I've recently changed my mind and started to agree with Mourinho about something, somewhat surprisingly. No, I haven't thrown my toys of out the pram, refused all interviews and cried conspiracy after every game. Not yet, anyway. I've come to the conclusion that using footage to punish cheats would be a mistake. Probably not a popular opinion, so what's prompted my switch? A couple of things, which are completely unrelated. Firstly, I believe that the cheating is a symptom of a problem, rather than a isolated issue. Players and managers no longer respect those who are there to enforce the laws of our game and it shows. They're constantly abusing, harassing and insulting the officials and trying to force them into mistakes. Something of a hypocritical issue for me I'll admit, given my username and comment history. Secondly, I think that we all know how these panels would select incidents to deal with and how they'd do their job. Anyone who watches games regularly will note the dubious quality of current pundits and their selective issues with some clubs, players and managers. They pick out individuals for acts that happen all the time and ignore other far more blatant acts by those that I consider Protected Premier League Princesses. Panels would go by the media and that's not going to work fairly, in my opinion. So what to do instead? Enforce decent behaviour to officials and encourage those that are already in the game to see it as an alternative career path. The former is easy. They do it in rugby, they can do it in football. The latter is trickier and will take more time. Every year we see trainees chucked on the scrapheap, despite having knowledge and experience of the game, as well as decent fitness levels. More needs to be done to get them into coaching or officialdom. They're already well along those roads and it's a waste. Everyone believes that the standard of referees is very low at the moment, including the officials themselves. Who'd be mad enough to want to do it in the current climate, though?
I am changing my mind too but in respect of using video during the game. IMO the problem we have with refs has been induced by the media wishing to make a performance out of the ref's decisions. Every contentious decision is analyzed from every angle and the ref is then hung out to dry in many cases. I hate that this has become the norm when showing football but it's not going away because the media often make their presentation around such incidents. With that in mind it's time to remove the media ammunition and hand the decisions back to the refs and that can only happen if the ref has access to an official in the stand with video technology, rather like the third umpire in cricket. I don't really like it but the media has really made any other course of action pretty useless and I'd rather their ability to question decisions was stymied.
There's one issue with enforcing a series of rules that demand the ref be treated with due reverence to their competence and authority: Premier League referees have a disturbing lack of competence which undermines their authority, so why bring in rules that say the ref should be respected when every weekend they give players, fans and managers legitimate reasons not to? This is where the rugby comparisons fail: the standard of refereeing in rugby is nowhere near as bad as it is in football.
Do the two have a connection though, Croydon? If Premier League refs aren't battered by everyone at every turn, then might they put in better performances? Might more people be attracted to the position if they know that they're not going to be thrown to the wolves every week? The effect that it would have on those at the bottom of the scale shouldn't be overlooked, either. Kids watch the behaviour of their heroes on TV and copy it. Refs at that level get stick from both the children and their parents, which is ludicrous for a volunteer.
The standard of officiating is higher in RFU for two reasons. Firstly, there is extensive use of video to check any contentious incidents. Secondly, there is not the constant harassment and intimidation of officials that exists in football. Either from players, or the crowd. It simply isn't tolerated. As to football, it may seem a cynical view, but I can't see anything changing, unless and until, those who pump the big money into the game want it to change. So long as the likes of Fergie & Mourinho are given virtually free rein to badger and intimidate, nothing will ever change.
The issue always brings me back to the same fundamental problem. Referees are no longer physically capable of doing their job without the proper aid of technology. It's impossible to keep up with such an unrelenting fast paced game. How can they be expected to match the physical demands of top level athletes whilst remaining calm, controlled and ultra observant ? Try running around a pitch continuously for 20 or 30 minutes and then having the presence of mind, concentration and focus to spot in a split second whether a player was caught by a trailing leg or dived when you're 20 yards away, your view's slightly obscured by bodies and your eyes don't have a super slo-mo setting, rewind, pause or replay! Referees need to have a 4th official viewing TV images who can be consulted and who can provide the picture for the ref to see. More decisions will be made correctly, the process is more open and transparent and refs are more accountable. The more subjective decisions, where refs are accused or conscious or unconscious bias, would be far less when decisions are made by reference to images we can all see at the same time.
There has to be another official at the ground with video playback available. Maybe a ref recently retired - after all the most experienced refs retire because they're not allowed / can't run around anymore. He should be the senior ref and able to overrule the guy on the pitch. Most of the dodgy decisions are obvious within seconds, but if the "senior ref" can't decide quickly then fair enough, the original decision stands. The arguments that (1) it will slow down the game are ridiculous because you are effectively saying that getting the right decision is not important (and anyway there are often "argument breaks" that are as least as long as anything that will be delayed looking at the video. (2) the technology should be available at all levels of football and since it is not it cannot be introduced is again erroneous because when I played football (Southern Amateur League) there weren't even linesmen, so that's rather different from the PL for a start! (3) the errors "even themselves out" or are equally distributed is invalid since we can see the benefit usually goes to certain teams.
