Off on a slight tangent, but the arguments against technology are because it's not a perfect solution. The expectation for some, seems to be that any technology should be fool proof. That their is no point having it unless it gets every decision correct. That's not going to happen. The video ref is an aide to the officials and will be the biggest thing since the whistle. Every week there is a goal scored that shouldn't have counted and is known within seconds by a TV audience and at the time by thousands in the stadium, but because one pair of eyes miss it. We have to put up with the wrong call. As soon as we have video technology those decisions become a thing of the past and tonights off side goal for Aguero doesn't count and everyone moves on. Yes, the live video ref will have teething problems and it won't end all controversy, but will it be better than we have now? 100% Be bold, problem solving is a bumpy road
I know that no system is faultless...but that is not the reason that I am not a fan. I don't think football lends itself to technology because unlike most other games, there are no guaranteed pauses in the game. A penalty given can be checked, but a penalty not given may not be accompanied by the ball being out of play and cannot therefore be checked without the game being stopped and play being called back. The same applies to fouls. I also think that so many decisions are a matter of opinion and will remain a matter of opinion and therefore is unlikely to please everyone....in other words, exactly like the present situation. I think it will damage the game without resulting in more than a few clear cut decisions being sorted. However, I don't mind it being tested because I am confident it will result in so many rows that it will only appear in the EPL in a very limited form.
How about this? Two refs on the pitch. When an incident happens, the two refs and the assistant at the relevant end can blow. The technology is in the otherwise silent whistle, so if two out of the three blow, the head ref's whistle makes a sound and play stops. Play keeps going, the game isn't fragmented and three pairs of eyes get to judge. Vin
I think extra on field referees could be an option and like Vin said share the responsibility, see the incident from different angles and a bit like a jury see if you get a majority decision. My only comment would be they need to be on field referees and not those extra officials there were behind the goal line in european matches. What a waste of time they were - they only had the penalty area to watch and might as well have been ball boys.
The downside of introducing a second ref, is that many on here already spend hours/days/weeks/months/years criticising the "best" refs available, for missing something that happens in front of their eyes, and who gives a free kick because he interprets things differently to others. You may have a situation where the two refs interpret similar incidents in different ways, with a penalty given at one end of the pitch, but denied at the other, as a result of chalk and cheese interpretations, by the different refs. A camera angle, from the Stoke v Spurs game, clearly showed the ref, with an unimpeded view of Shawcross who had his hands on both of Kane's shoulders, in an attempt to stop Kane's run. The ref watched it and then ignored it when it should have been a penalty. Surely, before relying on technology during a game, referees should be sat down, en masse, and told to start applying the rules correctly. Start handing out penalties for this type of clear cut offence and it will stop, making the ref's job simpler. Keep turning a blind eye to it and it will continue, as it has done for so many years, allowing the "inconsistent" arguments to rage on, when a ref actually does give a penalty. As suggested above, in the thread, introduce retrospective action for things like diving. If suspensions are handed out for dives, it will stop most of it, and the ref's job will become easier. Linesmen must start stepping up to the plate and, when they are closer to the action than the ref and/or with a better view of what is happening, they need to be making decisions to help the ref. Not wait for the ref to blow his whistle before putting their flag up. Technology could instantly solve most offside decisions, so that is one area where it would be beneficial, without there being any real delays.
I think my overall, most fundamental problem with all of these proposals is that it there is no guarantee that technology will improve things. Correct decisions can get turned into wrong ones just as easily. There is a possibility of more "non-decisions" being made because of final responsibility being passed on from the ref. Player's, manager's and ref's behaviour will certainly change. But I was initially wrong about goal-line technology, so I could be wrong about this (well done UEFA). I support the trials for that reason.
Had no problem with goal line technology because it gives a ruling without interfering with play. However, I do wonder how many questionable incidents happen each season and does it warrant the large cost. Does stop rows of course.
