Rival watch

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Boss said:
I don't see how you can ever have refs which don't make mistakes, its practically an impossible scenario, as I don't believe we appreciate how difficult the job is, regardless of experience, to be on a football pitch and have to make a call instantly and then have an assistant who is as unsure as you AND have players screaming, crowd going mental, its means poor decisions will happen.

We probably need to look at the hiring of refs, and how they are trained, as certain personalities cope with pressure better, yet because all decisions need to be instant then teams will benefit from wrong decisions.
Click to expand...

It's all very simple to resolve, just embrace video referrals as they have in Rugby, and challenges and hawkeye as they have in Tennis and Cricket. And while they're at it, give the refs microphones so we can hear their justifications for decisions and discussions with players.

The reason the authorities will never do it: It's not very marketable listening to a bunch of chavy thugs like Terry and Adam intimidate and hurl abuse at refs.

Every now and then one of the omniscient pundits comes out of the wood work saying how bad video refereeing would be for the game, because apparently wrong decisions and controversy make the game more exciting to watch <doh>
 
Spursguru said:
The thing I and most people can't stand though is the bias.

Chelsea and utd over the years have had many favourable decisions go there way, Chelsea were always going to go down easily in the box at 90mins when losing 2-1, and the ref should have known this. It was a dive, a blatent blatent dive and everyone knows it.

To counter this, Bale got booked last year, for legitimately loosing his footing when tackled. If you get brought down, it may not be a foul/pen but it doesn't mean it was a dive or card worthy. I feel like they wanted to make a point with Bale, but then suarez and young were winning pens left right and centre.
Click to expand...

How was it a dive if there was contact?

What the referee didn't see at the time is that Ramires was already going down before the coming together hence no foul. We (the public) had the benefit of seeing that upon replay.

What's far worse (and IMO scary) is referees and linesman simply guessing in favour of the so called "bigger teams" i.e. Mata goal v Spurs at Wembley, Pedro Mendes at Old Trafford, Carrick vs Gomes 09.

The decision to award Stoke a penalty against Swansea based on zero evidence was far worse than the decision to award Chelsea a penalty against WBA in which there was evidence but the situation was misinterpreted. If anything, Ramires fouled Reid.
 
Wandering Yid said:
It's all very simple to resolve, just embrace video referrals as they have in Rugby, and challenges and hawkeye as they have in Tennis and Cricket. And while they're at it, give the refs microphones so we can hear their justifications for decisions and discussions with players.

The reason the authorities will never do it: It's not very marketable listening to a bunch of chavy thugs like Terry and Adam intimidate and hurl abuse at refs.

Every now and then one of the omniscient pundits comes out of the wood work saying how bad video refereeing would be for the game, because apparently wrong decisions and controversy make the game more exciting to watch <doh>
Click to expand...

<ok>

The rubbish they come out with "It will slow down the game" it won't slow the game down as often a ref would stop, tell the players to move away, walk over to his assistant, have a chat and then make a call, great, two clueless officials trying to reason what the decision would be!

If the ref could blow the whistle, talk to a ref via mic, who is sat in a room instantly watching a close up replay of the incident, he can make a correct call within seconds, there is no slowing down of the game!
 
Boss said:
<ok>

The rubbish they come out with "It will slow down the game" it won't slow the game down as often a ref would stop, tell the players to move away, walk over to his assistant, have a chat and then make a call, great, two clueless officials trying to reason what the decision would be!

If the ref could blow the whistle, talk to a ref via mic, who is sat in a room instantly watching a close up replay of the incident, he can make a correct call within seconds, there is no slowing down of the game!
Click to expand...

not to mention the tactical injuries and time wasting at throw-ins and goal kicks. The game is pretty spectacularly slow if the losing team chooses it to be nowadays.
How about as the player rolls around on the floor injured the video ref actually checks for contact and the play acting player just gets a straight red for his troubles? Straight reds for time wasting, stealing yards at throws etc. It would only take a week or 2 to sort the game out.
We could then have video refs and the game would still be quicker
 
It's rubbish to say it would slow the game down - it doesn't in rugby - the video referrals become an interesting spectacle which are appreciated and looked forward to by the audience. Yes it might make the game take marginally longer to complete, but it wouldn't make it seem slow.

