Manchester City are to appeal the retrospective action against Aguero for smashing his elbow into the face of an opponent -- ( yeah, good luck with that ! ).......... If it wasn't for TV footage, the incident ( not seen by the referee & linesmen ), would have passed without any action............. that, clearly would not be right. I am grateful that there is a system that allows for retrospective action for unseen incidents where violent play is alleged. It is right that such incidents need to be punished. I do not condone violence - but I can see how it may occur on the field of play - in the heat of the moment - perhaps after a player has been provoked or retaliates - all of which is unfortunate - but needs to be punished ( with any mitigation being considered ). It is right that TV is used to deal with these incidents......... But why should the use of TV be confined to these rare incidents ? As aforementioned, they can be in the heat of the moment - unlike the premeditated cheating that goes on in the penalty area - prior to free kicks and especially corners. Both sets of players use all sorts of cheat to gain an advantage. If it's not pushing, it's holding or obstructing the keeper etc etc. These actions ( cheating ), are not in the heat of the moment - they are deliberate -perhaps even fine-tuned on the training ground !The consequence of this cheating is more likely to end in a goal than any elbow in the face, ( deliberate or accidental ), in the centre circle. And yet, this cheating rarely gets properly punished - and certainly not retrospectively. Now, I know that this season some referees are starting to award penalties for the cheating I have described. But, the inconsistencies that exists between referees, has only served to confuse, frustrate and upset fans - who see the same incidents treated in totally opposite fashion by different referees -- who will claim that they did not see the relevant cheating. ............... So - what is the answer ? Well, if TV is going to be used retrospectively to punish assaults that usually do not involve goals, then TV should be used as referral - during matches - to stop a goal being awarded after a team has cheated. Most sports allow participants a number of referrals during the match - to contest a dubious decision. Football now has goal line technology ( Bradley Dack's goal at Watford was given as a result of this ) - so why not allow each side the chance to refer, say, up to 3 decisions during a game. It won't take long to review - and the time involved would be totally justified to ensure that no player has profited by cheating. I know that some of you will say that the behaviour to which I have eluded is all part of the game, and that they provide talking points in the pub, that any TV referrals will interrupt the flow of the game ! -- Well, not as much as a goal that has been conceded by somebody cheating ! I'm sorry - my viewpoint is that cheating is NOT part of any sport, and I can find plenty of things to discuss as I drown my sorrows in the pub.
Now I understand your point alwaysright but I have always thought when this has been discussed: A) At what point does it stop B) What happens if the video isn't clear A) Goal line technology is clearly a major advantage, it is instant and it is either a goal, or not a goal. BUT how far do we go with this. Are we going to let a manager only challenge say a foul, or how about whether a player had two feet on the ground during a throw in which may in 2 minutes time lead to a goal. If we allow challenges for so many decisions then the game could be stop - start every minute or so depending on the attitude of the man on the sidelines. B) Secondly, say the technology is used when a penalty is given. What then happens if when the technology is reviewed, it is still inconclusive whether the player dived or whether he was pushed. The technology can't determine that clearly, and the person in the "room" may not be able to say for definite either way themselves. Does the team then lose a challenge? What then happens on the field of play? Technology is marvelous and it works for goal line technology because it is definite. It works for tennis with hawk eye because it is definite. BUT what happens when the decision is not definite...
Patchy I realise that no system is foolproof - and not everything is going to be catered for. My suggestion would be that each team gets 3 reviews ( by the captain - perhaps on recommendation from players or manager) - but only if the incident has NOT been seen by the referee & linemen. Any decision seen by the pitch officials would 'stand.' (even the bad ones of which we are already too familiar.) If the review is unclear or unsuccessful, it is deemed a 'fail', and any original decision by the referee stands. I'm fairly sure that the reviews will confine themselves to the Aguero type of incident - which could lead to the dismissal of a player, and / or incidents in the penalty area - where the greatest consequence of 'unfair play' will occur ---- I'm fairly sure that hardly any throw-ins will be contested - they are never taken from the correct place at the moment - and all teams seem to get away with it ! So my idea will still see the referee with the final say in everything that he has seen - and only unseen incidents will be up for review - there won't be many that the referee hasn't seen ( or claim to have seen ), - and deemed as cheating - and I don't think the disruption would be too unbearable. Let's give it a trial for one season and see how it goes....... but I believe we must have a better system - with the aid of modern technology - that will help to reduce, if not eliminate cheating in the most critical part of the pitch, i.e. the penalty box - where the players, fans, referee and linemen all need eyes in the back of their heads.
