Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

carry on as we are...it's fun to have something to debate

carry on as we are...without refs there is no game

carry on as we are and support the refs otherwise they'll sulk and we wont have a game

Use technology to get every decision right and a just outcome every game.

[Jezza]

Ladies and gentlemen,
we are at the stage where we turn up, pay our hard earned money....and the officials basically decide the result.
There is enough money in the game to fund cameras at every ground down to county level.....I say train the current and new officials to use this technology and have the liners and the 4th official watching a monitor relaying info to the ref via an earpiece...so the ref doesn't even have to run round as much and may even last the 90 mins.....

[York Alty]

Technology won't get everything right. Voting for options four entails every pisspot ground would need to have every angle covered, with extra match officials to review decisions.  They can't get fourth officials now for FA Trophy games so the fourth option is a non-starter.

So we're left with the various flavours of carry on as we are.

[andrewflynn]

Give each team three "challenges" on referees decisions. Use the footage to quickly review the play "upstairs", amend the decision if necessary. Very much like American football.

Football shouldn't be unchangeable. The current rules shouldn't be treated like some holy manuscript. FIFA could learn a LOT from other sports.

We could have challenged the penalty decision and the disallowed goal and perhaps won the game. The clock would be stopped for the extremely short period of time that challenges take.

Very simple.

[markecky]

I don't have the answer (massive kop out I know).   I've always been a believer that these things even out etc and not to look to blame the ref every time we lose.

Now we've got issues that have been well discussed on here but for me twice in a month a referee has directly affected a result and thus my mood and weekend.

Maybe just a simple change of mindset, if the ref is 50/50 he shouldn't give it.

Scott Leather will probably start the next game now scared to tackle and I don't blame him.

[fuertes]

f**k video technology. It would absolutely ruin the game. It might have some use in stop-start games like rugby league and cricket (and even there they're tying themselves in knots with many claiming technology is having a negative impact). But in football it would destroy the flow of things.

Can't we all just accept a ref is likely to make a bad call in much the same way a striker might take the occasional air-shot rather than whining on like big babies?

[OldhamAlty]

I can see there's always going to be a bad ref or two. But with what feels like bad refereeing week in, week out it seems like there's two possibilties:

1) This is just how good a person under pressure can referee and we can just bite that bullet

2) Something is stopping good refs from getting to our level, maybe something to do with refereeing promotions, or more likely, just not that many people want to become refs so most people who would be good just never do it.

Agree entirely with PutneyAlty, video technology would make the game fairer, but it'd become nothing like the game we watch now if it was being stopped every tackle while the video ref took a look.

[andrewflynn]

It wouldn't be stopped every tackle though. If it was limited to huge, match changing plays then I really can't see a problem.

At the end of the day, our opinion is based on how it would change "the game we watch." Players may have a different view, I imagine no one would have minded if Fabio Capello had the ability to challenge the ruling of 'no goal' after Lampard's strike vs. Germany in 2010.  It would take no more than thirty seconds to change the ruling to a goal. The game then kicks off again...

So what? The game we're accustomed to watching pauses at maximum six times in a game, for no more than a minute a turn? I'm sure some players would have a completely different view away from the interest of entertainment and viewing pleasure.

[Jimmy]

The games iv been only the leek and hednesford games did I think the refs were that bad

[OldhamAlty]

It wouldn't be stopped every tackle though. If it was limited to huge, match changing plays then I really can't see a problem.

At the end of the day, our opinion is based on how it would change "the game we watch." Players may have a different view, I imagine no one would have minded if Fabio Capello had the ability to challenge the ruling of 'no goal' after Lampard's strike vs. Germany in 2010.  It would take no more than thirty seconds to change the ruling to a goal. The game then kicks off again...

So what? The game we're accustomed to watching pauses at maximum six times in a game, for no more than a minute a turn? I'm sure some players would have a completely different view away from the interest of entertainment and viewing pleasure.

Goal line technology is a bit different as it doesn't require a stoppage, the result's near instant. I've got no problem with this.

But for video replays, limiting it to huge match changing plays isn't something I could ever see happening,  do you say if a goal came in the next 10 seconds we'll look at it again? Every tackle in the box in case it was a pen? How do you say when you're gonna blow the whistle to take a look?

Or if you're not blowing the whistle and have a seperate video ref looking at replays who can pull play back, you're gonna have a lot of time getting played that "didn't really count" (purely because why would the ref blow when the video ref will be more accurate, he'd be a mug to risk the wrong decision so anything other than a dead cert he'd leave upstairs).

I'd love for the game to be totally fair and still fun to watch, but I can't imagine making it stop start would keep it entertaining.

[andrewflynn]

It wouldn't be stopped every tackle though. If it was limited to huge, match changing plays then I really can't see a problem.

At the end of the day, our opinion is based on how it would change "the game we watch." Players may have a different view, I imagine no one would have minded if Fabio Capello had the ability to challenge the ruling of 'no goal' after Lampard's strike vs. Germany in 2010.  It would take no more than thirty seconds to change the ruling to a goal. The game then kicks off again...

So what? The game we're accustomed to watching pauses at maximum six times in a game, for no more than a minute a turn? I'm sure some players would have a completely different view away from the interest of entertainment and viewing pleasure.

Goal line technology is a bit different as it doesn't require a stoppage, the result's near instant. I've got no problem with this.