And any time it did add on to the clock would be negated by the fact that players wouldn't be wasting time arguing and protracting over every decision, as there could be no argument.
 
"How was it a dive if there was contact?"

"Ramires was already going down before the coming together"


Contrary to what Shearer says, contact in the box does not equal a foul or give a player the right to go down.


Football is a contact sport, and the only logical way the ref could have given the pen is if he considered the defender had "barged" the striker off the ball unfairly. This is clearly not the case, so no pen.
 
Spurm said:
not to mention the tactical injuries and time wasting at throw-ins and goal kicks. The game is pretty spectacularly slow if the losing team chooses it to be nowadays.
How about as the player rolls around on the floor injured the video ref actually checks for contact and the play acting player just gets a straight red for his troubles? Straight reds for time wasting, stealing yards at throws etc. It would only take a week or 2 to sort the game out.
We could then have video refs and the game would still be quicker
Click to expand...

Wandering Yid said:
It's rubbish to say it would slow the game down - it doesn't in rugby - the video referrals become an interesting spectacle which are appreciated and looked forward to by the audience. Yes it might make the game take marginally longer to complete, but it wouldn't make it seem slow.

And any time it did add on to the clock would be negated by the fact that players wouldn't be wasting time arguing and protracting over every decision, as there could be no argument.
Click to expand...

If Danny Mills can get on the FA Commission, the three of us must stand a good chance of overhauling the referee system!
 
Spursguru said:
"How was it a dive if there was contact?"

"Ramires was already going down before the coming together"


Contrary to what Shearer says, contact in the box does not equal a foul or give a player the right to go down.


Football is a contact sport, and the only logical way the ref could have given the pen is if he considered the defender had "barged" the striker off the ball unfairly. This is clearly not the case, so no pen.
Click to expand...

it was no Penalty because it was shoulder to shoulder,which according to the law's of the is a FAIR challege,if Marriner thinks overwise,he needs sacking,so your exactly right, no foul
 
totsfan said:
it was no Penalty because it was shoulder to shoulder,which according to the law's of the is a FAIR challege,if Marriner thinks overwise,he needs sacking,so your exactly right, no foul
Click to expand...

Unless they have changed it since my time as a ref the shoulder barge is legal unless it is with "undue force"
 
Spursguru said:
"How was it a dive if there was contact?"

"Ramires was already going down before the coming together"


Contrary to what Shearer says, contact in the box does not equal a foul or give a player the right to go down.


Football is a contact sport, and the only logical way the ref could have given the pen is if he considered the defender had "barged" the striker off the ball unfairly. This is clearly not the case, so no pen.
Click to expand...

Nobody is disputing that. I'm agreeing with you but the referee doesn't have the benefit of replay so how was he meant to see Ramires is knees buckling before the contact was made. I genuinely think it was an honest mistake and he thought Ramires went down as a result of the contact.
 
District Line said:
Nobody is disputing that. I'm agreeing with you but the referee doesn't have the benefit of replay so how was he meant to see Ramires is knees buckling before the contact was made. I genuinely think it was an honest mistake and he thought Ramires went down as a result of the contact.
Click to expand...

What i'm saying is that refs need to be a bit more clued up.

It's 100% expected that he would want a pen in that situation, and can only give one if he is 100% certain it is a pen. Just because the ref didn't see Ramires' knees buckle, doesn't mean the force the defender applied was enough to warrent a foul.

Everyone can see it wasn't a foul, first time or not. I can't see a situation where the it could be a foul, or where it wasn't obvious that a player wanting a pen, dived.

