That's the NEITHER option
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Technology And Refereeing
- Thread starter COYS
- Start date
That's the NEITHER option
Jurgen the German
Tommy Harmer
Who voted neither and why?????
I'm not holding my breath. Everytime a team gets screwed, you get the authorities saying "we'll look into it", but nothing ever happens.
I'll believe it when I actually see it.
I'm not holding my breath. Everytime a team gets screwed, you get the authorities saying "we'll look into it", but nothing ever happens.
I'll believe it when I actually see it.
braineclipse
Willie Hall
I agree. Easy and quick. Wouldn't delay the game any more than the current arguments with the ref that breaks out over every controversial decision.
Despite the laughable goal given against us against Chelsea I think goal line technology is a red herring. They could (and seemingly will) spend several millions just for the PL to get this new system, only to ignore the offside and penalty decisions that are just as influential, but come up much more often.
Jurgen the German
Tommy Harmer
The only problem with that is, you'd probably still get the man in the room saying it hadn't crossed the line when a team plays United even when it had crossed the line.
braineclipse
Willie Hall
Doubt it. The man in the room would be responsible and actually have slow motion replays available to him, if he actually made blatant errors he should lose his job.
correct decisions are what's important - not the referees
the point is that referee's are there to officiate the game correctly - at the moment they have an almost impossible chance to do that, what with the pace of the game and what realistically 3 people can see on a football pitch - so why not give them the chance to call more decisions correctly by AIDING them in any way we can ? an extra official that the referee has the option of using is the most sensible option IMO all this other stuff is a load of old cobblers though i agree
SteveAWOL
Colin Calderwood
I'd like to see the system they use in NFL adopted where each manager is allowed 2 challenges per half and when he asks for a review the 4th official can check the video replays. It would only take 30 seconds, which is about as much time as players spend surrounding the referee when they feel wronged anyway.
With technology like that not only would that Mata "goal" not have stood but Crouch and Shawcross would've been penalised for their handballs when we played Stoke at Britannia, Adebayor' goal wouldn't have been incorrectly ruled offside against Wolves and Balotelli would've deservedly got a red card for stamping on Parker at the Etihad (rather than a retrospective ban which didn't help us one jot).
Time for football to move into the 21st Century to reduce errors like pretty much every other major sport (cricket, rugby, tennis etc...) has long since done.
With technology like that not only would that Mata "goal" not have stood but Crouch and Shawcross would've been penalised for their handballs when we played Stoke at Britannia, Adebayor' goal wouldn't have been incorrectly ruled offside against Wolves and Balotelli would've deservedly got a red card for stamping on Parker at the Etihad (rather than a retrospective ban which didn't help us one jot).
Time for football to move into the 21st Century to reduce errors like pretty much every other major sport (cricket, rugby, tennis etc...) has long since done.
AuroRaman
Chris Armstrong
Hawk-eye. We can all do the whole, 'wooooooaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh' whilst watching the screens and waiting for the decision. A bit like they do in the cricket/tennis/rugby.
'wwwwwoooooooooooaaaaaaahhhhhhhh.....AAAAAAAAAHHHHH! Drogba. You're a c*nt. Drogba Drogba you're a c*nt.
Football fans would fcuking love that sh*t....
'wwwwwoooooooooooaaaaaaahhhhhhhh.....AAAAAAAAAHHHHH! Drogba. You're a c*nt. Drogba Drogba you're a c*nt.
Football fans would fcuking love that sh*t....
Won't work - elimnate the human factor all-togehter in turn removing all room for error and corruption. Losing his job after a massive 'pay-off' means fudge all in the bigger picture.
Hawk-Eye. Shown to TV viewers and TV ref only - not on stadium screens. Outcome is relayed to main ref via his ear-piece. Your uncle's name is Bob.
Gordinho
Banned
Not good enough, that's only allowing me to vote on what I don't want, not what I want.
Gordinho
Banned
We didn't go 2-0 down yesterday because GLT wasn't in place, we went 2-0 down because of an incompetent ref, same as Mendes' goal wasn't given because of dreadful officiating not because of the lack of GLT. Or Lampard's goal in the World Cup wasn't allowed, here's a new word, integrity. How about the players exhibit show some?
GLT won't improve the standard of refereeing, quite the opposite, it will take decision making away from the official, granted, but that's not the same as improving the standard of refereeing. Where's the desire to achieve excellence in refereeing standards when you know that every big decision will ultimately be made by a machine? Because that's what will happen, GLT will only be the start.
Elite referees aren't particularly elite at the moment, it won't improve when they're overruled by a control room technician with a slow motion machine and a copy of The Rules of Association Football.
So there's my rationale for being against GLT, either embrace technology completely and do away with refs or improve the quality of refereeing.
