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
…
8
9
10
…
13

Dundee United v Rangers; Next match - Sat 10 Sep, 12:30
Tweet Topic Started: Sep 7 2011, 10:52 AM (7,788 Views)
Conan the Destroyer	Sep 15 2011, 11:13 AM Post #121
I prefer it when we're pish Posts: 3,265 Group: Members Member #6 Joined: September 10, 2010	Morvant's Finest Sep 15 2011, 10:01 AM 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? *Law 18 Challenges - Section 2 - Where all challenges have been used and a team feels an incorrect decision has been made, this will be deemed "Tough Tits".* 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? *Whatever you want. You're arguing that the fine print undermines the whole principle and I don't think it does.*



Conan the Destroyer	Sep 15 2011, 11:19 AM Post #122
I prefer it when we're pish Posts: 3,265 Group: Members Member #6 Joined: September 10, 2010	findus Sep 15 2011, 10:56 AM 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%? I'm not suggesting a Who Wants To Be A Millionaire style of refereeing. There's a dodgy call, Houstie doesn't like it, out comes the Joker. Ref waddles over to the wee TV screen beside the dugout, and says aye or nay. Alternatively , challenge is made, boy in the stand looks at TV, sees : 1) Kalvenes was clearly barged in the box - speaks into Kenny Clark's earpiece and says "ooh-err, you've made a c*nt of that boss". Penalty to United, and we don't need to look at Kris Boyd doing his horrible "taunting" pus. 2) he can't tell if Swanson has Swan-dived or if that hun defender has tripped him. Relays info to ref, ref can come and have a look for himself if he likes. If he can't tell then stick with original decision. It's not hard.



The Eggman	Sep 15 2011, 11:28 AM Post #123
Tommy McLean Posts: 2,119 Group: Members Member #5 Joined: September 10, 2010	findus Sep 15 2011, 10:56 AM Why is there a principled need for correct decisions?



findus	Sep 15 2011, 11:37 AM Post #124
Jerry Kerr Posts: 4,444 Group: Members Member #2 Joined: September 10, 2010	Conan the Destroyer Sep 15 2011, 11:19 AM findus Sep 15 2011, 10:56 AM 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%? I'm not suggesting a Who Wants To Be A Millionaire style of refereeing. There's a dodgy call, Houstie doesn't like it, out comes the Joker. Ref waddles over to the wee TV screen beside the dugout, and says aye or nay. Alternatively , challenge is made, boy in the stand looks at TV, sees : 1) Kalvenes was clearly barged in the box - speaks into Kenny Clark's earpiece and says "ooh-err, you've made a cnt of that boss". Penalty to United, and we don't need to look at Kris Boyd doing his horrible "taunting" pus. 2) he can't tell if Swanson has Swan-dived or if that hun defender has tripped him. Relays info to ref, ref can come and have a look for himself if he likes. If he can't tell then stick with original decision. It's not hard. And his comrade in the alternate universe version of the matches thinks that Kalvanes made a meal of it and that Swanson should definitely have a penalty. It still almost always comes down to interpretation of the rules in football, and so a video replay procedure still could not give us consistency from game to game, and indeed not even in the same game. Where's the fairness, if we're looking for fairness, in Swanny getting booked for that one, yet XYZ getting a penalty and the offending player a 2nd yellow card for the same incident 20 miles down the road? How often do we scream at the ref, "But that's the same one you just let the opposition bastard away with!", when the ref is clearly seeing things a bit differently. Sticking with the same decision because something is inconclusive is still a problem as it's only inconclusive to the replay viewer in the stand - ask supporters of each team and they'll tell you it should have gone the way of their team, the 2nd ref is a dumpling! The only situations where I think video replays could be useful is for 'did it cross the line?'ers, off-the-ball assaults, and 100% clear dives (defender literally nowhere near the player). Which happen how often? P.S. I'm not talking about really having Who Wants to be a Millionaire type voting, I'm using it as a measure of when is a decision 'correct'. Edited by findus*, Sep 15 2011, 11:39 AM.



findus	Sep 15 2011, 11:38 AM Post #125
Jerry Kerr Posts: 4,444 Group: Members Member #2 Joined: September 10, 2010	The Eggman Sep 15 2011, 11:28 AM findus Sep 15 2011, 10:56 AM Why is there a principled need for correct decisions?



Homer	Sep 15 2011, 11:47 AM Post #126
Ian McCall Posts: 640 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: September 10, 2010	findus Sep 15 2011, 11:38 AM The Eggman Sep 15 2011, 11:28 AM findus Sep 15 2011, 10:56 AM Why is there a principled need for correct decisions?