I'm sure intention is in the rules, as i've seen sheffield utd given a pen against them for a non-foul on Gerrard, simply because he looked as though he was going to foul him.
Same with late challenges, when players dont actually touch someone, but it seemed recklass.

Refs should bare in mind a players intent to go down, in that situation.

It just seems Chelsea are getting a series of rediculous decisions going for them....ones that will not "Even themseleves out" over a seaon.
 
Spursguru said:
What i'm saying is that refs need to be a bit more clued up.

It's 100% expected that he would want a pen in that situation, and can only give one if he is 100% certain it is a pen. Just because the ref didn't see Ramires' knees buckle, doesn't mean the force the defender applied was enough to warrent a foul.

Everyone can see it wasn't a foul, first time or not. I can't see a situation where the it could be a foul, or where it wasn't obvious that a player wanting a pen, dived.

I'm sure intention is in the rules, as i've seen sheffield utd given a pen against them for a non-foul on Gerrard, simply because he looked as though he was going to foul him.
Same with late challenges, when players dont actually touch someone, but it seemed recklass.

Refs should bare in mind a players intent to go down, in that situation.

It just seems Chelsea are getting a series of rediculous decisions going for them....ones that will not "Even themseleves out" over a seaon.
Click to expand...

I thought the Ref can only give a penalty if they are 100% sure,if he couldn't see what exactly happened,he shouldn't give it!
 
Until refs have technology to aid them and the rules are changed to give them more control of the players (sin bins, 10 yards back for dissent, putting players on report - and all the other things which work in rugby), they will continue to be ineffective through no fault of their own. I don't think they are easily swayed by home crowds, but if they are, then the prospect of decisions such as handballs, pemalties etc being instantly reviewed by a video ref might focus their minds. It's criminal that football can't follow the lead of the two rugby codes in this respect.

Having said all that, I don't buy into this theory that an unfairly awarded penalty can ruin your whole season! Mistakes by officials are less common than mistakes by players. Players have to put bad refereeing decisions behind them, just as they put wide shots, fumbled saves, misplaced passes and the like behind them. Cricketers have to have that mindset. If you drop Tendulkar on 0, you're going to suffer, but you can still win the game, because that one incident alone will rarely, if ever, decide the match.
 
District Line said:
Nobody is disputing that. I'm agreeing with you but the referee doesn't have the benefit of replay so how was he meant to see Ramires is knees buckling before the contact was made. I genuinely think it was an honest mistake and he thought Ramires went down as a result of the contact.
Click to expand...

Look at the other Chelsea players, not one appeal, in fact 2 of them are more intent on getting to the ball that popped out.

You must log in or register to see images


Honest mistake? obviously, but one so bad his position is in jeopardy. Quite right too as he's made other howlers in other games, I thought he was iffy when he reffed a game of ours.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...o-chelsea-in-draw-with-west-brom-8931618.html
 
littleDinosaurLuke said:
Until refs have technology to aid them and the rules are changed to give them more control of the players (sin bins, 10 yards back for dissent, putting players on report - and all the other things which work in rugby), they will continue to be ineffective through no fault of their own. I don't think they are easily swayed by home crowds, but if they are, then the prospect of decisions such as handballs, pemalties etc being instantly reviewed by a video ref might focus their minds. It's criminal that football can't follow the lead of the two rugby codes in this respect.

Having said all that, I don't buy into this theory that an unfairly awarded penalty can ruin your whole season! Mistakes by officials are less common than mistakes by players. Players have to put bad refereeing decisions behind them, just as they put wide shots, fumbled saves, misplaced passes and the like behind them. Cricketers have to have that mindset. If you drop Tendulkar on 0, you're going to suffer, but you can still win the game, because that one incident alone will rarely, if ever, decide the match.
Click to expand...

I like the idea of a naughty step for players who commit minor offences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back