Harry 'Two Refs'

[Ghoddle10]

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11095/7376643/?

Not for me, far better we copied UEFA's brave, bold and correct decision to bring in the goal-line assistants.

They surely would have noticed Shawcross' handball, and probably could have called Ade's offside too. Though if the handball is called, and I think it would have been, the next bit doesn't happen.

We get a pen, they get 10 men, we also don't lose Younes, job done.

I am most annoyed the Prem haven't followed UEFA's lead over this innovation, and hope they do next season. Obvious examples of where it would work, the Mendes goal at OT, a goal line assistant can't miss it.

They probably call the Gomes at the Bridge incident correctly too, but that's more borderline.

Typically, of course, they do get it right in Europe against us this season We'd have got away with that under our outdated 'ref and two assts' set-up that we have in the Prem.

Though to be fair, I think against AC last year the goal line asst helped, IIRC, to correctly rule out Milan's late 'equaliser'.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

I'd agree if the assistants actually made a decision occasionally, Ghoddle.
The only one that I've seen recently was when our goal against PAOK was correctly chalked off.
They tend to just stand around doing nothing, for the most part.

I'd question their placement too, as they seem to stand on the same side as their respective linesman, for most of the game.

 

[Ghoddle10]

I'd agree if the assistants actually made a decision occasionally, Ghoddle.
The only one that I've seen recently was when our goal against PAOK was correctly chalked off.
They tend to just stand around doing nothing, for the most part.

I'd question their placement too, as they seem to stand on the same side as their respective linesman, for most of the game.

Hi PNP, IIRC, they helped in that game v AC last year, but may be wrong on that.

I'm sure they would have spotted the Mendes 'goal'.

As to where they stand, well if the FA/Prem want them to stand somewhere else on the goal-line they could do that, I'm sure.

I think they are a brilliant innovation, and would help our refs in the crucial decisions that cause so much bitterness. I think Harry is off-beam with wanting two refs, he has a solution right in front of him, he even mentions it, and that is the best solution for me.

 

[Inda]

The problem is human error. increasing the number of humans on the pitch only adds to the chances of error.

The only solution is a technology one and thats twenty years away

 

[Spurm]

The problem is human error. increasing the number of humans on the pitch only adds to the chances of error.

The only solution is a technology one and thats twenty years away

What we need to do is breed players that call themselves up on fouls, a bit like snooker. Shawcross should have just stopped, pointed to the spot and shown himself a red.

 

[Ghoddle10]

The problem is human error. increasing the number of humans on the pitch only adds to the chances of error.

The only solution is a technology one and thats twenty years away

Hi Inda, I think two refs would cause confusion, but not two extra assistants. I think in this case more assistants cuts down on error, so is helpful.

I think the two extra assistants is a much better solution than video replays of contentious incidents, maybe in twenty years time or so the technology will be sufficiently good to replace extra assistants, we'll have to wait and see.

Goal line technology should be here within two years and that should solve the 'Mendes' incidents, but not the 'Shawcross' or 'Ade'-type incidents.

 

[Ghoddle10]

Technology works in rugby (both codes) for a host of different issues and there is no reason that it could not be used in football now.

There are lots of reasons actually LDL, but two simple ones will do. Rugby is a different game to football, and football is a far, far, bigger and more global game than rugby, so more adjustments have to be made.

I don't know, but do they have video technology for 'third division' rugby games in this country, South Africa, Samoa, for example?

 

[Spurm]

Most of the rugby tech is used when a try has been "scored". So the game is stopped anyway. Using the Ade "goal" and Shawcross handball as an example you couldn't just stop the game and go "hang on, lets have a look".

 

[Ghoddle10]

Two refs is a wrong call by Harry.

But your original post LDL was off beam too. I'm glad you now see there are lots of reasons that are delaying the introduction of video replays and other technology over contentious issues like offsides, penalties, etc.

In time video replays and other technological inputs may happen in our game, but the time span is liable to be long due to the many, many problems involved. Comparisons with rugby, cricket or tennis simply miss the mark, unless they address the massive difference between those games and football.

Goal line technology is due in within two years and I applaud that. I also applaud UEFA's two goal line assistants innovation, and wish the Prem had followed suit for this season, and hope they follow UEFA's lead soon.

 

[Inda]

You're thinking too small. That's why i said twenty years.

Replacing refs with computers is the way forward. They could even be used at grass root levels. We have to eliminate humans from the desisions - they're not good enough.

 

[lennypops]

Cost and practicality issues mean that video technology would be reserved for the top levels of the game, as with other sports. It would be feasible, however, to introduce it to all league games in time, I'm sure.

I can think of many instances where a video ref could improve decision making without causing any significant delays in play.

Hawkeye technology is available now re goal-line decisions and the like. It will advance too in the coming years.

Some decisions will always involve human judgement, but others can be assisted either at the time or retrospectively- penalties, fouls, red and yellow cards, off the ball incidents not spotted at the time etc. To some extent, this already happens, but only retrospectively e.g at appeals.