But for video replays, limiting it to huge match changing plays isn't something I could ever see happening,  do you say if a goal came in the next 10 seconds we'll look at it again? Every tackle in the box in case it was a pen? How do you say when you're gonna blow the whistle to take a look?

Or if you're not blowing the whistle and have a seperate video ref looking at replays who can pull play back, you're gonna have a lot of time getting played that "didn't really count" (purely because why would the ref blow when the video ref will be more accurate, he'd be a mug to risk the wrong decision so anything other than a dead cert he'd leave upstairs).

I'd love for the game to be totally fair and still fun to watch, but I can't imagine making it stop start would keep it entertaining.

You allow teams, through their managers, a set number of opportunities to have plays reviewed where they feel they have not been rightly done by. This would work better in higher leagues, I do confess, where you could perhaps have a staff member on the bench watching the action on a screen; he/she could then advise the manager quickly on whether it is worth it.

You wouldn't need a single degree of new technology. Cameras are everywhere, anyway. I just see it as an easy way of using them to create a fairer game.

Referees would still have complete autonomy over the game. The vast majority of their decisions would be treated as we see now.

But then a striker is through on goal and dives in the box. The referee gives a penalty. The time it takes for the penalty to get set up is enough for a manager to issue a challenge. It gets reviewed in under a minute. It gets changed/it stands the same based on further analysis. The opposing team get the ball back in some form/the penalty goes ahead. The game carries on.

I'm basing most of my argument on how much I watch the NFL, because I really do believe their three challenge system could be implemented in some way into football. I'm not suggesting time outs and a new 'play-by-play' stop-start version of football, I too love the fast paced manner of the game, who doesn't?

[fuertes]

You allow teams, through their managers, a set number of opportunities to have plays reviewed where they feel they have not been rightly done by. This would work better in higher leagues, I do confess, where you could perhaps have a staff member on the bench watching the action on a screen; he/she could then advise the manager quickly on whether it is worth it.

You wouldn't need a single degree of new technology. Cameras are everywhere, anyway. I just see it as an easy way of using them to create a fairer game.

Referees would still have complete autonomy over the game. The vast majority of their decisions would be treated as we see now.

But then a striker is through on goal and dives in the box. The referee gives a penalty. The time it takes for the penalty to get set up is enough for a manager to issue a challenge. It gets reviewed in under a minute. It gets changed/it stands the same based on further analysis. The opposing team get the ball back in some form/the penalty goes ahead. The game carries on.

I'm basing most of my argument on how much I watch the NFL, because I really do believe their three challenge system could be implemented in some way into football. I'm not suggesting time outs and a new 'play-by-play' stop-start version of football, I too love the fast paced manner of the game, who doesn't?

Nah. Wouldn't work. The first time a team was on the end of a shocking decision having already used their three challenges you'd get people all over it like flies on sh*t. You'd have complaints about "we've got the technology - why can't we get every decision right?".

If that argument won out you'd have the game completely ruined with endless reviews. If it didn't, we're in exactly the same situation we see now where occasionally you'll feel sick as a dog after the ref makes a mistake. So what's the bloody point?

Refs make mistakes. Let's just deal with it for Christ's sake. People take things far too seriously.

[Ballers]

What do we do about the frankly sh*te standard of reffing?

here's a start, let's not sh*t out of 50/50 tackles (or even in Moult's case yday 70/30 ones) for the best part of an hour and then we'll be ahead in the game and able to absorb any bad decisions?

For the record, we've had that ref before and I remember him generally being ok. He was terrible yesterday though.

Scott may need to be a little more judicious in his challenges in the penalty area though. Don't get me wrong tu ydays tackle was clean as a whistle and a shocking decision but I think Scott has now given away a couple of penalties in similar circumstances?? He may just have to reflect on how refs view challenges inside the box and adjust accordingly.

Oh and for that penalty the problem all came from a throw in on our left hand side where no one was physical enough to win it and we lamely surrendered possession. We need to looka t that rather than the referee!!

[ripleym]

I'm halfway through an FA Level 1 coaching course, and at the start of the safeguarding portion of it on Thursday night, they played a video some may have seen, starring Ray Winstone, who was basically on the touchline of a kids game hurling abuse at a referee.

There was also then some anecdotal evidence of parent abusing teenage referees at similar age range games.

The reason there is probably not many quality officials prepared to officiate this level of the game is because coaches, players and parents are putting off many that are coming through and not being able to learn from their mistakes.

I've hurled my fair share of abuse at referees in recent weeks, but my course has made me seriously think about things.

[Nasha]

I had a discussion at work about a review system, with my boss adamnment it would work,but I just can't see it happening.

It seems the standard of refereeing is terrible from top to bottom this season. So if they are poor in the Premier League,how poor are they going to be at Conference level??

Video technology I'm unsure on. For example, Reeves "goal", looking at the replays doesn't affect the game as it was stopped with the ball in the net. However,you get a penalty shout but the ball is with the opposition and they start breaking forward. The play is stopped,but replays show it wasn't a penalty. The opponents lose the advantage they had in breaking. I think the goal line technology is correct,as it affects the game correctly (as poor as England were,if Lampards goal had stood,2-2 and a completely different game to what happened)

And completely agree with Ballers,as poor as ref was,the fact we did another no-show in the cups is what should be focused on.

[taxi Phil]

Video technology at the level we would need it is probably too expensive an option in a league where some clubs struggle to get 300 through the turnstiles.

Grit your collective teeth, because it's highly unlikely that we're going to see any improvement in the foreseeable future.