It Evens Itself Out Over A Season - The Ref's A ****

[Gilzeantoscore]

If people can bet bet on something, you can be sure it is corrupt.

 

[Richie]

The home team always gets more favorable calls, in every sport. I watch a lot of basketball and that is why home court advantage is considered such an advantage in the playoffs, because you know you will get the 50/50s go your way.

Its not corrupt, its just that the referees are human

I should also add that there are 3 referees on a Basketball court and they still get calls wrong. More referees is not the route to more correct decisions. The NBA at least saw sense and allowed video reviews at crucial times in the game

 

[Jurgen the German]

The home team always gets more favorable calls, in every sport. I watch a lot of basketball and that is why home court advantage is considered such an advantage in the playoffs, because you know you will get the 50/50s go your way.

Its not corrupt, its just that the referees are human

I should also add that there are 3 referees on a Basketball court and they still get calls wrong. More referees is not the route to more correct decisions. The NBA at least saw sense and allowed video reviews at crucial times in the game

There have always been conspiracy theories in basketball claiming that the Lakers get all the big calls. The big stars certainly get the benefit of the doubt that's for sure.

 

[braineclipse]

I reckon there is definitely corruption at some level. There's too much money stake in a business which is too poorly regulated for it not to be the case. If it were merely incompetence then I'd expect to see just as many wrongful red cards and pens against Chelsea and Man Utd when they play the Wigans and QPRs, but I don't see that happen.

Really? If one or two big teams had a ref or two in their pockets why not also pay the refs to be biased against their rivals when they play smaller teams? Unless every big teams have all the refs on their books wouldn't you expect there to be shenanigans against a team like City when they had a ref United felt they could buy or vice versa?

 

[mudshark]

The refusal to introduce video is the elephant in the living room; I think it's utterly absurd. I don't buy the arguments about slowing the game down, and the only thing that prevents me dismissing the idea of more systematic corruption out of hand is the rigour with which its use has been opposed at every turn.

 

[Jurgen the German]

The refusal to introduce video is the elephant in the living room; I think it's utterly absurd. I don't buy the arguments about slowing the game down, and the only thing that prevents me dismissing the idea of more systematic corruption out of hand is the rigour with which its use has been opposed at every turn.

If anything, it would speed the game up. Look at tennis, a sport where the players would bark at the umpires for minutes on end over a decision, then they introduced hawk eye and the challenge system, you won't see the players argue as much as they simply accept the technology has made the right decision.

All they would have to do in football is signal to 3 officials to look at a questionable call from a ref, he then takes a maximum time of say 90 seconds to look at the decision from a number of different vantage points, if they are not in complete agreement about the decision being wrong, then it remains the same, if they all decide the refs got it wrong, then they change it.

It wouldn't be perfect, but it would be better than the system in place now.

 

[mudshark]

If anything, it would speed the game up. Look at tennis, a sport where the players would bark at the umpires for minutes on end over a decision, then they introduced hawk eye and the challenge system, you won't see the players argue as much as they simply accept the technology has made the right decision.

All they would have to do in football is signal to 3 officials to look at a questionable call from a ref, he then takes a maximum time of say 90 seconds to look at the decision from a number of different vantage points, if they are not in complete agreement about the decision being wrong, then it remains the same, if they all decide the refs got it wrong, then they change it.

It wouldn't be perfect, but it would be better than the system in place now.

On top of that, you could even have a system where play continues, and only gets called back if the video ref raises a red flag. A bit like playing advantage, but with teeth.

Edit: My contention, though, is that video has been opposed by the media and punditry industry, despite what individuals might argue on air. They want to carry on producing their cosy highlights package programs full of chit-chat, and the primary staple of those is the "analysis" of controversial decisions.

 

[braineclipse]

On top of that, you could even have a system where play continues, and only gets called back if the video ref raises a red flag. A bit like playing advantage, but with teeth.

Edit: My contention, though, is that video has been opposed by the media and punditry industry, despite what individuals might argue on air. They want to carry on producing their cosy highlights package programs full of chit-chat, and the primary staple of those is the "analysis" of controversial decisions.

You could even have limited manager challenges like in American throwball. Mabye then players would stop whinging about every fudging decision as well, would be a good bonus.

 

[Jurgen the German]

On top of that, you could even have a system where play continues, and only gets called back if the video ref raises a red flag. A bit like playing advantage, but with teeth.

Edit: My contention, though, is that video has been opposed by the media and punditry industry, despite what individuals might argue on air. They want to carry on producing their cosy highlights package programs full of chit-chat, and the primary staple of those is the "analysis" of controversial decisions.

