Cheats. The end is nigh

Can't believe no one has done it so I will...

I don't usually do this but it's "you're"

 

It's been used in RFU for sometime now. Yes, it can be overused, and no, it shouldn't be used to adjudicate every little incident. In general most important decisions take very little time to sort out.

Delays are already there for injuries, both major and minor, and feigned. Most tackling incidents can also be sorted accurately in seconds.

In general, I'm fully in support of it. It's best to get the correct decision with so much riding on those decisions nowadays.

 

Well spotted. Specially as the guy is responsible for the education of the brightest and the best. You were right to call him out.

 

Sad thing is the twat thinks it was to test if people here have developed a decent level of spelling skills

 

@remembercolinlee

Something I've always wanted to ask, who is Colin Lee?

 

... why on earth would you do that when you are 2 or 3 up unless of course you think there might be some form of gargantuan, title destination changing....... slip.

 

So you don't like cricket?

Let me guess

You love it.

 

You can't come on here with Alzheimers

 

This is my reason for being against a 'review' type system. It's just open to all types of abuse to kill momentum etc.

Also what happens if, for example an attacking team has a corner it get's cleared and defending team have a counter on.

Can the team with the corner suddenly call for a review for a pen and bring a stop to play, effectively ending the counter attack? And if people say you carry on until the balls dead then that could be another 5 minites. There's too many variables imo.

I constantly see people saying how there's too much at stake now to not get right decisions etc. But I've never seen anyone give a DETAILED explanation of how it will actually work, taking everything into account.

 

Simple answer, you can only call one when the ball is dead, if prove right, the game is moved back to the incident and penalty etc is done from there.

 

Even before Not606?

 

So that wouldn't solve the issues of wrong decisions completely then would it? Only a % of decisions.

Football isn't stop start like tennis or cricket.

 

You are right, but as Spurlock says you only get 2 per game so it keeps the game flowing but you will never take away 100% wrong decisions

 

And like I said the review system is open to all sorts of abuse.

What if team 1 has 3 debateable decisions go against them all in play but team 2 has 3 debateable decisions all when the ball is dead.

Is that fair?

 

The problem I see with this is the referees not making decisions on the pitch.

Why would they if there is a guy with technology that can be sure of a decision on his behalf?


I prefer the challenge approach. Give each team three challenges. Get it wrong and you lose the challenge, get it right and the game is pulled back.

Could cause **** at first when games ate pulled back five minutes but everyone would get used to it.

Could make games longer too though

 

It's only open to abuse if it's at the behest of one of the teams. If the call to review is in the ref's hands, then that's different.

In any case, they can easily do what they do in RFU - stop the clock...

 

This is going off on a tangent a bit but on your last sentence I used to think that football should do that anyway. I remember reading a study someone did once and they worked out that if they stopped the clock every time the ball went out if play the average game would last 2 n half - 3 hours!

Like I said, not really what we're talking about but I found it pretty interesting!


As for the ref making the call then surely there will still be decisions they are 100% sure about at the time n they could be seen to be biased towards a certain time if they got reviews.

Also the risk that refs would lose faith in their ability and want to review almost everything.

 

Of course, as in RFU, the ref only asks for a review when he's not sure. It doesn't have to be for every little incident, just the more major ones that the ref has doubts about. Most reviews are quite simple, just as we see on TV. Onside- offside. Penalty or no, etc.

The clock is stopped for injuries and reviews only. Once the 90mins is up, that's it. No Fergie time...

 

Glad you mentioned about simple, as a lot of rules in football aren't, they're down to interpretation. One mans dangerous is another mans mistimed or intententiinal/unintentional etc.

You see it all the time where 'experts' have watched an incident about ten times, from 5 different angles and at about 4 different speeds, yet still can't agree.

Could we see a situation where a ref calls for a review and then after the game and seeing it for himself thinks the wrong decision was taken?

 

There are a few, very few in the overall context, agreed. But whichever way, you'll still get a more accurate decision from a quick replay than a referee's often quick, sometimes obscure glance.