The Eggman	Sep 15 2011, 11:50 AM Post #127
Tommy McLean Posts: 2,119 Group: Members Member #5 Joined: September 10, 2010	findus Sep 15 2011, 11:38 AM The Eggman Sep 15 2011, 11:28 AM findus Sep 15 2011, 10:56 AM Why is there a principled need for correct decisions? It's the last minute of the World Cup Final. Scotland are losing 1-0 to Italy. If a cheating greasy Italian goombah intentionally stops the ball going into the net with his hand, but no official sees it (ref has his vision obscured, same with assistant ref), and play continues, then the match finishes 1-0 to Italy 10 seconds later, do we want that? Or do we want the ability for the Scotland captain, fine upstanding fellow that he is, to politely ask the ref to view the video evidence. The officials check the video evidence, and it just so happens that when the ref looks at the video evidence, he thinks "I didn't see that because my view was blocked by a mass of players. But now I can see that the player handled it. I will award a penalty and send off the cheat." Is that not the correct decision? Isn't that something we obviously want in principle?



whatsthatonyourback	Sep 15 2011, 11:52 AM Post #128
Waldo Jeffers Posts: 4,443 Group: Members Member #3 Joined: September 10, 2010	While heartily endorsing Chippy's tough tits, the problem with the challenges system is when the play hasn't stopped - such as Flampard's shot against Germany. Could England challenge the non-award of a goal while play continues? How long do they have to make a challenge? What if Germany had raced upfield and were about to score? I guess the obvious solution is for referees to be able to immediately refer such a decision to Vido, with each team also having one challenge for any decision that halts the game. One reason I'm in favour of some sort of challenge system where the on-field referee's decision is not final is that it will improve refereeing. No longer will any (sub)conscious thoughts of what decision is the easiest to give influence the ref, and a record of successful challenges against particular referees could be very interesting. I can see why many referees would be against such a performance-improving system.



findus	Sep 15 2011, 11:57 AM Post #129
Jerry Kerr Posts: 4,444 Group: Members Member #2 Joined: September 10, 2010	The Eggman Sep 15 2011, 11:50 AM findus Sep 15 2011, 11:38 AM The Eggman Sep 15 2011, 11:28 AM findus Sep 15 2011, 10:56 AM Why is there a principled need for correct decisions? It's the last minute of the World Cup Final. Scotland are losing 1-0 to Italy. If a cheating greasy Italian goombah intentionally stops the ball going into the net with his hand, but no official sees it (ref has his vision obscured, same with assistant ref), and play continues, then the match finishes 1-0 to Italy 10 seconds later, do we want that? Or do we want the ability for the Scotland captain, fine upstanding fellow that he is, to politely ask the ref to view the video evidence. The officials check the video evidence, and it just so happens that when the ref looks at the video evidence, he thinks "I didn't see that because my view was blocked by a mass of players. But now I can see that the player handled it. I will award a penalty and send off the cheat." Is that not the correct decision? Isn't that something we obviously want in principle? A once in a lifetime scenario, so no.



The Eggman	Sep 15 2011, 12:00 PM Post #130
Tommy McLean Posts: 2,119 Group: Members Member #5 Joined: September 10, 2010	findus Sep 15 2011, 11:57 AM A once in a lifetime scenario, so no. You asked why we want the correct decision. Wouldn't you want the correct decision in this case?



The Eggman	Sep 15 2011, 12:01 PM Post #131
Tommy McLean Posts: 2,119 Group: Members Member #5 Joined: September 10, 2010	findus Sep 15 2011, 11:57 AM A once in a lifetime scenario, so no. Most of the cases where video evidence is needed is where the ref doesn't have a good angle to see the offence. Or when the offence is happened too quickly, he can't tell (so video evidence can slow it down). These are very common occurrences.



findus	Sep 15 2011, 12:10 PM Post #132
Jerry Kerr Posts: 4,444 Group: Members Member #2 Joined: September 10, 2010	The Eggman Sep 15 2011, 12:00 PM findus Sep 15 2011, 11:57 AM A once in a lifetime scenario, so no. You asked why we want the correct decision. Wouldn't you want the correct decision in this case? Yes, but this once in a lifetime incident has nothing to do with whether video evidence would make football better as a whole.



Morvant's Finest	Sep 15 2011, 12:12 PM Post #133
Tommy McLean Posts: 2,106 Group: Members Member #37 Joined: January 13, 2011	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. 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. Eggs, I do think there is another fundamental change to the game that it would bring though, over and above slowing the game down, namely that it would completely erode the authority of the referee if every decision he makes can be challenged. It's often mentioned how Football would improved if the players gave the referee more respect like they do in Rugby. Surely taking away a referee's authority to make the final call on a decision would only erode that further? Oh and sorry Conan, forgot about your Law of Tough Tits from the other thread.



findus	Sep 15 2011, 12:17 PM Post #134
Jerry Kerr Posts: 4,444 Group: Members Member #2 Joined: September 10, 2010	The Eggman Sep 15 2011, 12:01 PM findus Sep 15 2011, 11:57 AM A once in a lifetime scenario, so no. Most of the cases where video evidence is needed is where the ref doesn't have a good angle to see the offence. Or when the offence is happened too quickly, he can't tell (so video evidence can slow it down). These are very common occurrences. They might be quite common, but it's irrelevant if he still has to make a judgement call (that other referees would call differently and others the same) when watching the vid. A rugby/tennis referee/umpire with an obscured view of an incident usually has a very clear way to judge a video decision based on a very clear rule that needs no interpretation - was the ball/body-part over/on the line or not. That's why it works in those sports and why their success there shouldn't be used as a reason it would work in football. It's apples and giraffes.



Morvant's Finest	Sep 15 2011, 12:18 PM Post #135
Tommy McLean Posts: 2,106 Group: Members Member #37 Joined: January 13, 2011	By the way if there's ever a UEFA consultative process held to discuss said matters, they should really just read these two recent threads, skip the discussions and go straight to the buffet....


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

Pages:
1
…
8
9
10
…
13