suddenly deciding to clean his boots, freekicks which take 2 minutes, referees talking to players when I can't hear him isn't too exciting either, ballboys lying on top of the ball, opposition players doing nazi salutes apparantly constitutes as game time, rooney swearing down the camera also counts....etc etc. I wish people would stop this tribal **** and just accept that (whether you enjoy it or not) Rugby has many positives we can take in terms of managing a game. Even if the game now takes 2h instead of 90m, you'll at least get what you pay the absurd prices for.
I think it would eradicate the problem of players surrounding or arguing with the ref. Yeah sure, not all decisions will go to video evidence. But when you have the power of slow mo video evidence to back you up or go against you then surely there's not much to complain about.
There's been studies into this. As I remember the average time the ball was actually 'in play' in a PL game was around 55/56 minutes out of the 90. The suggestion was to have 60 minutes of 'playing time' with the task being administered off pitch. Needless to say, it never got beyond Sepp Blatters waste paper bin.
I complete get your frustrations but there is a bigger picture to it - what about fitness of the players for example? When ever a game goes in to extra time players are ****ed, cramping up etc - and that's with the game played at a stop start approach with time wasting etc. If that's all minimized and we're going for 120 minutes 2 or 3 times a week will they be able to take it?
Just for the big decisions, I think is the main point for technology, like you say. Red cards, penalties, not-so-obvious goals and violent conduct. Things like throw-ins or middle off the park free kicks are neither here nor there and rarely influence a game. The occasions where the above 4 occur in a game are low, so not much time would be lost (it should be stopped anyway ), but there are plenty of times where the decision is wrong and a game is negatively affected. If Sky replays can do it in 1 minute, or commentators at the game having only seen the event once more than live, then I fail to see how the 'time' arguement can be used. Players surrounding the ref can be fixed even more easily by taking Rugby's solution...but that's a bitter pill to take for the FA/FiFA. Captains only can talk to the ref unless called over, otherwise **** off or get booked.
Goal line technology is a step forward but there needs to be a 'virtual' ref who is not on the pitch, surrounded by 20 monitors and is able to see incidents more clearly and closely. They then relay the decision/message to the referee who is on the pitch who then takes action.
When players get cramp, they sit down and stretch. When the refs are taking 1 minute to decide if a player dived or if it's a penalty, they can sit down and stretch. I've long said that I don't really give a **** about player fitness. For 100k a week, they should be able to run a ****ing marathon each day. Your average, amateur runner, cyclist, rower, whatever works far harder than footballers do. Bunch of over paid sissies tbh.
Time was never the issue. The issue is that under the current system, the referee is deemed to be unquestionable, an off field official making a decision on any issue that is subjective, will never be sanctioned whilst the current dinosaurs run the game. We need to pray that Platini doesn't get the big chair, as he'll ensure it doesn't change for another generation.....
Well, the same is true for retrospective decision, because it apparantly 'undermines' the ref. Another thing I find bollocks about football. I seem to dislike alot of things about the sport...not sure why I watch it
its a yes here. its the thin edge of the wedge. i you do this it lessens the argument for decision checking like for pens/sendings off etc.... fifa need to be dragged kicking and screaming towards fairness. also rugby.... actually the time doesn't stop par se. its the ref who says "time off" or to that effect when subs are being made, players get a new shirt for blood or an injury that is in the 2line of fire" or finally for consulting with players or his team of officials. Eg giving a lecture to two captains. I fail to see why on bloody earth we have to endure seeing the likes of jordi alba and danny alves roll about time wasting in the CL. Its disgusting. the new rule should be to FORCE play to go on and physio can run on and treat. If they get in the way of things or signal for the game to stop then that player must go off for no shorter a period that 5-10mins.
A whole different debate for another day I guess, but I think it's a bit naive to think that professional footballers aren't fit as **** because 99% of them are. The athletes you have mentioned don't train by doing the same distance they would compete at every day either.
You do sometimes wonder. But what happened the other night at Dortmund reminds you why we love this game. Ironically, the last goal wouldn't have counted if video replays were used.
They don't make retrospective decisions on issues that the referee has seen at the time & made a judgement on. The only current exception in this country (& UEFA hate it) is that we review red cards on appeal.
It's impossible to tell what would have happened after that. Could have been extremely boring and ended 1-1 or BVB could have gone onto beat them comfortably. Would love to see them win it, Klopp is a class act. Knows how to say his team were **** even after winning. We are phenomenal when we lose, take note Brendan.
To be honest, I wasn't taking this thread 100% serious However, in answer to the last bit, my stance has nothing to do with 'tribal ****' and everything to do with the flow of the game. You talk about the constant time wasting but one of the reasons this happens is to disrupt the opposition. How often do we see a team dominating the play only for the opposite manager make a substitution to create a break in play? The break in play stops the flow and it has to be rebuilt. Having replays for decisions like in rugby, cricket and tennis would definitely interrupt play and IMO, would not be a good thing for the game. Not to mention players being able to cope with longer games should we only use real time!
I hope Klopp builds a bit of a dynasty there and doesn't jump ship right away ( unless to us of course).
More disruptive than a ghost goal or red card which should never have been? You can still disrupt the team by 'wasting time', excep that with the changes only rhythm and real time would be disrupted, not game time. And tbh, hardly ever do managers make subs to break up the play. They make a change to change the play and force the opposition to change tactics/formation/system eg packing the midfield.
