Dundee United v Rangers

Welcome to The Arab League, one of the longest established Dundee United Football forums, with many members from the old ArabFC forum.

New members are always welcomed, so to join the debate, just sign up - registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join The Arab League!

If you're already a member please log in:

Pages:
1
…
7
8
9
…
13

Dundee United v Rangers; Next match - Sat 10 Sep, 12:30
Tweet Topic Started: Sep 7 2011, 10:52 AM (7,789 Views)
Conan the Destroyer	Sep 13 2011, 08:23 PM Post #106
I prefer it when we're pish Posts: 3,265 Group: Members Member #6 Joined: September 10, 2010	Ivan Sep 13 2011, 07:41 PM And Clubfoot is an awful c*nt for throwing himself to the ground in the moments before the incident. That's true. Little has been made of Clubfoot's hellish dive that provoked Russell's reaction. My only gripe with the ref's handling of it was that it should've been a free kick to United.



reekie	Sep 13 2011, 10:27 PM Post #107
lum raker Posts: 3,201 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: September 16, 2010	Ivan Sep 13 2011, 07:41 PM And Clubfoot is an awful cunt for throwing himself to the ground in the moments before the incident. You had me at, 'And Clubfoot is an awful cunt...' Edited by reekie, Sep 13 2011, 10:29 PM.



Morvant's Finest	Sep 14 2011, 12:55 PM Post #108
Tommy McLean Posts: 2,106 Group: Members Member #37 Joined: January 13, 2011	Just catching up with things after being away, sounds like we were pretty unfortunate not to take anything from the game. One observation is that it's taken at least 10 different football fans, with the benefit of viewing 3 different slow motion camera angles numerous times, 4 days to come to the conclusion that the penalty incident could easily have been called either way (and I'd be one of those not sure what decision to give as well). I don't want to get back into the same discussion....and I'm sure there will be a clear cut case that will prove how effective they would be next week....but this kind of incident is one of the main reasons I'll always have serious doubts about TV replays. Given it would be a video ref sitting in a booth watching the same footage for a couple of minutes at most, would allowing him to make the ultimate decision really end the arguments or just provoke more? Just saying like...



findus	Sep 14 2011, 01:00 PM Post #109
Jerry Kerr Posts: 4,444 Group: Members Member #2 Joined: September 10, 2010	Morvant's Finest Sep 14 2011, 12:55 PM Just catching up with things after being away, sounds like we were pretty unfortunate not to take anything from the game. One observation is that it's taken at least 10 different football fans, with the benefit of viewing 3 different slow motion camera angles numerous times, 4 days to come to the conclusion that the penalty incident could easily have been called either way (and I'd be one of those not sure what decision to give as well). I don't want to get back into the same discussion....and I'm sure there will be a clear cut case that will prove how effective they would be next week....but this kind of incident is one of the main reasons I'll always have serious doubts about TV replays. Given it would be a video ref sitting in a booth watching the same footage for a couple of minutes at most, would allowing him to make the ultimate decision really end the arguments or just provoke more? Just saying like... No, spot on, this incident microcosm's the main reason why I don't want to see video replays introduced into football. Hice hols?



Conan the Destroyer	Sep 14 2011, 01:05 PM Post #110
I prefer it when we're pish Posts: 3,265 Group: Members Member #6 Joined: September 10, 2010	findus Sep 14 2011, 01:00 PM Morvant's Finest Sep 14 2011, 12:55 PM Just catching up with things after being away, sounds like we were pretty unfortunate not to take anything from the game. One observation is that it's taken at least 10 different football fans, with the benefit of viewing 3 different slow motion camera angles numerous times, 4 days to come to the conclusion that the penalty incident could easily have been called either way (and I'd be one of those not sure what decision to give as well). I don't want to get back into the same discussion....and I'm sure there will be a clear cut case that will prove how effective they would be next week....but this kind of incident is one of the main reasons I'll always have serious doubts about TV replays. Given it would be a video ref sitting in a booth watching the same footage for a couple of minutes at most, would allowing him to make the ultimate decision really end the arguments or just provoke more? Just saying like... No, spot on, this incident microcosm's the main reason why I don't want to see video replays introduced into football. Hice hols? How? Unless video can clear up 100% of cases don't use it for any? Don't be soft.