Yes, using video would be more time consuming. However, in the vast majority of cases it would eliminate harassment and intimidation and trial by red top of officials as the evidence of what had actually happened would be there to be evaluated, and the correct decision reached.
The one issue I have regarding video tech is that there is always a few times on shows like Match of the Day where countless replays are shown and pundits still can't agree. How long is the '5th official' allowed to make his/her decision? Ultimately it comes down to individual interpretation, and I know I'm still nitpicking but that can cause issues. But we have to strike the balance between making more correct decisions and keeping the game flowing.
I think it would be fairly simple to address that by saying if inconclusive nothing is given either way and a dropped ball continues play.
The rules aren't clear on a number of issues and some pundits don't even attempt to keep up with the changes. Any time that there's an offside decision that's a bit non-standard you may as well flip a coin as to how the commentator will call it. They're really not helping.
Offside rule should go back to being black & white, none of this interfering with play bollocks. It's clear cut then and will be less arguments. It's a **** rule anyway cos as long as you're on the pitch you're interfering with play anyway in my book. Also not a fan of using too much technology as people have said how would you stop the game? The ball doesn't always go dead, also the replays aren't as instant as people think from all the different angles. I don't think a challenge system would work either as you know players/managers would just abuse to stop a counter attack or kill momentum etc. A poster on our board made an interesting point recently as well saying he feels the tv companies should be banned from showing controversial incidents at anything other than full speed, as that is what the ref sees it at. It's easy for a pundit to say the ref is wrong when they've seen it in slow mo about 12 times from 5 different angles.
Not going to ban the TV from anything though are we as they rule the roost. That's why it's unrealistic to expect anything other than this situation to continue and it's why I have reluctantly changed my mind on video evidence.
If it were to be introduced, it would have to be on the same lines as RFU. The clock is stopped whilst the incident is reviewed. The decision arrived at, and the game continues. Incidentally, if you didn't know, the clock is always stopped in Rugby for injuries too. Then there is no dispute about the amount of injury time played.
Rugby has it right. Only for the big decisions. The other good thing is that the live TV feed get the officials chatter on the decision-making (so you can hear what the ref is thinking) .
Yes, if you listen, the referee will say to the 4th official, or the touch judge " what is your recommendation?" That doesn't mean he has to accept it, he is still the final arbiter, but it helps him to form his decision.
The common chatter is : - Any reason that I cannot award the try - I think he grounded the ball but I could not clearly see it The latter one has some significance to me. In the early 80s I was playing a schoolboy game and we conceded. Under the posts one of my team-mates was really whining about it. The ref for the game had actually done so in the past at international level, and his remark has stuck with me ever since : I did not give it for what I saw. I did not give it for what I think. I gave it for what I THOUGHT I SAW.
The idea should be to get it right with the least interruption possible. Part of the solution should be to change rules so they become clearer and more enforceable. The NFL system isn’t bad for a start. All scores are reviewed. Each team has three challenges per game. They lose a time out for each challenge that’s unsuccessful. Football might award a free kick from a dangerous spot as a penalty for a wrong challenge. The need has become critical IMO. Many key decisions are impossible to make in real time (try either the Stambouli or Kane penalty calls yesterday). Therefore they tend to go to who shouts loudest or has the most money. (Crap referees like Taylor, obviously, don’t help.) This has brought the game into disrepute. My sainted wife briefly forswore football based on how often botched calls ruin the game. Let those who sell the game beware. I’d estimate NFL results are wrong due to clearly botched calls one game out of fifty, a rate of 2%. Three of the last four Spurs results would have been different if big calls had been made correctly (Leicester should have beaten us and we should have beaten Man U and Palace). So 75% of recent Spurs results have been wrong. Why bother playing the game if the team that deserves to win loses or draws most of the time?
My opinion for what it's worth: something has to change to make it fairer. Yes it's good that everyone has their opinion after a game and it creates interest and debate but certain teams have the advantage in a lot of games. Would Palace have been awarded that penalty if the opposition was Chelsea (especially after the Mourinho rants) and would they have been awarded the penalty for the foul on Kane late on. Would Bridcut have got two yellows if he played for Liverpool? How on earth did Van Persie get away with his antics today- He threw the ball at the ref and got nothing! The list is endless every week....................
