So Gibbs was sent off because the referee got the wrong man. But from what I could see the lineman didn't indicate a penalty... and the referee seemed to take ages before deciding that the incident was worthy of a penalty. I suspect that (despite any denials), the referee has been told by the fourth official that the ball was handled by an Arsenal defender - and THEN decides to take action. As I understand it, the referee cannot use any TV replay on the screens at matches - or comment from the fourth official to influence a decision - but it did rather look that THIS was the case. Well I haven't got a major problem with this. The timescale of the situation DOES show that decisions that might require tv replay for clarification, can be dealt with quickly. So why don't we do this more often ?- then we won't have a farcical situation where the wrong man is sent off - but more importantly - the credibility of the officials is called into question.
I don't support any call for TV replays or goal line technology. If you want to look at what happens to sport when you implement endless technology, just look at Formula One. I don't want to see perfection in football, I want to see referee's make incorrect decisions as long has they are based on his honest human ability and free from brown envelopes. Enjoyment in football is about the 'what ifs'. Every rule leads to a new rule, until we are eventually cloned for every outcome.
As with so many things there will always be pros and cons. Broadly I'm in favour of officials being able to review an incident if it means getting the decision right, especially in these days of in depth television analysis of incidents. We already have it with regard to goal line technology, but that is an objective decision based on technology, not an opinion. Even the results of replays of penalty incidents can be indecisive. Nevertheless, given the amount of money involved in top leagues and European competitions, clubs that are financially disadvantaged by a decision that deprives them of a slice of income will feel even more aggrieved. The day has not yet come when legal action is taken against the stakeholders of a competition in respect of losses resulting from incorrect decisions on the field of play, but that day may come if more action is not taken to ensure correct decisions are made, and that WILL be messy. These comments of course apply to the top leagues and competitions, and the counter-argument is of course that other leagues will not have access to the technology, and therefore the possibility of perceived greater fairness. However much we might wish otherwise we have to accept that the 'game' (some might argue 'business') at the top level is very different to that at lower levels, and whilst allowing the use of technology will probably widen that gap, it surely must be better to get a greater number of decisions right. Which decisions might benefit from the use of replays, and the decision on which events are subjected to further scrutiny, is another matter altogether, but there are a number of other sports that use replay technology from which lessons may be learned. I don't know what procedures would have to be followed for any changes to be implemented, but as they would probably involve the top European leagues, UEFA and possibly even FIFA I'm not anticipating anything new in the near future.
I believe - although I could be wrong - that Chamberlain actually told the ref it was him, and yet Gibbs was still sent off. If this is true, then surely something must be done about the ref. Not only his incompetence, but also his arrogance.
Chamberlain said it was him after Gibbs was shown the red card and the decision could not be changed once the card was shown.
Wow!. I agree 100% with you brb Do away with all the extra technology. It is not a game played by robots. At the same time, no need for TV at home to show 100 extra-slow-mo replays proving a ref got it wrong. So what? We lived with that for 150 years and got on with it. Things even themselves out over a season (hopefully). I'd do away with all the technology swamping cricket as well. Dicky Bird was right when they first introduced run-out technologies. The umpires don't adjudicate now, they just reach for the replay... Oh, and resurgam, I'm glad the ref didn't change his call just because a player owned up. In this case the player was being truthful. What if he wasn't?
Thank you, I find it exceedingly frustrating that so many supporters more than anything are becoming cloned by SKY TV, exactly as you said; 'no need for TV at home to show 100 extra-slow-mo replays proving a ref got it wrong.' I could write war & peace on the technology debate. The Premier League holds no mark for me in representing football in this country or even the world, it's been taken over completely by the media and the corporate market, they can keep it and shove it where the sun don't shine. So what a player got wrongly sent off, you don't need technology to tell your brain how to correct a wrong decision and even if as a ref you sincerely don't believe it was wrong, then that's life, get over it. I've seen where it says the ref can't change his mind, well then, it's not technology you need but an amendment of the rule if you so inclined to insist on change. Seriously people turn off your TV's, go to a game and don't come home and watch the replays but enjoy the day for what it is and all its 'what ifs' of the game. alwaysright...you know not to talk Premier League when i'm around hahaha
I'm with you 100% on this one too brb and SirKeefy. It's not about being 100% accurate as far the ref is concerned but calling it as they see it. We all forget this sometimes. Well most of the time. There was one person to blame for the incident at the weekend and that was Oxlaide Chamberlain. Not the Ref. As for the Ref changing his decision because the players came up and told him he was wrong, that should never happen as it would be setting a dangerous prescident and we'd go back 10 years where players berated the ref after every decision. Not good. I don't want a sterile match where there is no opinion. I want a Ref who is brave enough to stand by his decisions even when they may be wrong as long as it is a genuine mistake. The day I meet someone who has never and will never make a mistake or error of judgement is the day I will change my mind.
I don't see this as a "slipperly slope" or "thin end of the wedge" situation. How long did it take to make the decision? The game had stopped so there was no reason for a fifth offical could not just to take a quick look at the replay and say it was red no. 24 or whatever. We all saw the replay five or six times on the TV before the card was shown. I am not saying it should be used for every decision but if the opportunity arises to use it, then do so.
but there is the problem BSG, if you use it for one decision someone will be bitching why didn't you use it for another. I begin to wonder with the human race these days if it is capable of anything without a TV camera having to make the ultimate decision. Everyone needs to get out more and stop watching too much TV.
It's no good keep fighting progress, technology exists so let's just use it. Get rid of all the players and let computer animated players shown on a big screen take over, never have any bad decisions by the ref, replays would only show the computer got it right first time. Who knows in time we could have 3D holograms running round on a holographic pitch with computer generator holographic supporters.
I think if the ball is dead then you can use it, if the ball is in play then not. To quote an annoying tv mascot: Simples
I don't think its the ball that's dead, it's the human brain when we keep needing technology to decide the outcome of a decision. It's business perfection for the corporate market and nothing to do with what's fair. Instead of wasting money on technology use it to bring down the cost of going to a game.
Before the days of plastics and SKY....when humans never needed technology to make decisions and football was played in all conditions. please log in to view this image
We also lived in caves and got eaten by dinosaurs (not strictly true), but those days are long gone. We can go one of these ways, firstly embrace technology and allow it to improve reffing the game, or ignore technology and stop complaining when thing don't go your way. That is to say brb you can not criticise any decision by the ref/lino, so next time we meet I want you to smile and shrug when the lino disallows a Gills goal wrongly and say "oh well he is only human"
Oh God BRB……do you honestly remember the fare that was served up as football in the 70s with 'Chopper Harris', Norman 'Bites yer legs' Hunter et al. Yep….blood and thunder….and pretty good fun…..but football…..hardly! Skill was measured by who had the most limbs left at the end of the game. Two games do stand out……1973 FA Cup final and Colchester v Leeds……FA Cup….can't remember the year. Resilience, fight, passion, desire, willingness to die for the cause a plenty……but skill…..that was to arrive a good few years later.
Oh the ref and lino will still get much verbal attention and called every name under the sun, whether right or wrong...I just don't need technology giving me some divine answer. Loved those days, just kick lumps out of one another, proper football.
Where as skill these days seems to be defined by who can dive the best. See recent so called El Classico or Liverpool eg Sturridge, Suarez or the aptly name Arjen (pronounce I am) Robben of Munich. But that's still the refs fault apparently.
