Referees Onside - Neville and Carragher.

The more I see that the more I think 'Jak, go for it'

Whatever happened to play to the whistle?

 

Recalcitrant? Do you know what it means?

If people were not recalcitrant to the referee's authority & ability to control the game there'd be no discussion needed regarding technology. They'd accept his decisions.

There may be 10+ offside decisions a game. 5 contentious fouls, 3 contentious handballs, 3 contentious penalty appeals, 2 contentious goals, 5 contentious bookings, 3 off the ball incidents, 3 contentious red cards. Do they all get checked or do you not really want the consistency you seek?

 

How do you get to 'better standards of refereeing' though SCB?

The current lot are professionals aren't they? When reviewing performances do you think they may analyse games / situations / performances by video? If so why not extend that to live situations during games?

Takes seconds to review.

 

You're being recalcitrant to the authority of people bringing in VARs. Thank you for the English lesson though.

What are you on about? How often does the ref consult with his AR or the fourth official currently? Are you implying the VAR would have to be consulted on every occasion? Of course it would only be used for contentious decisions.

 

Playing up to armchair fans & the media? **** 'Em.

Who decides "contentious"?

If one decision is checked the they all must be, for consistency.

"The computer has decided there will be an additional 15 minutes to be played"

 

Probably the ref who is unable to make the decision..

Have you ever refereed a game out of interest?

In tennis do they use hawkeye for every line decision? Y'know, for consistency and all..

 

If he's unable to make the call, it's play on.

Yes.

No, but tennis is a different game that by it's very nature stops every few seconds.

 

Play on? So if - for instance - the ball goes out of play and the ref is unsure of whether it's a goal kick or a corner you propose he waves play on?

If you indeed have reffed, I'm very surprised by your stance on this and some of your comments regarding the nature of refereeing and reliance on assistance from other referees.

I'm not sure what that has to do with the question I asked. Players can challenge using technology, but that technology is not used to determine every point. Similarly in football you can have decisions the ref is uncertain about decided or aided by technology without using it for every single facet of the game and it would not be 'inconsistent'.

 

I think the ref should be flying a drone for speediness and accuracy

 

So let me get this straight.
You don't want tech involved in getting decisions right because poor decisions give you something to talk about?

WTF?

 

I propose he makes a decision, with assistants who are confident in giving input rather than following his lead. In fact if he can't make a simple decision like that he shouldn't be on the park.

"Let's wait 40 seconds to see if it was corner or goalkick"

"But ref you checked the last one, why not check this one"

"It's our throw in ref, best check"

The supporters would be there at midnight.

The Lino behind the goal could work if given the chance & empowerment to suggest a decision instead of just being spare parts.

It was easy, I made decisions, if they were unpopular, tough ****. I gave a free kick once for a keeper taking too many steps. Warned him twice, he was pissed off but **** him.

You're now suggesting players should decide what's contentious? That's not the ref.

Technology in football is ****. You'll never convince me otherwise.

 

Ah so he's allowed to use the assistants you approve of but not other ones who might be able to help him even more?

You seem to have this strange notion that these decisions will take absurd amounts of time. How about seeing how the trials go before getting so worked up over it and presuming it'll be some drawn out process? As I've already pointed out, in the time taken for Oliver to confer with his linesman today the correct decision would have been made.

I'm not suggesting that at all I was using tennis as an example of a sport with technology assisted decisions that aren't used for every play, as you insisted would be impossible in football as it would make things inconsistent.

Then I guess that's where we end things.

 

Do you not talk about poor decisions? Have you never discussed an iffy offside? An iffy pen? An iffy goal? An iffy sending off? I find that strange.

It's a reason, yes, but not the only one.

 

We should get rid of red cards, as that way people can bitch and moan about the rough tackles flying in. We need to fill pubs with more chatter.

 

Tennis is a different game that can work around hawkeye. Football is different in that it doesn't stop all the time. You can't compare.

Your "goalkick/ corner" scenario. What if there may have been a foul just before it went out by a player who may have been offside anyway from the free kick that had just been taken in which the wall may not have been 10 yards away but should it have been a foul to start with?

How far back do they look to get the correct decision?

You want consistent & correct decisions. If they're gonna do it best get it right.

I'm happy as it is & see no valid reason to change.

 

I have discussed them. However that doesn't mean I want those wrong decision to stay just so I have something I talk about. What a very odd viewpoint you seem to have.

 

Each to their own.

 

What happened there? I heard that the ref, linesmen and 4th official have all been given the weekend off.