The Eggman	Sep 14 2011, 01:08 PM Post #111
Tommy McLean Posts: 2,119 Group: Members Member #5 Joined: September 10, 2010	Morvant's Finest Sep 14 2011, 12:55 PM Given it would be a video ref sitting in a booth watching the same footage for a couple of minutes at most, would allowing him to make the ultimate decision really end the arguments or just provoke more? It would end most arguments. And even if it didn't end this one, that's fine; the evidence is still inconclusive, so it would be down to the ref to decide. Which is fine. My only reasoning for video evidence is that a ref has only one view, at full time speed. Video evidence would enhance the angles.



findus	Sep 14 2011, 01:19 PM Post #112
Jerry Kerr Posts: 4,444 Group: Members Member #2 Joined: September 10, 2010	Conan the Destroyer Sep 14 2011, 01:05 PM findus Sep 14 2011, 01:00 PM Morvant's Finest Sep 14 2011, 12:55 PM Just catching up with things after being away, sounds like we were pretty unfortunate not to take anything from the game. One observation is that it's taken at least 10 different football fans, with the benefit of viewing 3 different slow motion camera angles numerous times, 4 days to come to the conclusion that the penalty incident could easily have been called either way (and I'd be one of those not sure what decision to give as well). I don't want to get back into the same discussion....and I'm sure there will be a clear cut case that will prove how effective they would be next week....but this kind of incident is one of the main reasons I'll always have serious doubts about TV replays. Given it would be a video ref sitting in a booth watching the same footage for a couple of minutes at most, would allowing him to make the ultimate decision really end the arguments or just provoke more? Just saying like... No, spot on, this incident microcosm's the main reason why I don't want to see video replays introduced into football. Hice hols? How? Unless video can clear up 100% of cases don't use it for any? Don't be soft. In that it in football the rules are interpreted, not strictly followed. Imagine on the same weekend the same incident at three different grounds, the ref takes a different course of action in each game, each goes to the video replay, and each video replay decision differ from each other. That totally makes sense because football is more perspective/opinion than fact. For me, it's that video won't 'clear up' anything even approaching 100%, more likely that it won't 'clear up' much at all most of the time, we're still ending up with a judgement call the vast majority of the time. It'd cause more net harm and uproar than good.



Conan the Destroyer	Sep 14 2011, 01:38 PM Post #113
I prefer it when we're pish Posts: 3,265 Group: Members Member #6 Joined: September 10, 2010	findus Sep 14 2011, 01:19 PM Conan the Destroyer Sep 14 2011, 01:05 PM findus Sep 14 2011, 01:00 PM Morvant's Finest Sep 14 2011, 12:55 PM Just catching up with things after being away, sounds like we were pretty unfortunate not to take anything from the game. One observation is that it's taken at least 10 different football fans, with the benefit of viewing 3 different slow motion camera angles numerous times, 4 days to come to the conclusion that the penalty incident could easily have been called either way (and I'd be one of those not sure what decision to give as well). I don't want to get back into the same discussion....and I'm sure there will be a clear cut case that will prove how effective they would be next week....but this kind of incident is one of the main reasons I'll always have serious doubts about TV replays. Given it would be a video ref sitting in a booth watching the same footage for a couple of minutes at most, would allowing him to make the ultimate decision really end the arguments or just provoke more? Just saying like... No, spot on, this incident microcosm's the main reason why I don't want to see video replays introduced into football. Hice hols? How? Unless video can clear up 100% of cases don't use it for any? Don't be soft. In that it in football the rules are interpreted, not strictly followed. Imagine on the same weekend the same incident at three different grounds, the ref takes a different course of action in each game, each goes to the video replay, and each video replay decision differ from each other. That totally makes sense because football is more perspective/opinion than fact. For me, it's that video won't 'clear up' anything even approaching 100%, more likely that it won't 'clear up' much at all most of the time, we're still ending up with a judgement call the vast majority of the time. It'd cause more net harm and uproar than good. What about - first example to come into my head - Lafferty's dive from Mulgrew's "headbutt" two years back? Football is about opinions. However, much of it is so clear cut that these opinions are as good as facts.