The official line from FIFA and UEFA is that they don't want to introduce technology because controversial incidents are talking points, which to them is a good thing. I'm sorry but how on earth is it a good thing when everyone at home can clearly see that an incident has potentially changed the outcome of the game and people are talking about a game for all the wrong reasons, i.e. a dodgy call from a ref/linesman? ](*,)

 

[Rorschach]

The official line from FIFA and UEFA is that they don't want to introduce technology because controversial incidents are talking points, which to them is a good thing. I'm sorry but how on earth is it a good thing when everyone at home can clearly see that an incident has potentially changed the outcome of the game and people are talking about a game for all the wrong reasons, i.e. a dodgy call from a ref/linesman? ](*,)

Is that official? Amazing.

 

[Jurgen the German]

Is that official? Amazing.

From what I understand, they like the fact that people talk about the controversial incidents. Nonsensical doesn't even begin to describe it!

 

[Jurgen the German]

Be interesting to see if the FA punish Ivanovic and suspend him for 3 games like he deserves to be.

 

[punk_is_back`]

If anything, it would speed the game up. Look at tennis, a sport where the players would bark at the umpires for minutes on end over a decision, then they introduced hawk eye and the challenge system, you won't see the players argue as much as they simply accept the technology has made the right decision.

All they would have to do in football is signal to 3 officials to look at a questionable call from a ref, he then takes a maximum time of say 90 seconds to look at the decision from a number of different vantage points, if they are not in complete agreement about the decision being wrong, then it remains the same, if they all decide the refs got it wrong, then they change it.

It wouldn't be perfect, but it would be better than the system in place now.

You wouldn't even need that. All you need is a sensor to tell you when the ball has crossed the line.

 

[Jurgen the German]

You wouldn't even need that. All you need is a sensor to tell you when the ball has crossed the line.

I was thinking more along the lines of was it a foul in the penalty area? That kind of thing.

 

[billyiddo]

all these elaborate solutions when all you need is an official in the stands watching the match via tv - it's so fudging simple of a solution that i cannot believe it hasn't been brought in. people will say it 'undermines' the ref - but who gives a fudge - the ref is only there to call the correct decisions, he isn't an actual part of the game -and if he needs video evidence to get more of the decisions correct then it should be allowed

 

[parklane1]

I would like to see goal line technology but thats it, i have no desire to see the game stopped every 10 minutes to see if this was that or not. And giving managers the chance to appeal 3 decisions ( which has been suggested) would be madness. if i want to sit in a stadium for ever waiting for the game to end i would start watch American sport.

 

[Jurgen the German]

all these elaborate solutions when all you need is an official in the stands watching the match via tv - it's so fudging simple of a solution that i cannot believe it hasn't been brought in. people will say it 'undermines' the ref - but who gives a fudge - the ref is only there to call the correct decisions, he isn't an actual part of the game -and if he needs video evidence to get more of the decisions correct then it should be allowed

=D>

They need all the help they can get with players like Young diving.

 

[Bullet]

I would like to see goal line technology but thats it, i have no desire to see the game stopped every 10 minutes to see if this was that or not. And giving managers the chance to appeal 3 decisions ( which has been suggested) would be madness. if i want to sit in a stadium for ever waiting for the game to end i would start watch American sport.

Not at all - each manager should have 3 decisions they can refer

E.g. Chelsea's two offside goals would be reviewed and repealed within 20 seconds and the game would be a lot better for it.

You would not be there "for ever" waiting whatsoever

 

[Rorschach]

I'm for retrospective punishment for 'simulation'. 5 game ban would eradicate it overnight.

What about sin bins? Works well for rugby.

 

[braineclipse]

I would like to see goal line technology but thats it, i have no desire to see the game stopped every 10 minutes to see if this was that or not. And giving managers the chance to appeal 3 decisions ( which has been suggested) would be madness. if i want to sit in a stadium for ever waiting for the game to end i would start watch American sport.

Goal line technology is the biggest red herring of football. Let's bring in a new and expensive system to sort out those 1-2 situations each season that the refs may or may not get wrong. Meanwhile there are several offside and penalty errors made every week.

I don't think video refs would slow the game down much at all. It could even speed it up. We're already seeing game after game being slowed down because players are complaining, whinging, rolling around on the ground and acting like dingdongheads. With video refs a lot of this could disappear, speeding up the game. The vast majority of the decisions would probably take no longer than a substitution or slight injury anyway. Small price to pay for more fairness in the game. Not even a price to pay compared to the price we're currently paying with the diving and whinging we're currently seeing.