Last edited:
It was a bit of both, the referee gave "what he saw" but with GLT he would have got a different perspective of the incident and "seen" through Hawkeye (or whatever system they bring in) that the ball didn't cross the line.
I do agree though that the level of refereeing has severely dropped in the last few years which also coincides with the period where they started "fast tracking" officials.
There does need to be a review system for all decisions though, if it slows down the game then so be it 99% of the time when a decision is to be queried the ball is out of play so a 30 second stoppage to review film is neither here nor there.
I'd sooner see a combination of the two (video replay and better referees) but I reckon bringing in video replays will improve referees.
elyid
Gerry Armstrong
Whilst that would be funny, fortunately IMO, they are looking for systems that avoid 'waiting for a decision' and anything that might change the dynamic of the game.
Both systems they propose would just send a signal to the ref (prob a signal on his watch or something) within 1 second. So, using Sundays game as an example - he would just look at his watch, see it didn't go in and carry on with the game. If the 'goal' message was on then he would blow for a goal. No need to wait for a stoppage, instant decision - just like a virtual linesman that is never wrong.
I hope this is just the 1st step though and they introduce similar tech for offside etc. i.e. Give the linesman augmented reality glasses - that would rule!
Howard Webb
Clive Wilson
i just want to know if its gone over. it happens once or twice a season, its certainly cost us in two key games this season.
this is all im prepared to take though, I dont want everyone watching replays of offsides and fouls for five minutes until we find a correct angle to base a decision on. it took at least 5 angles to see the chelsea goal had 70% crossed the line, so eliminating that is quite important but if we suddenly start seeing this appetite for justice getting fed with Gary Neville or Andy Gray voiced replays of an absurdly slowed down nudge on bale ( the slow motion button on OB trucks is a dial, and the operator turns it to the most dramatic speed for TV ) then im afraid ill not be very happy. Im already at my wits end with football, and not because of referees.
this is all im prepared to take though, I dont want everyone watching replays of offsides and fouls for five minutes until we find a correct angle to base a decision on. it took at least 5 angles to see the chelsea goal had 70% crossed the line, so eliminating that is quite important but if we suddenly start seeing this appetite for justice getting fed with Gary Neville or Andy Gray voiced replays of an absurdly slowed down nudge on bale ( the slow motion button on OB trucks is a dial, and the operator turns it to the most dramatic speed for TV ) then im afraid ill not be very happy. Im already at my wits end with football, and not because of referees.
AuroRaman
Chris Armstrong
Of course, you are right! The game would be affected, and in fairness, it wouldn't shed football fans in a good light compared to cricket/tennis fans. Apart from Woolwich, they'd be right at home with polite applause and harmless banter inbetween latte's and pain au chocolat.
Robbo
Les Ferdinand
So basically the only two possible options are commercial products that will likely cost far more than the simpler - but more than capable - option of a referee panel/5th official in the stands making a decision based on TV coverage?
I would be interested to see who owns the companies that produce those two technologies, and how much money is involved.
And of course, the links between the people that make this decision and the people who own the technology.
More than probably there's a good basis for a big news story somewhere in there.
I would be interested to see who owns the companies that produce those two technologies, and how much money is involved.
And of course, the links between the people that make this decision and the people who own the technology.
More than probably there's a good basis for a big news story somewhere in there.
tommysvr
Justin Edinburgh
A video ref, as they have in rugby and cricket, still gets things wrong a lot. You would find it hard to believe but the amount of decisions a video ref has got wrong in the Australian Rugby League is amazing. There is still human error and that is exactly what we're trying to get rid of.
Hawk eye for offsides would be great...but again, what if the linesman flags for offside, play stops and the hawk eye review shows that he was onside. Does the striker get the ball one-on-one again?
The only option that could be implemented right now, in my opinion, is the Goalref.
Hawk eye for offsides would be great...but again, what if the linesman flags for offside, play stops and the hawk eye review shows that he was onside. Does the striker get the ball one-on-one again?
The only option that could be implemented right now, in my opinion, is the Goalref.
I don't understand why we need either of the two options. Everyone watching Sundays game on tv knew the ball wasn't over the line before we had kicked off due to the numerous replays that were shown. All we need is the 4th official to have access to a monitor, look at the same replays that we at home can see and who can then let the ref know if it's a goal or not. Similarly, the Mendes goal, the QPR goal that wasn't given v Bolton this season, that ludicrous decision at Watford v Reading (I think) where the ball was nowhere near the goal and the ref gave it, etc can all be seen within, what, 10 seconds max after the incident. It should have been introduced years ago and is incredible and worrying that it hasn't been
The Hawk-Eye costs ?ú250,000 per ground. A disgrace, I know...