well all this technology has not done anything to improve cricket decisions just look at current Ashes series. If we cant moan at the ref and linos grrrrr its been ok for so so long whats the point of sterilising the sport, its imperfect and that's why we love it
Why oh why can't we just keep football the way it is, with forty-odd people trying to get a ball down the lane and across a field into the next village while another forty-odd people try the reverse? It all ends up with a jolly good punch up and a large amount of drinks. So it works perfectly well. Newfangled changes? Pish-tosh I say.
This is the nub of the matter. The "inevitable" further intrusion of technology into the game is a response to a problem created in the first place by technology, specifically video recording and the consequent ability of armchair critics in press boxes and living rooms (or with big screens, at the game itself) to dissect decisions made by honest officials operating in real time. In the good (sorry, bad) old days, everyone was perfectly well aware that umpires and referees were fallible; however it was accepted that they were best placed to make the decisions, being not only vastly more experienced than the majority of spectators and commentators, but also closer to the action (and unlike players, without a vested interest). At a cricket match, onlookers could do little more than supplement their eyesight with a decent pair of binoculars, while umpires were there at the wicket, close to the action and with the best view possible. People no doubt still got "infuriated" by decisions, because some of us always think we know better than anyone else, but a linesman suffering abuse from irate fans behind him could always truthfully say "I have more chance of getting it right than you have mate". Now with multiple camera angles, replays, frame by frame imaging etc. etc. the same officials can be hung out to dry for their errors. They haven't changed, it's the same game, all that has changed is that now it can all be replayed in slow motion. The televising of sport as such is not the problem; that has enabled sport to be seen and enjoyed by vastly more people than before. The problem is caused by a by-product of televising sport -- the video replay and its use, not to further enhance people's enjoyment and understanding of a game, or the skill of those who play it (both of which purposes it can serve most wonderfully), but to revisit the decisions of honest officials operating in real time.
You are right about the officials that they are best placed and better qualified to make the decisions in general but, the game has changed and not only is it more difficult for them now(Fitter faster players and with all these foreigners its not just a case of watching the line and waiting for the burly centre half or keeper to lump it up field but actually wait and watch for what maybe a pass to a nearby team mate who then may keep it short again all the time the forwards roaming and probing[though obviously not if they are officiating Stoke]) but with technology available to help then it should be used. Just as I say used the right way. Bah!
As well as the speed of the modern game, it has been made more difficult to officiate by well-intentioned but ill-considered rule changes and interpretative guidelines. The current offside rule is an example. Re. your point about the speed and extra complexity of the game, the answer IMO lies in fitter, better trained officials and firmer action against all forms of cheating.
I disagree that the officials are always best placed to make the correct decision, how many times have you been at a game when 10,000+ people in the terraces have seen a blatant foul/handball etc and are all up in arms calling for it while the officials apparently don't see it despite being yards away from the incident? Bloody loads of times, that's how many and it does my frickin' head in!!
As I said Munky "some of us always think we know better than anyone else". Very often what fans call "blatant fouls" are not blatant and some not even fouls. Many of these instances involve interpretation of increasingly complex rules. Barrack room lawyers and people who believe themselves to have the infallibility of a Pope abound at every football match. (I thought you'd opted out of this thread? ))
So your solution is to stop televising games? So then if a decision is wrong, it doesn't matter because nobody knows better than the ref anyway?
No, I'm talking about ones that are absolutely bloody obvious and are then confirmed as such on MotD, and I assure you that there are plenty of them Dear me, what am I doing getting involved in this again? I have come to realise that after a certain point arguing with you Robbie just really, really is not worth the effort because you make it obvious that it's clearly your way or no way at all, and you steadfastly refuse to accept that, heck, sometimes you might even be wrong! This isn't meant as a personal dig at all so I hope you don't take it as such (and I don't think you will or else I wouldn't say it) but sometimes with you it's like arguing with a precocious 11 year old know-it-all who has an answer for every bloody thing - and believe me that's not a lot of fun! That's me definitely done with this thread, though no doubt we'll continue all this on another one about a completely different topic sooner rather than later. Can't wait. Edit: Let's just agree to disagree
No DH, with respect, you haven't read my post: "The televising of sport as such is not the problem; that has enabled sport to be seen and enjoyed by vastly more people than before. The problem is caused by a by-product of televising sport -- the video replay and its use, not to further enhance people's enjoyment and understanding of a game, or the skill of those who play it (both of which purposes it can serve most wonderfully), but to revisit the decisions of honest officials operating in real time."