Offside will always be a tricky issue because of the impossibility of providing an effective remedy when the decision is wrong.

It's not a panacea, but it's a necessary step to trying to get decisions right. It's got to happen soon. It's better than two refs!

Absolutely agree. There are two terrible arguments that do the rounds against using video technology:

1) The game is not suited to being able to look at incidents during breaks in play

2) We can't have it cos how are League Two matches gonna have this technology? Or Sunday League Sides? Or teams in the second division in Nigeria?

Well - as LDL said - there are plenty of incidents when you CAN use the technology and there IS a break in play (for the Ade goal at the weekend the break would've come cos the offside was given). And just cos something doesn't work ALL the time for everything does not mean it should never be used.

And on point 2 - well guess what? I've played football all my life. Most of the time without linesmen. Most of the time without referees. As a kid we didn't have corner flags cos the club couldn't afford them. Does this mean that corner flags should be banned? That linesmen can't be used cos not all games of football everywhere can have linesmen? If the cameras aren't there then they can't be used. But if they ARE ALREADY THERE AND BEING USED why on earth can't the officials use them?


PNP - Yeah - I've noticed that the assistants behind the goals are often on the same side of the goal as the linesman - WTF? that's insane. SURELY it makes sense to be the other side. Mind you - this is UEFA we're talking about here.


One last thing - there one area where I can see absolutely no argument whatsoever against using technology - to give out retrospective bans for clear cheating/violence and diving. Especially diving. Five game ban if you're caught clearly doing it on camera. It just seems SO simple to me...

 

[Spurm]

One last thing - there one area where I can see absolutely no argument whatsoever against using technology - to give out retrospective bans for clear cheating/violence and diving. Especially diving. Five game ban if you're caught clearly doing it on camera. It just seems SO simple to me...

Been saying this for YEARS! Its the only way to stop it for me. Fines (unless they up it into the millions) don't mean squat to the top players/clubs and its those players/clubs that the youngsters are watching and copying!
If you got banned for even 3 games for diving i bet you manager would crucify you.

 

[lennypops]

The problem is human error. increasing the number of humans on the pitch only adds to the chances of error.

The only solution is a technology one and thats twenty years away

Eh? Humans make errors so the more humans the more errors? That logic makes no sense.

Say I write an article and, in doing so, make some errors in spelling, punctuation, facts etc. Then I ask someone to look it over. Are you saying that having someone check your work is definitely going to create MORE errors? Not only that but if I have more people check it MORE errors will occur!

Say an incident on a football field can only be seen by one man in one position from one angle and with people in the way. You are actually saying that another person, in a different position, with a better view, will actually make it more likely that you get bad decisions?!

So why have linesmen? Just more humans making more errors, isn't it? Why not have the ref try to call offside decisions?

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

PNP - Yeah - I've noticed that the assistants behind the goals are often on the same side of the goal as the linesman - WTF? that's insane. SURELY it makes sense to be the other side. Mind you - this is UEFA we're talking about here.

Exactly, Lenny.
To anyone with an ounce of sense, you'd have to place them where they can do most good.
UEFA think that it's best that they're near to each other, presumably so they can have a little chat during breaks in play.

 

[lennypops]

Exactly, Lenny.
To anyone with an ounce of sense, you'd have to place them where they can do most good.
UEFA think that it's best that they're near to each other, presumably so they can have a little chat during breaks in play.

Hang on - it's actually policy that that's where they should stand?!

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

Hang on - it's actually policy that that's where they should stand?!

I'm not sure, in all honesty.
They always seem to be there though, so I assumed that it was official policy.

Anyone know the truth about it?

 

[lennypops]

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afd.../additionalassistanrefs-backgroundpaper_e.pdf

On page three they clearly say that the assistant behind the goal should be on the opposite side to the linesman. They even have a photo to help you understand what the word "opposite" means.

I don't know if the fact that this sensible rule exists but is ignored is better or worse than I thought it was. Amazing.

 

[Spurm]

I'm not sure, in all honesty.
They always seem to be there though, so I assumed that it was official policy.

Anyone know the truth about it?

Not sure of the truth, but my guess would be that the assistant now no longer goes on the line, this allows him to continue calling the offsides. The line judge is on the same side as the assistant as the ref runs a diagonal, so if he is up with play he should have a half decent view of the other side.
Its hard to explain, but say the ref runs his diagonal from bottom left to top right, then you'll find the assistants positioned top left and bottom right.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

You must log in or register to see images

So the match officials can't even see that!
Reassuring, isn't it?

 

[Spurm]

You must log in or register to see images

So the match officials can't even see that!
Reassuring, isn't it?

Well, back from my (probably now outdated) referee training i would say the ref is on the wrong side of the pitch there. But maybe its changed with the introduction of the line judge.
Without the line judge i'd expect him on the other side of the pitch to ensure that there is an official at least somewhere in the vicinity of any likely action.

I could be wrong though, as line judges didn't exist back in the mid 90s