One of the scariest things about this weekend (not just yesterdays game) is the contrast in interpretation of yellow and red cards offences. I am not just talking about Foy I'm talking about referees in England in general. In this thread I'd like to highlight a few incidents in particular in recent games which have proved this... [video=youtube;pGMNn8gfPC8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGMNn8gfPC8[/video] This assault on Shane Long was deemed only yellow card worthy by Phil Dowd, I struggle to see how that is any different to Drogba or Torres's red cards. If referees are trying to prevent dangerous tackles I struggle to see a more dangerous example than the one listed above. Many went along with the consensus that Suarez vs Sunderland was a yellow card with the reasoning being it wasn't a clear goalscoring opportunity, I agreed with that, but could understand why Dalgleish and LFC fans felt aggrieved and could see the other side of the argument. I struggle to see how this can be deemed a yellow card (given that Suarez had rounded the keeper) please log in to view this image Yet this (an incident whereby both players were going for a 50/50 ball with neither in control with a keeper and possibly CB yet to be beaten) [video=youtube;IsnyjEvsHms]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsnyjEvsHms[/video] can be deemed a straight red card offence. Another thing ignored by the media was Evra's horrific tackle on David Silva which could easily have caused a serious injury. I don't know whether it's my imagination but the consistency amongst referees in England in my view is substandard. Watching Spanish football I find refs to be far more competent and more impartial. Given all the playacting and diving there is in La Liga referees there seem to have applied a level of consistency that is seemingly unrivalled by our English counterparts. Refs make mistakes, that isn't the issue all we ask for is a level of consistency, it would help if refs explained their decisions, but they seem far too arrogant and up themselves to explain their decisions to the average football fan who would have paid a bare minimum of £50 to watch a game or in a Man Utd fans case for the Sky subscription.
This. Good idea, I feel they do have a tough job and they do have to try and keep both sets of players and fans happy which is near impossible. Like I said, video tech is the only way that will happen.
As much as I agree with this, I don't see it happening with the level of incompetence in organizations such as the FA. I'm used to it from America, we get the same issues with all sports. Ice hockey seems to be particularly bad, but that may be due to my personal interest level.
See their excuse for no technology in footy is because it's a fast paced game, I can understand that in Hockey! I think it'd make it SHIIITE. Having VT for the BIG decisions such as penalties/red cards/offsides and obviously goal line goals would help massively and only slow it down by a notch or two. It'd be stupid having it for every foul of course.
Hockey does have it for goals, but that's it. There's been arguments to have it for penalties or offside, but it's a bit pointless. There's games where the same thing happens with refs, though, and you just want an explanation as to why something was called and something similar wasn't. There also aren't really fines for moaning in press conferences. For one team is SOP to have a dedicated press conference for complaining. And they were in the final last year. ****ing ****s.
Look at the standard of refereeing in Czech Republic lol http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/oddbal...off-three-players-for-no-reason#ixzz1biQmHKQD
On TV? Once in a while on ESPN if you're lucky, unless you pay for the soccer package. Then you have a better chance of more games, but still not guaranteed. Really frustrating. Granted, my university hear doesn't have Sky so I'm not a whole lot better off.
There is a very good reason not to use technology in football. So long as there is a method for ambiguity, so long as uncertainty can be maintained, you can fix the game and no one can prove it with any degree of competence. By not even trying to get to the bottom of the whys and wherefores of referee decisions, the ruling authority puts itself under scrutiny from the fans about why. For me to follow this to a logical conclusion is that they do not want certainty, they do not want dodgy goals cleared up, they do not want a referees authority undermined, because so long as the referee has complete authority, his ambiguities unchallenged, there is scope for match fixing. If this isn't the case then they can quell that scepticism by introducing the technology. Technology isn't wanted by the FIFA and UEFA either because the FIFA and UEFA really doesn't want things to be made clear cut and that is very worrying to me at least.
I have to agree the standard of refereeing in the prem is terrable how that ref Foy missed sending off that Luis fella and that Cole fella on sunday was a travesty
The problem is, you can't really use technology for what is purely opinion. Decisions like the Bosingwa challenge still aren't a definite yes or no. I said it was harsh while a colleague said it was a definite yes. everyone sees these differently, so while a ref on the pitch says yes, someone else upstairs will say no... and vice versa I agree with technology for something where you can have a definite yes or no answer - which is goal line technology (it's either over or it isn't) and possibly off-sides if it's game-changing. But even then that is difficult because if a flag goes up, the defenders may stop so the attacker has the advantage and scores! The only technology that will come in is goal line... everything else, you just have to hope the refs get right, and realise now and again, they won't!