The Eggman	Sep 14 2011, 01:47 PM Post #114
Tommy McLean Posts: 2,119 Group: Members Member #5 Joined: September 10, 2010	findus Sep 14 2011, 01:19 PM we're still ending up with a judgement call the vast majority of the time. It'd cause more net harm and uproar than good. Okay, so, let's say 70% of video evidence is inconclusive. 30% is conclusive.* Just choosing a majority figure, even though I disagree with your premise. 30% of decisions are then improved/confirmed. 70% of decisions are then back in the domain of where we are right now, ie judgement call from one official. How can that cause more net harm? What would be done? Since rugby is refereeing of the same manner, that could serve as an example. What uproar has there been in rugby where a replay is inconclusive?



Morvant's Finest	Sep 14 2011, 02:41 PM Post #115
Tommy McLean Posts: 2,106 Group: Members Member #37 Joined: January 13, 2011	The Eggman Sep 14 2011, 01:47 PM findus Sep 14 2011, 01:19 PM we're still ending up with a judgement call the vast majority of the time. It'd cause more net harm and uproar than good. Okay, so, let's say 70% of video evidence is inconclusive. 30% is conclusive.* Just choosing a majority figure, even though I disagree with your premise. 30% of decisions are then improved/confirmed. 70% of decisions are then back in the domain of where we are right now, ie judgement call from one official. How can that cause more net harm? What would be done? Since rugby is refereeing of the same manner, that could serve as an example. What uproar has there been in rugby where a replay is inconclusive? There are quite a lot of decisions that Rugby refs don't even refer though Eggs (and so far less detailed discussion as to whether he made the right decision or not (and what goes on in rugby is often out of sight of the cameras anyway)), one recent glaring example is the goalkick in the Wales - South Africa game the other day, where replays showed it could easily have been given but wasn't even referred. So that adds another level of uncertainty into the system, whether or not the ref even refers a decision or not. If he's certain enough at the time he won't, what happens when he's wrong? Also who has the ultimate decision if the video ref and the on-field ref disagree? The video ref could say he's certain of a decision but a 2nd view could disagree. I'd agree that it could help to correct a fair percentage of decisions that were clearly wrong, but at least there's an acceptance from those who are for it that it's nowhere near being a complete solution to the problem of bad refereeing calls.



Conan the Destroyer	Sep 14 2011, 03:00 PM Post #116
I prefer it when we're pish Posts: 3,265 Group: Members Member #6 Joined: September 10, 2010	Morvant's Finest Sep 14 2011, 02:41 PM There are quite a lot of decisions that Rugby refs don't even refer though Eggs (and so far less detailed discussion as to whether he made the right decision or not (and what goes on in rugby is often out of sight of the cameras anyway)), one recent glaring example is the goalkick in the Wales - South Africa game the other day, where replays showed it could easily have been given but wasn't even referred. So that adds another level of uncertainty into the system, whether or not the ref even refers a decision or not. If he's certain enough at the time he won't, what happens when he's wrong? So don't do it like that. Do it like challenges in tennis. Also who has the ultimate decision if the video ref and the on-field ref disagree? The video ref could say he's certain of a decision but a 2nd view could disagree. Just pick someone to be in ultimate charge. So many diifcult questions - so many easy answers.... Edited by Conan the Destroyer, Sep 14 2011, 03:00 PM.



The Eggman	Sep 14 2011, 07:11 PM Post #117
Tommy McLean Posts: 2,119 Group: Members Member #5 Joined: September 10, 2010	Morvant's Finest Sep 14 2011, 02:41 PM but at least there's an acceptance from those who are for it that it's nowhere near being a complete solution to the problem of bad refereeing calls. Is that it? At least all people in favour of it accept that it's not perfect? I don't see how that helps the 'no' argument. There's no such thing as a complete solution. That's never been the argument. The argument is that it will help make some decisions right when they would have been wrong without video evidence. Some. It is impossible to give a figure on conclusiveness. If it would help 1 decision out of 1 million, then I wouldn't be in favour (because of cost). And it wouldn't be worthwhile. But it would quite obviously help in more than 1 in a million calls. What if 10 video calls out of 20 show that the original decision is right (or inconclusive)? Where's the problem?



