Tottenham Hotspur Message Board
Makes you smile eh? Two old(ish) codgers talking about technology and 'penal reform'...a great mix!
I think that is really where technology comes into its own. Have a panel of ex-footballers and refs who judge the 'contentious' incidents on the following day and up or down the punishment accordingly. Let the managers decide on which judgements (or non judgements for those incidents the ref missed completely) they want reconsidered - on the understanding that 'frivolous' challenges will be punished.
Then on the pitch do as you say. Although, I think it would be better (and more of a spectacle) if the injury feigners were hung,drawn and quartered (isn't that actually round the wrong way - weren't they drawn, hung and then quartered?) - OR - each of the opponents (or even better each rival supporter) were allowed to kick them where they had feigned injury (not the location on the pitch - the part of the body).
Which end of a pineapple is roughest? I only have the cubes - and then liquidised since I lost me teeth....
John, at last we agree on something, re: your last paragraph. Hard to stop yes, but stiffer punishments would help.
Hand of God goal = Red
Hand Ball prevented goal= Red (already?)
Diving = Red and extended ban (say 3 matches)
Pull back opponent by shirt or arm = yellow each offence
Feigning injury from innocuous blow from opponent = Red & then burnt at the stake next home match.
Striking/kicking opponent = red + 4 match ban
Deliberate Elbow to Face = Red + 6 match ban
Denying offence = Red + 6 match ban (that will stop whinging)
Tackle from behind, but getting the ball first = Pat on the back (nothing wrong with it in my day)
Sliding tackle from the side = see above
Being repeatedly caught offside = 3 minute rogering with the rough end of a pineapple after the game by your hard-working teammates.
Of course, all this would need to be proved by video referral. Would you like to hear how this could be implemented?
Thought not ;-)
It's one of those dividing subjects I think (although I think more people seem for it than against, I must admit) - and I think I'm one of the minority!
I don't see that there's a right or wrong with it, it's all a matter of opinion - and we'll never know until it's tried anyway.
...BUT just wait for me to say '....told you so...' in 10 years time, when the game lasts 300 minutes to cater for all the replays and the crowd oooh and ahhh like they do at Wimbledon when a player puts in one of his challenges...and the replays become the excitement in a boring stop/start game....;-)!
I'd prefer that if technology is introduced it's for disputed goals and penalties (contentious only or all?). But then again, what constitutes a contentious penalty?
We could go on forever, like this debate already has! But I enjoy a good discussion....
I'm all for technology - I would recommend that they adjust punishments (both ways) after a game by reviewing all the evidence.
I would also be happy to have auto line judges that say when a ball is in or out.
But I'm just dubious re technology and replays during the game. Now, every decision is subjective. The rule says that the refs decision is final. Simple. The ref makes good and bad decisions, much the same as a manager or player does. No different.
I honestly can't see how anyone can decide what is a crucial point in a game to only use the technology on that. The point I was trying to get across, and this is true in life in general, the important results come from the most innocuous decisions. You can't just look at the 'goal' scored and say that the throw in that was incorrectly given twenty seconds earlier was irrelevant. No - it was one of the reasons why the goal was scored (it may be the most important factor)
I would really be peed off if they introduce technology and in a game Spurs let in a goal that came from a decision that was wrong 30,40, 60 seconds - 45 minutes earlier - because that would then defeat the whole point of introducing technology (IMHO).
A good/bad decision from a ref doesn't just involve the 'n' seconds around a goal being scored - it involves the whole game.
Plus another thing you may want to think about (and this is just logistics) is that football has always been promoted as a minimal requirement sport. A pitch, ref, linesmen and the players. What then are you advocating - each ground has 100 fixed cameras? What about the lower divisions? Can't you see the impact - even on kids football? From experience - the kids football has become a nightmare - refs abused, parent's far too obsessive and aggressive - you wait until they start pointing to their mobile phones for the action replays...that sounds like a joke - but watch this space. Whatever you see occuring with the 'role' models eventually finds its way onto the junior pitches. ;-)!
Why can't we just have respect? Respect the refs decision. I respect 'arry's - I may not agree with it, but I respect it. I personally don't think refs 'cheat' - they just have a hard job todo - that was made 100% worse by pundits replaying decisions 1 million times over in the comfort of a studio and taking 2 hours to decide it was/wasn't a penalty. The ref had half a nano-second.
What I would say would benefit football - and no one wants to address it - is to simply try to stop the cheating. Stop the shirt pulling, dives, rolling in agony - become true 'role' models and make the ref's job easier that way. Stand ip and say - yep - I kicked him, don't always stand up and make that gesture that you got the ball. But that will never happen - because winning and the money is all.
John, you might be missing my point.
Disputed free kicks etc. that do not lead to a goal are surely of no consequence in the scheme of things, so there is no need to interrupt the game. I understand the subjective where a ref may give several fouls against a particular player and the next one involves the yellow. It would be impractical to review all the previous ones, but that's no worse than what we have now. Are we agreed?