Munky, I accept that officials make mistakes. They always have, and always will. What has changed is our tolerance of them. Once mistakes come to be regarded as intolerable, people look for ways of eradicating them, if not entirely then to the greatest extent possible. So something which holds out the promise of a solution is found, the application of which turns out in the end to be worse than the problem it is intended to solve. Our reduced tolerance of refereeing and umpiring mistakes is largely a consequence of video replays. Statistics on the accuracy of refereeing decisions show that the vast majority of decisions in the PL are correct; almost certainly, the standard of refereeing is actually higher than ever before. But because of video replays, the relatively few mistakes are highlighted, and come to dominate the agenda. So to "cure" an "ill" created by video technology, the very technology that created the problem is to be given a more and more intrusive role in football and our experience of it. I'm quite happy to end the debate here. We have all aired our respective views, and as with so many other issues, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating some years hence. I probably won't be here to see it, but if appropriate maybe you will do me the courtesy of saying, or at least thinking: "Remember that argumentative Robbie? He was right on this one after all!"
as a cricket fan, i believe the impact of DRS etc has made test cricket even more dramatic and i fully believe it would have the same impact on football. officials have always had a hard job, no matter which sport, but football is particularly difficult these days due to the antics of the players and anything that helps officials make correct calls is good in my eyes. the positives far outweigh the negatives as far as i can see. its all very well to say refs get most decisions correct but its the easy decisions they tend to get right - they require help sometimes to get the most important ones correct. it doesn't matter too much if a throw is given the wrong way or not, even if a goal is scored from it, because a team has the ability to stop that goal being scored through fair means but a ball crossing the line is definitive. either it does or it doesn't cross the line - it isn;t down to interpretation - so i really struggle to see the clamour against that particular device being installed.
Interesting stat on the "Goal Decision System" (apparently that's it's official title): Last season it could have been called for 31 times, but only 3 decisions would have been changed. I can't help but feel we've chosen the wrong issue to tackle first.
Welcome to the club DH. "Tail wagging dog" is the phrase that springs to mind. (I know this isn't what you meant, but hey, why miss the opportunity eh?)
Don't get me wrong, I'm still all for technology, but feel a system tackling offside calls would have had a much greater impact.
If ever any particular match highlighted the need for ‘Video referees’, then it was the game between Chelsea and Villa last night. Ivanovic should most definitely have been sent off and Villa should have had a penalty in injury time. I wonder if the referee would have had a different opinion had the game been played at Villa Park!!!!
once again, i fail to understand your point. are you seriously saying that because it is quite rare it should be ignored? so what if it's rare!! it is unlike any other aspect of the game. its not like last night where you could argue that ivanovic should have been sent off - i could make a case for saying that benteke went looking for ivanovic and pretty much jumped into his elbow. whether the ball has crossed the line cannot be argued. its a definitive call as to whether a ball crosses a line and can affect a game more than just about any other decision because it is either a goal or not a goal. to dismiss the idea of eradicating this issue, no matter how rare, completely from the game is beyond stupid. why waste an opportunity to get goal line decisions correct every single time? it is a definitive decision. it needs to be called correct every time.
My reason for opposing the use of GDS has always been that it is the thin edge of a very wide and ultimately undesirable wedge. The campaign for it is not driven by anything inherent in the game of football itself, but by purely extraneous factors lumped together under the slogan "these decisions are too important to get wrong" (short hand for vested monetary interests). The point about the rarity of goal-line errors is that the relative ease with which those very few mistakes can be eliminated simply opens the door to ever louder cries to extend the system, first to other questions of fact, such as whether or not a player was in an offside position, and then to questions which are not questions of fact but of interpretation (as witness JR's post). If you were to say to me that you can guarantee that the use of video replays will not under any circumstances be extended beyond its current use, I will quite happily withdraw my objections. But you know as well as I do that it will NOT be allowed to remain restricted to goal-line decisions, because the reasons for introducing it in the first place can be repeated with equal force with regard to a much broader range of "critical" refereeing decisions. [Edit] And I would just point out (with regard to the question of extending its use), I was prompted to start this thread by Greg Dyke, Chairman of the FA, going on record as saying that further extension "is inevitable".
well i don't understand why people are so against extending video technology to other aspects of the game anyway, so arguing that you think this might bring more to the game is fine by me!