Can see it working but only in the prem as they have cameras everywhere. We only have 1 or 2 cameras so most might not be seen. So your team could lose all 3 decisions as not seen
Slovaka player Durica saying Skirtal did not deserve to be sent off . Skirtal should have been sent off much earlier. Then after the he felled Kane he even trod on his leg.
I disagree with cameras, it is down to the ref to make decisions with the naked eye and advice from those running the line. I wish we would stop looking for perfection in football. One rule leads to another and another, and mostly based on the financial consequences, since after 100 years of football when did that come into being. If you want boring perfection people can go and watch F1. Football has always been about the what ifs and we was robbed, I hate seeing this game turned into some millionaires paradise, full of crooks in FIFA and bribery revelations past and present accusations in the game and all we seem to worry about is someone cheating on the pitch. Cheating is easy to resolve without a tv camera but the powers that be fail do anything about it. I hate what is being done to the game and TV cameras fall's into those feelings, give us our game back, I know I'm on a loss cause but until I die I will continue to be vocal against those wishing to destroy our community game for ALL classes.
brb It's good that we can disagree on this issue without breaking out in 'general chat' mode ! A few weeks ago I had a plumber do some work in my bathroom. When he was 'finished' ( and before 'testing' ), I noticed that he hadn't connected one of the pipes correctly. I pointed this out. He hadn't seen his genuine mistake - and was grateful of my observation. He used his tools to very quickly rectify the situation. I did not, for one minute think that the plumber was cheating - just that an honest mistake had been made -one that could have had disastrous consequences on the job. Football referees are no different to other tradesmen/women. They have tools available in conjunction with their personal skills. I would expect any tradesperson I engage to see or detect any problem that would affect the outcome of their task - and to use tools that would make their job easier - and prevent the paying customer from feeling short changed.......... just what would the Sheffield fans have thought if the referee hadn't seen Pask stick out his hand, and cameras not being used for referral of a miscarriage of justice ? I can find enough talking points about a football match without always bringing up apparent refereeing howlers as my first point of discussion. I am sure that, after the game at Vicarage Road, the Watford fans had plenty to say about losing to a L1 team - without reference to poor refereeing decisions. Footballers and their inconsistencies and bizarre decision making will always provide enough to chat about( Jackson's movements leading up to the first goal on Sunday - JET's lack of movement etc ). At Scunthorpe Stuart Nelson provided enough discussion points - and there was no need to castigate the referee because he had been blind to an incident or had cheated. I understand your point about sanitising the game - but if TV referrals can stop / rectify glaring mistakes - the ones that really can influence the overall result - then I think we should use the cameras.......... or should we remove CCTV in our town centres ? Do we not use them to detect wrongdoing and offenders - to stop people who wish to commit offences against me or to cheat in some form or another ?..... although even CCTV is not always conclusive ! ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ On this point Some years ago, a friend of mine who is a police officer, called me to give me the 'heads up.' He stated that one of my sons had, apparently been seen on CCTV in a store - picking up a set of earphones. He was not seen to pay for anything before leaving the store - and when the staff checked the shelf and stock quantity, - they noticed that ONE set was 'missing.' ( they had no specific knowledge that any theft had taken place ). My friend had 'warned' me - so that I might be ready for official police questioning. ( my son does NOT have a criminal record ) - my police officer friend had been called to the store and recognised my son on their cctv When my son returned home, I quizzed him about his movements that day - and eventually related what I had been told. He then explained his position ( with some embarrassment ). He admitted that he had picked up the earphones. He had carried them around the store - whilst browsing. Before he left the store he decided not to make the purchase - and, lazily, just 'dumped' the earphones in another part of the shop. ( own up- who hasn't done that ? ) Naturally I gave him some words of wisdom. With the information at hand, I immediately went to the store - and with my hands clasped behind my back - a bit like a defender in the penalty area ( not Josh Pask )- went straight up to the area where my son had dumped the earphones and easily found them amongst other goods on the shelf. I left them in situ - and asked to speak to the manager. I introduced myself and challenged him to check his CCTV for my movements ( lest he might think that I was returning the earphones to avoid police trouble for my son ). The manager subsequently confirmed that NO earphones were missing from their stock !........... bloody kids !
brb I don't know why you' re not biting - I'm no robspur - even if I can raise, a little, the temperature of your blood !
because you knowing my political/establishment views and social class opinions can pretty much guess my views also on CCTV
I'll let you off - I know that you've had a bit of nonsense to put up with on GC,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, as for CCTV - I rarely remember they are everywhere - must be my clear conscience
