Referees.

[Spurf]

They should just do what's done in other sports and allow the physio to come on, while the game continues.
If the physio feels that the game needs to be stopped, then do so, but make it so that the player then has to be removed from play for the rest of the game.

Good idea, except health & safety would insist on bollards around the player and medic and the Police would close off the wing for four hours.

 

[Spurf]

OR! Goalkeepers should be made to attend any fallen player from their side. While play continues!

I can hear Friedel now: Stand up you bastard!

 

[The Huddlefro]

I think the suggestions about retrospective reviews of referees' decisions is a very good one, one of the great things about football is the way the game flows nearly non-stop (very different to watching Rugby which is, by definition, a more 'start-stop' game regardless of video technology being used) and this use of video technology would allow retrospective banning for simulation and possibly the use of bans for crowding the referee - although what would happen if the players crowded the ref as a result of a clearly incorrect decision would be an interesting point of debate - whilst preserving the 'flow' of the game we love. This is just an extension of the appeal rule already in place for red cards really but I think it would be well worth implementing.

A lesson to be learnt from rugby for me is to mike up the refs in such a way as to let the commentary team and the listeners/viewers hear what he's saying. It provides a unique perspective towards what is going on on the pitch in rugby and I think it would also be interesting to be able to hear the dialogue between the players and referee, which the rugby ref mike does pick up. Might go some way towards protecting the referees from abuse as well, because I sometimes get the feeling that referees let swearing at them go in order to keep the required number of players on the pitch for the match to continue!!

Another lesson to be learnt I think from rugby is to use the captain more as a point of contact for the team. Notice in rugby that very rarely will the referee engage in any serious dialogue with a player when not in the presence of the captain, and any team warnings go through the skipper. If this culture is bought into football then maybe in a decade or so's time then we might see a reduction in the crowding of referees that we see now. I watch quite a bit of rugby but I'm never entirely sure if this is an 'unwritten rule' or an actual formality but whatever it is it would be nice to see something like it in football.

In my view using video technology for offsides etc. during play is not a good idea as it would interrupt the game too much. From the sounds of the technology that is to be used for goal line decisions it is near as makes no difference instantaneous, whereas in my view the use of slower video review techniques (like for tries in rugby) for offsides is damaging to the game as it requires the game to be stopped completely in the middle of a passage of play. Just my view, and please do correct me if I'm wrong regarding the goal line technology.

At the end of the day any help towards referees we implement will not only help the game be more 'just' in terms of crucial decisions like goals being given and with retrospective punishment of simulation or referee abuse, but gradually in my view if we help make the referees in football more infallible with the help of technology then instances of simulation and referee abuse etc. etc. will decrease as players will hopefully begin to realise that they cannot beat the system in the same way they can now.

I know this may have gone slightly off topic from the OP but as you might have guessed I have reasonably strong views on the subject . Thanks for reading if you made it to the end

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

For those that haven't seen a football ref mic'ed up:

[video=youtube;uX6aKRt4V3Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX6aKRt4V3Y[/video]

Forever dishonest Goons.

 

[Spurf]

PNP the font of all football knowledge.

You should start a thread PNP called: Ask PNP!

Then we can all ask you for a clip of a football happening.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

I have a strange and random memory, Spurf.
What can I say?

 

[The Huddlefro]

If a ref tried to speak to most players like that in that tone nowadays he'd probably get an earful of abuse in return. Respect has disappeared almost completely from the game towards the officials, partly due to the increasingly obvious fallibility of the officials but also just down to culture. My 17 year old cousin referees in the Derby area and gets abuse from kids as young as 10 and their parents alarmingly regularly. Luckily he's about twice their height in that case so he can quell any dissent usually simply by looking scary! But it's easy to see how an official refereeing grown men with huge crowds on their back might crack under pressure, especially if their mistakes are constantly laid bare for all to see. If players know they are extremely unlikely to get away with disrespecting the officials and their decisions or cheating then respect will return at first out of necessity and, one wold hope, in the future out of a genuine change of footballing culture. Or maybe I'm being idealistic...........

I'm not saying no to a bit of heart and passion by any means by the way, I just think some players need to get their heads out of their gold plated arses and realise that no matter how talented they are and how much they get paid, the game wouldn't exist without men and women willing to put their reputations on the line and suffer a fair amount of grief - rightly in some cases don't get me wrong but very wrongly in others - for the privilege.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

The refs just need to make a statement at the start of the season and then stick to it.
Any disrespect and you get sent off.
Problem solved.

 

[NSIS]

None of us could do a better job. You need to be superhuman to get the majority of decisions right in such a fast paced game. When you analyse some of the controversial decisions in slow motion, they are difficult to call. What chance does a ref have in real time and without replays?

Decision making in cricket and rugby has vastly improved with the aid of technology. There is no reason why football can't benefit in the same way. The players may moderate their behaviour voluntary knowing that they are under more intense scrutiny and that misdemeanours can be acted on immediately.

True. Certainly goal line technology should be put in place without any further delay. However, to stop a game and review every key decision would end with fooball becoming like America football, in the sense that a one and a half hour game would end up closer to three hours, if that were to happen.
Regarding the officials. Yes it's a difficult job, spur of the moment decisions have to be taken. It's just when you see glaring errors, made by so- called professionals, that you question their ability sometimes.

 

[NSIS]

The refs just need to make a statement at the start of the season and then stick to it.
Any disrespect and you get sent off.
Problem solved.