So, it is only when a goal is scored does the play leading up to the goal become more relevant and likely to affect the outcome of the game. So if there was a disputed incident (from either side) video referral could be used to review the passage of play leading to the goal to analyse the foul/non foul, corner/goal kick, hand ball/no hand ball etc. The goal is then either allowed or dis-allowed and in most cases the correct decision and outcome has been made.
In a similar manner, cards are issued provisionally whilst an extra official reviews the incident and then confirms to the ref his opinion, this would only take a couple of minutes and would not impede the flow of the game. The ref then in turn confirms to the player (and the crowd) whether the provisional becomes yellow or red or is retracted. That way the player either stays on the pitch or walks, but it is based on better information than the refs original view and interpretation. So the player might stay on and score the winning goal or he may walk and be prevented from affecting the outcome, but invariably, the correct decision would have been made. Again, this is surely preferable to what happens now.
Although not perfect, I believe it would greatly assist better decisions and correct outcomes to matches, without being too disruptive.
I fully understand your point about subjective/objective etc, but we already have that problem now. Just because something is not perfect doesn't mean it should not be used, providing it improves the existing and that is true in everything we do in life.
Anyway, it's great that we are able to discuss it like this using the internet, much better than smoke signals.
But the point is - what is 'contentious' - isn't that subjective?
For example, would you use technology in this scenario:
1) Player is 'fouled' 30 yards from goal - could be a dive, may not be
2) Free kick is taken and from the free kick a perfectly valid goal is scored.
Looking at a video replay in the studio, the pundits (and the world) see that the player dived. So in fact they should not have had a free kick - and therefore the goal was effectively 'invalid'.
Or in this scenario:
1) Team A and team B are playing - team B is being pounded, but defending resolutely.
2) A Team B player tackles a Team A player - the ref sees it as a bad fould and gives the player a red.
3) Team B go on to lose the game 3-0
In the studio replay, the tackle is shown to be 'not that bad' - so the player shouldn't have been sent off.
I'm not saying it's an all or nothing. That is my worry. My concern is that once you introduce video technology for 'subjective' decisions, then it will creep through the game to most decisions - as most decisions are subjective. Why would they stop at just 'goal' related, when all decisions effect a game?
Every manager in the world would go mad if technology was introduced into the game, and wasn't then used to stop the above two scenarios. The call would be 'what's the point in having it, if it's not used to stop major blunders' - and they occur across the pitch from minute 1 to minute 90 - not just at the point when goals are scored.
No John, I said when a goal is scored and there were contentious issues leading up to it, we should use video playback to clarify the situation. So this would happen once or twice per game. I also covered how I would handle cards during the game with virtually no disruption.
I know we won't agree, but who cares as it won't be me or you making the decision anyway.
I think our main difference is that you seem to be saying if you can't resolve everything then leave it alone, whereas I am saying it is better to deal with some issues even if you can't improve others. Not perfect, but better than we have at the moment.
So you're only advocating its use when a goal is scored? But it's not only 'goal' decisions that affect the outcome of a game. The 'goal' decisions may be perfectly valid - but maybe one team should only be playing with 10 men - thereby depriving the other team of an advantage. How many 'invalid' free kicks have then lead to 'valid' goals?
Every decision in a game leads to the next - change one of those decisions and the whole game changes.
What about when somebody gets sent off? What about (as in Palcios's case) when they get booked or give away a penalty? What about (as in Terry's case) - a bad tackle is made that doesn't get picked up? What....Once you introduce it, where do you stop?
I'm not saying the ref will be hindered - I'm just not sure that football is akin to tennis or rugby in any way. Tennis has clear cut rules whether the ball is in or out - or if a foot foul occurs. What other decisions are made by technology? Fine.
Rugby is a stop/start game anyway - so the impact is less.
Football has 'odd' rules that include 'intent' - video doesn't pick that up - or by slowing down an action it looks 100% worse than it actually was. Didn't Hudd get booked yesterday for a tackle where he simply slipped? How is that a yellow - it is because the ref saw it that way. What happens if that had been his 2nd yellow?
I feel that if 'un-objective' technology is introduced, then it will do 2 things:
1) Slow the game down and turn it into a 'reality' show type event (a la hawkeye) where the replay becomes the excitement. Football when ref'd best, flows. Doesn't everyone concur that the best games are those where the fewest free kicks disturb the game?
2) Detract from the ref's authority - which is abysmal already.
I'm totally for technology that says whether the ball is in or out of play. Totally objective an inobtrusive. The follow up issue then becomes who made the ball go dead? That can then be subjective.
AND (finally) - what do you then do for the events that the ref hasn't seen at all - but get caught on camera - ie off ball events - and challenges that initially look ok (from the ref's perspective) - but look completely different from a different angle?
Obviously we simply disagree....I'm happy with that - as I tend to disagree a lot...;-)!
- View More Messages