There is probably lots of technology we have not seen yet but it has to be suitable for the application. I don't think the review system used for rugby would be good for football without a lot of refinement. Even international players have reached different conclusions from the same information, when the point of using technology is to eliminate doubt. My point about approaching referees would be valid for every level of football whereas technology will only be available and affordable at the top levels.
I like the NFL challenge system. You get three challenges per game, which only apply to important calls. The call is only overturned if there is "undisputable evidence" that it’s wrong. You lose a timeout for an unsuccessful challenge. Possibly a team making an unsuccessful challenge should give up a corner, possibly only a throw-in. I can tell you right now that replay technology would do anything but end controversy. It would, however, overturn most of the blatantly wrong calls, which would be a big improvement. It would also result in more scoring and more pens, I think, since everyone who grabbed and held off the ball on corners would be likely to get caught. At first there would be more pens, later on more goals as defenders adjusted. The important thing would be to strike a balance between righting wrongs and delaying the game too often. Maybe two unsuccessful challenges per team per game. Maybe only one. The other thing that would change is "it’s not usually given." Officials would presumably be forced to judge the game according to the rules, rather than making it up as they go along.
The ideas about having video challenges are an interesting debate, but I'm not sure that it's even necessary. A few simple clarifications and enforced respect and I think that the standard would improve drastically. Add retrospective punishment for cheating and pressuring the officials and I think the game would be much better. The constant wrestling at corners needs to be dealt with first, for me. That and only having the captain address the ref. Issue a statement at the start of the next campaign about both issues and follow it up properly. Clarify the offside rule, ban anyone that swears at the linesmen and then mic up the refs the following season. Don't stop play for non-head injuries, just allow the physio onto the pitch as the game goes on. The flow of the game is important. Teams do enough cheating to disrupt it now. I fear that challenges would be used to do it even more, unfortunately.
So the adjudicating ref for the Chelsea/Burnley game says the ref got every call right. This, more than anything else, is the issue with Premier League referees: The FA maintain the stance that the ref is infallible, despite copious amounts of evidence to the contrary every single weekend. How can standards improve when those in charge act as if there isn't a problem?
The real disgrace about the Nani goal was that Clattenburg immediately waved away our players and allowed Rio(and Giggs?) to say his piece whilst conferring with the linesman. Not only that but he then stuck by his decision insisting he'd signalled play on when he hadn't. It was the common type of refereeing we could expect against United at the time. The Mendes one was a **** up but the linesman was the one that should've been making the decision as he had an angle on the incident which made it easier to see just where the ball was in relation to the line. Clattenburg has become more his own man though these days. He still makes mistakes, as all referees will, but he gets the control of the game right and does make some excellent decisions at times. Dean used to be like that too but he seems to bottle an awful lot of big calls, much like Webb did. Marriner's alright for the most part but never seems too far away from a shocking game. Dowd is just border line schizophrenic, one minute he's putting an arm round a player and joking with them after a bad foul and the next he's going beserk, throwing bookings around like confetti. The rest are much of a muchness with the same levels of inconsistency we've come to expect from referees that are badly managed and badly trained. The real bias comes in from the media focus. Like with Kane on the weekend they seem to willingly focus on the wrong part of the incident and are totally unable to apply even basic consistency. Apparently Kane going down with 2 hands on him is "soft"(and I agree if that's all you look at as contact) yet as we saw at the start of the season Dier tapping Allen's arm and Fazio doing the same to Aguero are judged as clear penalties. I don't blame referees for succumbing to the pressure and feeling more at ease giving these decisions for the "favourites" because it's less likely to get them criticism and put them under pressure. The media really are more influential than we give them credit for, it's them that allow certain managers to dictate the focus of the match reports and them that have a huge say in which way the prevailing wind blows after a game. It's astonishing watching Sunday Supplement sometimes, you have a group of journalists that will gladly recognise what Mourinho and others are doing in terms of deflecting criticism away from their team, which is ignored in their match reports, and then spend the next 20 minutes discussing the decisions and playing into it. please log in to view this image please log in to view this image Seriously, what on Earth is the difference between the contact from Song's hands and Dier's? One's reported as dodgy and soft and another's reported as a stonewall penalty.
The Kane one was MORE of a penalty due to the contact on Kane's left foot along with both hands. The Allen one was just 1 hand
Well yeah but I was deliberately ignoring the trip because it was ignored by the media so even taking that away there is a totally unequal reaction to 2 very similar incidents.
I don't think referees are intentionally biased but they probably have a tendency to give decisions in favour of the home or 'bigger' club just because that feels right on the day. I don't think they are especially incompetent either, it's just that the players cheat all the time and they have too many hard calls to make. As RWAEB and others have posted this would be easy to sort out by making the rules clear and punishing blatant cheating retrosepctively and very harshly. So for example Henry's handball goal against Ireland could have been punished by Ireland getting France's place in the World Cup, France being disqualified from the next tournament and Henry being banned from all football for 20 matches. Then he wouldn't have done it. The rules should allow the FA to turn over any result that was obtained through cheating.
What offence quoted in the laws did Dier commit? He certainly touched Allen but he needs to have pushed or held him for it to be a foul. Allen felt the contact and fell over - a dive!
Preaching to the choir here. I thought it was a dive then and I think it's a dive now. What the pundits all did was just all say "yep he's pulled him back, clear penalty", I don't think anyone differed from that line.
That replay shows there was "no" contact on kane's foot. Both Allen and kane felt the slightest presseure and went down but.. in both cases the defenders made it possible to give a peno cos they both put their hands on a player who was already past them. In both cases the defenders, not the ref, gets the blame, their stupidity made the ref's ****up possible. We had the same issue with Can on Hazard. These days it seems contact is fine, outside the area but increasingly contact is not acceptable inside the peno area. Ridiculous cos as we know, contact is not equal to foul, unless the forward falls over that is Also I notice the more skillful the player, the less contact refs allow on them. Hazard gets free kicks if anyone sneezes near him
Song stood on his foot! That's contact in my book. Also see how Song falls when Kane goes down, that shows how much pressure he had on him.
mate, that replay shows he never stood on his foot, he "may" have touched his foot prior to going over. Kane was already going down when Song eventually stood on his foot btw Look the point is, that was never ever a penalty. Neither was Allen's one. Penalties are bought too cheaply these days and it's ruining many a game.
So he did step on his foot? I would say it if I saw it, but that is a nailed on penalty for me. Standing on his foot sends him down.
For those who don't think it a penalty, explain why Song goes down. He is either leaning heavily on Kane or the tangle of feet sends him down. Can see no other reason. He's behind Kane, so he'd be dumb to dive for a free kick.
Spot on. As Kane goes down Song is going down too. Maybe we just got a penalty for Song diving, since there was no real contact according to some
I assume that you have put no in quotes because you don't believe it to be true. If you really think there was no contact then refer to the earlier screenshot of Song ON Kane's foot Edit - Here: http://www.not606.com/threads/tottenham-hotspur-v-west-ham-united.292269/page-9#post-7645761