I think Blatter's argument was that he only wanted to implement changes that could work at all levels of football from grass-roots to top internationals. Which is why he opposed goal-line tech etc. Can see that viewpoint certainly
Well let's see. Let's say. for arguments sake, that Newcastle are relegated due to Aguero's offside goal the other night? Let's say they don't make it back to PL instantly. Now let's say they spend nearly a decade in the Championship because they haven't quite got the circumstances right, or the tumblers just don't align in their favour. We keep hearing how difficult it is to get out of the Championship. It's dead easy to fall out the bottom, of course. So let's say that the money starts to properly dry up at St James Park, and they begin a long, slow decline. OK, we say, that'll never happen. But it could. Now let's say that Newcastle was your [the reader, not specifically you, Fran] club. Wouldn't you want every single possible decision to be decided correctly and fairly, so that if your team failed [say, for Europe in Saints case], it was down to their own fault entirely and not pushed down by errors that they had no control over.? On the flip-side, if your team succeeded, you could say with a huge measure of confidence, that it was practically all their own work. And btw, I've yet to see any data at all to say decision errors even out over a season. That's usually the comment from pundits who spent their entire playing days at the top of the league. It's convenient and lazy. I'd like to see some proper evidence that supports that statement.
Someone somewhere must have done some statistical analysis. It won't be conclusive, not least because what you'd be looking for is regularity in a series of random outcomes; because of their random nature, there shouldn't neccessarily be any regularity. But any gambler knows that there would be. I'll do some research. Someone at Racing & Football Outlook will have looked at this at some point, for sure.
If we could do all that, we would have a stale, clinical sport that would have lost some of it's magic. Decision making needs improving, but not at the expense of having the flow of the sport changed to ridiculous levels. By the way. What you said above happened to Saints, although in this case it was hard to blame the referee, although he should have screamed at Peter Crouch to knock that bloody ball half way down the M27 against Everton
Will people stop mentioning Peter Crouch and Everton. That is virtually all I remember from that season....apart from Harry Redknapp.
I have two indelible memories from that season; 1) the 5-4 victory over Norwich, absolute comedy defending from both teams, & 2) The Beatles tribute band on the pitch before the Man Utd game that sealed our fate. Who in god's name decided that was a good idea? Where they trying to create a party mood before our last game in the PL? As I was taking my seat they struck up with "Think I'm gonna be sad, I think it's today...". Bastards.
Nothing will ever make every decision correct or fair....people are chasing rainbows. Do I want football to be ruined because my team had crappy bad luck in one game out of thirty eight.....no, I don't. No point in watching the other thirty seven games then. Unless you are talking about a one off cup game, the deciding factors are spread throughout the season. Poor teams go down....may look like they had bad luck in one game, but it will be because they were poor all season. However, as I said before, bring on the trial and let's see.
Couple of points to raise here: 1. No-one in the history of football has ever been relegated because of a single decision. Newcastle are facing relegation because of a whole season of being simply awful. Funny how it's always a decision towards the end of the season that is heinous. I know it's not a ref's decision but "Gerrard's slip" is regularly quoted as the reason Liverpool didn't win the league in 2014. Not the woeful defending that led to Lovren scoring in our game at Anfield at the start of that season. Or any of their other 27 dropped points. How many of Newcastle's meagre points total has been because of mistakes in their favour? 2. Even if point 1 were wrong, it would be unacceptable to ruin enjoyable football by trying to ensure that "every single possible decision" ever made was perfect. The game would have to be stopped for every single foul (or non-awarded foul). Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater... And finally, my fear is that if it's brought in, it'll be like it was in cricket and rugby where it started out unobtrusive enough with contentious decisions being referred whereas now it's used to check everything. Run outs that are six feet out are reviewed in cricket, for heaven's sake. And once it's in, it'll be in for good, even if it ruins the game. No-one will have the balls to say "not working", as people who only watch football on TV highlights will raise a rumpus about unfairness and not even know that the game has been destroyed for the fans in the ground. Part of football's appeal is that it's a fast-flowing game. Kill that, kill the game. Vin
I think Shepard got it spot on in the first with the level of dishonesty in the game at the moment. Defenders will put their hands up claiming a goal kick knowing full well it's a corner. It disgusts me and officials don't stand a chance with the amount of cheating going on. I think it would probably be simpler having video replays of every single decision, than trying to get players (and managers) to conduct themselves in a sporting manner.
There you go again with putting limitations on what can be done based on your imagination on what is achieiveable at the moment. I'm not [and nobody should be] saying all things can be done today or tomorrow. But they will be eventually. And to answer FLT's point, it won't be a dry sport, free of excitement, but it will be a fair one.
