Its not taken twenty years at all, its taken two or three. Talking about it doesn't constitute working on it I'm not a scientist so I don't know but it can't be impossible. Let me guess, this is another area in which you are a expert in? What were the odds of that I don't like the video replay stuff, it would delay or rewind (depending on how its done) the game. Edit: plus Saints point.
That's the issue with off field assistance in general though. i.e. would the off field ref be active or passive? or in other words would he be called upon by the on field ref, or would he potentially overule him? To be fair, calling offsides is incredibly tough in real time when the ball has travelled a fair distance. More often than not the lino's get it right. At City, the sheer pace of Sterling fooled the official imo, he 'looked' offside, due to the distance he'd travelled in such a short time span. I don't know how you can ever realistically eradicate every wrong offside call tbh.
Rather an ironic comment, given the sentence that follows it.................. You don't need to be a scientist to understand the complexity of finding a mechanical solution to that problem, due to the sheer number of variables involved.
Not if you don't take all variables into account. What if there was a fifth official watching a monitor that tracked technology that monitors just the players? The system shows who was in a onside and offside everytime the ball was touched. The fifth official has a immediate indication as soon as the final pass is made. PS...least I'm throwing ideas out there rather than just picking fault
I agree with all of that. With regard to the Sterling 'offside' and the video ref over-ruling the lino in real time, you're right. The whistle had gone, play stopped when the 'goal' was scored - the best that could happen in that situation would be a drop ball which rarely happens now, couldn't be a free kick because no foul occurred. Chances are no goal would have resulted so we still pay the price for a really poor initial lino decision. But in those instances were an 'offside' goal was scored because play hadn't stopped, the goal would stand.
possible with technology i reckon, depends how long it takes to show or get the correct decision to the ref in real time. see in snooker they use 3d technology to show the angle from the players point of view of a shot he has, must be something they can do similar in football with player movement etc, just depends how long it takes for the technology to compute the information.
saint, FIFA, UEFA and the FA all need to agree about the rules should be and how they will be interpreted and pass those decisions down to the Referees associations before anything will happen. It's not just cheating and play acting it's the grass roots laws of the game that need to be re-established. Let's take just 2 issues as an example. From the statements made last year by professionals, managers and past professionals (commentators), a player is entitled to go to ground and claim a foul if he feels a 'touch'. As far as I am aware there is no rule which defines what a 'touch' is. They argue that because the game is played at a faster pace today even a 'touch' could unbalance you. My counter-argument is that speed is relative and if you cannot control your balance due to going too fast then you have contributed to the incident and no foul has been committed. Take the example of a forward to collects and controls the ball who sees a defender coming towards him to make a challenge. The likelihood is that the first movement the attacker takes is to put out his arm to fend-off the defender. Most of the time the attackers arm makes contact with the defender. That action is in itself a foul as you cannot legally commit a tackle upon an opposing player who does not have control of the ball. In so doing the attacker also prevents the defender from employing a legal shoulder charge. I doubt that anybody wants to return to the days of the Norman Hunter type tackles but the whole issue of tackling has gone too far the other way when a perfectly legal challenge for the ball can (and is) called a foul merely because one of the players was deemed to be too aggressive. So let's get the rules right and commonly agreed first!
I want the rule about slide tackles clarifying. As far as I know there's nothing been added to the rules that outlaws it. However, I've seen a few examples of late, where the player has taken the ball as clean as a whistle but because "he also took the man" it's deemed to be a foul. How can you possibly win the ball with a slide tackle & not continue your momentum to make contact with the player once the tackle has been made? So has the slide tackle been outlawed by proxy?
I think its all around control / intent rather than ball / man nowadays. This is why you see players punished despite clearly winning the ball. Sterling against Man City for example; he went in aggressive and 100% won the ball. He got booked for it.
There needs to be a tv referee - this person can see all the incidents and then makes the decision. This decision is relayed to the referee on the pitch. The ref on the pitch is passive and is merely carrying out the actions on behalf of the tv ref.
Who gives a ****. Sometimes decisions go for your team and sometimes they go against you. Human error is part of what makes football the greatest game in the world.
Can't agree with this Eric. It may be true at amateur level, where only pride/ego is at stake but not in a professional sport. Consistent "human error" on the part of the ajudicators of the sport can cost people their jobs, etc. Those same officials don't lose their jobs at the same drop of that hat. I mean there's levels of human error in the workplace. Forgetting to file something in the right place is one thing, forgetting to meet a deadline that costs the company millions is way past human error. Why should everyone else be judged at a professional level in the arena but the 4 people in every game that can effect the outcome directly get a shrug of the shoulders and "sure that's just the way it is." They have been paid for some time to be better than that. And it rarely evens itself out. It's very unlikely all 7 of the teams vying for the multi million pound CL spots or cups will get exactly the same amount of bad decisions going for and against them in a seasonfor that to remotely make sense. Human error can't be removed completely but that's no reason to not bother trying. Otherwise why have competitive sport at all?
This is true with close calls that can only be truly analysed with repeated views, but blatantly bad decisions should not be happening with the frequency that they are, imo. A couple of decisions against us over the last two games could make all the difference to our chances of CL qualification this season. I'm using us as an example because obviously I watch all of our games and take more notice, but I realise they happen elsewhere too. Saying it happens to us all (obvious) is different from saying it evens out (who studies it enough to be certain?).
Don't agree mate. The game should be looking to minimise the human error with the use of technology, but it's run by suits from the dark ages
utd fans have 'human error' mostly in their favour so no surprise they want it to continue [tongue in cheek]. Referee development needs to keep pace with developments in the game. Footballers nowadays are athletes with skill, speed and technical abilities getting better and better but refs still look mostly unfit and out of touch. It doesn't help that none of them have played the game itself to any level so they apply the rules but seemingly don't always understand them.
I think it's a big part of football and a even bigger part of football forums. What would we all talk about if human error was removed I loved the game for years now as it is. It would improve decision making obviously but I don't want it improving as I think this human error/ judgement is a big part of our game. You watch me change my tune when we get ****ed over by some dodgy decision