Morvant's Finest	Sep 15 2011, 10:01 AM Post #118
Tommy McLean Posts: 2,106 Group: Members Member #37 Joined: January 13, 2011	Conan the Destroyer Sep 14 2011, 03:00 PM Morvant's Finest Sep 14 2011, 02:41 PM There are quite a lot of decisions that Rugby refs don't even refer though Eggs (and so far less detailed discussion as to whether he made the right decision or not (and what goes on in rugby is often out of sight of the cameras anyway)), one recent glaring example is the goalkick in the Wales - South Africa game the other day, where replays showed it could easily have been given but wasn't even referred. So that adds another level of uncertainty into the system, whether or not the ref even refers a decision or not. If he's certain enough at the time he won't, what happens when he's wrong? So don't do it like that. Do it like challenges in tennis. Also who has the ultimate decision if the video ref and the on-field ref disagree? The video ref could say he's certain of a decision but a 2nd view could disagree. Just pick someone to be in ultimate charge. So many diifcult questions - so many easy answers.... Challenges is a better way of doing it certainly, but given the main aim would be to eliminate the situation where a game is decided by an obviously wrong decision, what happens when a team uses up all their challenges and in the last minute of a game a glaringly wrong decision goes against them? The evidence is there to see for the whole stadium/viewing public but it can't be corrected. The only way to completely eliminate the chance of that happening would be to have unlimited (or a very large amount of) challenges and that's going to have a major affect on the flow of the game, introducing what happens in games like basketball where "challenges" would become the equivalent of time-outs that are used to allow teams under pressure to re-group. I know this already happens in football with substitutions and players feigning injury but do we want even more tactical stoppages allowed? As for deciding who is in ultimate charge, yep that's a fair shout, just choose who makes the final decision. But at the moment the best qualified, most experienced and least likely to be biased (in terms of the countries/teams involved) refereeing official is put in charge of the biggest games. So would that official sit in a booth or is he on the pitch? Good refereeing is about more than just making decisions, it's also about having the respect of the players, making instant decisions like allowing advantage etc. So would that be lost from the biggest games (I appreciate this is less of a problem as there are numerous similarly qualified officials). Eggs, the comment about it not being a complete solution wasn't inferring that everyone who supports the system on here is saying it will eradicate every bad decision. More that when people in the media or the game in general speak about it being introduced there is rarely a detailed discussion about the pros and cons.



The Eggman	Sep 15 2011, 10:34 AM Post #119
Tommy McLean Posts: 2,119 Group: Members Member #5 Joined: September 10, 2010	Morvant's Finest Sep 15 2011, 10:01 AM More that when people in the media or the game in general speak about it being introduced there is rarely a detailed discussion about the pros and cons. From the 'pro' camp, that may be because the cons aren't that convincing. The only tangible argument against it that I personally can see is that it may - will - slow down the game. The other con arguments I just can't see as being an issue, and more about the fine detail about implementation, rather than the principled need for correct decisions. Many people are in favour of video evidence, but many of them will disagree on how video evidence should be implemented. But they can still agree, I think, that the need, even if it's not implemented in exactly the way they like, is there.



findus	Sep 15 2011, 10:56 AM Post #120
Jerry Kerr Posts: 4,444 Group: Members Member #2 Joined: September 10, 2010	The Eggman Sep 15 2011, 10:34 AM Morvant's Finest Sep 15 2011, 10:01 AM More that when people in the media or the game in general speak about it being introduced there is rarely a detailed discussion about the pros and cons. From the 'pro' camp, that may be because the cons aren't that convincing. The only tangible argument against it that I personally can see is that it may - will - slow down the game. The other con arguments I just can't see as being an issue, and more about the fine detail about implementation, rather than the principled need for correct decisions. No, it's not about the fine detail, it's about the overall concept not being applicable to the game of football. Why is there a principled need for correct decisions? What does 'correct' even mean when talking about football decisions? If you could insta-poll the public/referees/whoever, 51% of the respondents saying it should go that way? Two-thirds? 90%?


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Any Football · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
…
7
8
9
…
13