I was talking to my North American friend last night about refereeing decisions and how they often effect the outcomes of games. He is a staunch fan of Ice Hockey and also Football and he drew some parallels between the two games. Both are fast paced, both involve a certain amount of physicality, both are incredibly good to watch when the two teams are represented by the full amount of players on the pitch. Ice hockey has 6 referees. Football has 3 (I won't include the 4th official because that job is a marshaling one). TV replays can be called upon by the "Coach" in ice hockey, but I am told this is rare as the 6 officials do a sterling job as is, and the Coach respects the refs' decision. In football when you are reduced to 10 men, the majority of the time that 10 men are reduced to defending deep and the game becomes a spectacle. It is no longer as competitive, or fair. Bad decisions by the ref often lead to bad press/disrespect and, I feel, players going for every little inch they can to get a decision go their way. If you are a player and at the mercy of more referees, I am certain the unsportsmanlike behavior would be quickly nipped in the bud. So, onto the new card idea. The last player commits a foul on the edge of the box which the ref under extreme pressure feels he has no option for the straight red. Instead of wielding the red card, the ref reaches instead for the green card. Player still gets sent off, but an instant substitution is permitted, thus maintaining the balance of 11 on 11. The ref's decision is then reviewed after the game by an independent panel and the player sent off receives the appropriate ban or the green card is rescinded. A bit daft, but since every one keeps grumbling about bad refereeing decisions, if parity is kept on the pitch, then there is less to moan about. Also ffs, make all refs in top flight leagues professional. I don't care if he is a science teacher by day from Lemington Spa.
Very interesting, china, it would certainly help on most occasions when a foul is difficult to spot, but it's such a radical idea and has no chance of happening during Blatter's tenure at FIFA! I watched the Arsenal game last night, Walcott got elbowed in the face, in the penalty area and although there was a conversation between the ref and the 'extra' official behind the goal, no action was taken, so obviously it won't always work having additional officials!
An interesting idea. However, I can't help feeling that in the case of a 'last man outside the box' situation, the defender would be somewhat more inclined to commit a 'professional foul' to prevent a goal being scored if he knew that he would basically just be substituted and his team would still have 11 men. Granted, I assume he would receive a ban after the game.
If i can see Walcott getting a snide elbow in the chops 20 seconds after it happened on a TV replay then there s your solution.. I find it amazing living in London where CCTV is watching me all day and is used to convict people that Football isn t still using technology in making ref decisions. The 4th official behind the goal had an earpiece and held his hand over his mouth so the camera didn t pick up what he said to the ref, yet neither of them could ask someone watching a replay what happened... International tournaments Champions lg group stages and Premier lg should use technology. The only drawback is two bob teams that are not on telly won t have the money to install the gizmos, and they can always go wrong or be tampered with. The green card is pretty daft and so is a sin bin.
I agree with all of the above, but I feel at the present stage too much onus is on the ref, and as a result on the players to commit to his/her rule book. Taking away power from the ref and giving it to more technology/eyes allows the game to be fairer. How many times do sections of any crowd shout "off side" "penalty" "over the line" because they are closer to the action than the powers that run our "fair game" and nothing is given? Increase referees, increase eyes in the sky which we all can see on the TV and within 10 seconds of the action (Blatter's World Cup excluded when no fouls were shown as replays for the love of the official). What I'm saying is that in most competitive sports the ref's decision is final and because of the lack of power they have in covering so much space, we can least give them that in the present state of play.
Interesting article, relating to video technology. Add Norwich to the list of teams hard done by referee decisions? With Birmingham and Blackpool. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...that-video-technology-is-not-a-good-idea.html Table shows where the teams would be had the referee made the correct decision. Includes penalties give/not given and others. please log in to view this image
this table makes assumptions though that all the penalties that were not given would have been scored if they were awarded. Also, Lets say for instance that Blackpool were not awarded a penalty in a match that they lost 1-0. Who is to say that there apponents wouldn't have pushed on for the victory at 1-1 and snatched a 2-1 win? Once a decision is made there is no way of telling what might have happened. Against Stoke, maybe if Barnett had stayed on he would have made a couple of huge errors and we'd have lost 2-1?
KFOTW I agree and I think that bending stats can be done in favour of any one (look at unemployment figures under most governments). What I'd like to see, and was largely the idea of my original post, is action in the game itself. We can go on forever about the what ifs and we do so until a few days before our next fixture (and often carry that negativity into the very next game). Taking away a bit of power from the ref, giving it back to the team that plays within the rules, bringing in technology that SuperNorwich rightly points out is all pervasive in our daily lives, would, I think make for a more fluid game. OTBC
Of course there's ambiguity in it but the likelihood is, getting a penalty or conceding a penalty affects confidence which dictates the course of the game.
I just think the right decisions need to be made. Video refs will hapen eventually, it has to. this biggest arguements against this at the moment is that there will be such a delay and that players will surround the ref on every decision slowing the game even more. I have a solution to this. Make the communication one way only. The referee on the pitch refs in exactly the same way he does now. A vid ref also watches. If a big decision is made and the vid ref thinks it might be contentious, he can tell the ref on the putch to hold on and check the video footage before either confirming or adding more advice to the pitch ref. Decision ultimately still rests with the pitch ref. The pitch ref knows that if he hears nothing in his ear then his decision is correct. The pitch ref has no way of communicating with the video ref and so there is no point in players surrounding him on every decision.