Players like Terry wouldn't last very long with a Rugby referee. The first time he started his usual antics, he'd be back in the dressing room very quickly. You are just not allowed to show that kind of dissent. You either respect the Referee, or you're off!

 

[Spurf]

' Where there is clear evidence of mistake on the ref's part, the award can be properly overturned. If the video evidence is uncertain, the ref's decision stands. This approach works well in cricket with lbw decisions, which have both objective and subjective elements. The result is that what was once a very contentious issue is now rarely controversial'

In cricket it has shown that umpire is right in most cases and the price for the odd error is that teams now use a limited number of appeal chances (which they had to bring in to stop it becoming a farce) as a tactic, thereby changing the game; not for the better IMO. The price of appeasing the media is far too high and changes a game that has been fine without it for over a hundred years.

 

[Spurf]

Further: John Arlott whose opinion on cricket I do respect, said he was glad he was coming to the end of his life so that he did not have to see the changes that were happening to his beloved game.

To say technology in cricket has made the game better is utter bollocks IMHO The only people who benefit are SKY.

I am glad to see that spell checker corrected my spelling of bollocks BTW

 

[NSIS]

The use of technology isn't a panacea. There are certain decisions made in the first instance by the ref or the linesman e.g. offside, which cannot be reversed or overturned in any practical way if shown to be incorrect by the cameras. However, there are many decisions were technology is a practical aid and should be used e.g whether the ball crossed the line. There would be some delay caused, but the experience in other sports would suggest it will be minimal and can often add to the excitement of the spectacle.

I would welcome referees being able to consult 4th officials for guidance. "I've awarded a penalty on the basis that the defender recklessly fouled the forward and made no contact with the ball, but need to check." Where there is clear evidence of mistake on the ref's part, the award can be properly overturned. If the video evidence is uncertain, the ref's decision stands. This approach works well in cricket with lbw decisions, which have both objective and subjective elements. The result is that what was once a very contentious issue is now rarely controversial.

Once again though, Luke, where do you draw the line? Cricket is normally played without limitations on time. It depends how long a football match can feasibly be stretched to.

 

[Spurf]

Once again though, Luke, where do you draw the line? Cricket is normally played without limitations on time. It depends how long a football match can feasibly be stretched to.

Sorry NSIS wrong TIME is a huge factor in cricket, and often dictates play.

 

[Spurf]

We won't agree about cricket Luke. I believe cricket is all about decisions both by players and umpires and these are part and parcel of the game. I am only talking about Test Cricket btw, the other forms they can do what like with as far as I am concerned.

 

[Spurf]

Spurf, I can't believe you didn't feel a little aggrieved if Viv Richards, say, was given not out when he'd clearly edged one, but went on to make a big hundred. Bad decisions are as game changing in cricket as they are in football. Hot spot, hawkeye etc can often resolve issues with minimal delay and intrusion on whereas human error is rife when decisions are left to the naked eye of the umpire. There is obvious application in football to straightforward issues such as whether the ball crosssed the line.

Of course this happened but with very few exceptions these were genuine errors and was all part of the drama of the game. It's not a science it's a game, and cricket as I said is all about decisions. Whether to bat or not, how to play a ball, how to bowl it, where to set a field, do you declare and so on. The umpire too, in the spirit of the game had to make decisions (why have lbw in the first place) all a part of the game. Mistakes are very much part of the game. What next, technology to analyse the wicket, check the hardness of the ball and on and on. In the end you lose the game which people have loved for hundreds of years. As we are already in danger of doing with Test Cricket. It does not fit in to the modern world which is all hype and fast pace so don't change it to try and make it fit. Leave the game and concentrate on your 20/20 if you must but don't destroy Test Cricket before it disappears anyway.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

Couldn't the ref just make some sort of indication that he needs a decision checked and let the game carry on?
He's connected to the 4th official by mic, so just tell him that he requires a replay to be looked at and get on with it.
If he's made an incorrect decision, then go back and give the right one.
Shouldn't take long.

 

[Spurf]

Couldn't the ref just make some sort of indication that he needs a decision checked and let the game carry on?
He's connected to the 4th official by mic, so just tell him that he requires a replay to be looked at and get on with it.
If he's made an incorrect decision, then go back and give the right one.
Shouldn't take long.

So the ref awards nothing the game carries on a goal is scored. Then the 4th official says a free kick should have been awarded. Hmm! It has already changed the game and then a whole new dispute arises about whether the goal should stand. So then we need more technology. No not for me.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

How does that change the game, Spurf?
Losing 30 seconds of the game, which can then be added back on, is far less disruptive to the game than giving one team a free goal, in my opinion.
A similar amount of time was lost in our semi-final against Chelsea and the whole competition was distorted off the back of a false call, as well.

 

[Spurf]

How does that change the game, Spurf?
Losing 30 seconds of the game, which can then be added back on, is far less disruptive to the game than giving one team a free goal, in my opinion.
A similar amount of time was lost in our semi-final against Chelsea and the whole competition was distorted off the back of a false call, as well.

PNP unless the game is stopped while the decision is made the game is changed. As I said if a goal is scored during your 30 seconds more problems. But I think I have misunderstood you, are you saying the game is stopped?

The goal line decision could have been made very quickly with goal line technology (to which I have no objection) but other in field decisions (which is what I am talking about) are a different matter.