Today's football.

[Seamus Colemole]

You're arguing against a stance i've never taken though. Didn't say it would cure all problems with officiating.

Another example would be the second yellow card given to Pienaar away at QPR last season. Upon second look it was blatantly obvious that he never touched the player he was accused of fouling. Any video ref seeing that would have overruled it and rightly so.

I know you're not, it was in relation to the wider belief in use of video technology, some of which was expressed in this thread, hence why i originally posted without replaying to anyone specific.

Well, a video ref who isn't biased against Everton and wants to stop us getting points would. You know, like all refs who give decisions aginst us according to some.

 

[Seamus Colemole]

Dont talk daft mate. The ref in the stand would likely have backed that up by agreeing he'd gone in studs up.

It'd have to be the most spectacular of gaffes for any reversal of a decision...which doesn't happen that often to warrant the change.

Haha brilliant.

Exactly my point that people thinking it would change anything are being pretty naive.

 

[toffeejack]

If the official on the pitch doesn't award anything then play on, simple.

It's impossible to have every single decision officiated by a third party and it would also be pointless. What i suggested would improve it a lot with very little sacrifice in terms of entertainment value.

i've suggested the same thing many a time, not sure it will ever be implemented, even if it does seem so simple though. i was just stating the fact that would we have a lot of moaning because with that theory, if the ref wrongly gives a pen it can be overturned, but if he wrongly allows play on, then it can't be rightly overturned. suppose nothing can be perfect though and even with all the technology in cricket, the outcome is never always 100% correct, it would be an improvement at the end of the day, but for set piece specialists who rely on dead balls like liverpool, if they're wrongly getting given corners/free kicks and scoring from them, that's no different from being given a wrong penalty and scoring from it. therefore, can we really only bring technology in purely for penalties?

 

[toffeejack]

it's a tough job for refs, that is obvious, the main problem for me though is that they don't understand the game at all, and i can see what davek and colemole are saying. wellbeck today, the ref is looking at and seeing "shirt pull" that's a penalty. if he knew the game, he would know that that tug was not enough to make someone fall over. if he watched welbeck enough he would know he's an utter donkey and falls over at the best of times. It wasn't a dive, he wasn't even appealing, but the ref thinks that by the rule book, that is a pen.

video tech would see a high rise in decision making and i suppose that's as good as we can get it whilst maintaining the people will always make mistakes mentality. players make mistakes, refs are too - they need to be trained better though, it's obvious for everyone to see, why not cut/tax player wages and take that money into training them better so that the sport doesn't go completely down the gutter like it is atm. there's millions and billions of money at stake and we've seen many instances of where history has been achieved because of terrible errors, mainly because they don't understand the game, but only know the rules.

 

[davek]

Utter nonsense.

Rodwell's leading boot was pointed downwards and it never even touched Suarez, it was his knee that made the slight contact.

The studs are up. We know it didn't go near him and shouldn't be a red card because we see things from a common sense pov. But these refs are guided by interpretation of a law regarding dangerous intent. The ref in the stand would have backed Atkinson up there.

 

[Seamus Colemole]

it's a tough job for refs, that is obvious, the main problem for me though is that they don't understand the game at all, and i can see what davek and colemole are saying. wellbeck today, the ref is looking at and seeing "shirt pull" that's a penalty. if he knew the game, he would know that that tug was not enough to make someone fall over. if he watched welbeck enough he would know he's an utter donkey and falls over at the best of times. It wasn't a dive, he wasn't even appealing, but the ref thinks that by the rule book, that is a pen.

video tech would see a high rise in decision making and i suppose that's as good as we can get it whilst maintaining the people will always make mistakes mentality. players make mistakes, refs are too - they need to be trained better though, it's obvious for everyone to see, why not cut/tax player wages and take that money into training them better so that the sport doesn't go completely down the gutter like it is atm. there's millions and billions of money at stake and we've seen many instances of where history has been achieved because of terrible errors, mainly because they don't understand the game, but only know the rules.

I don't really understand that post.

It is a refs job to enforce the rules, and the rules say that as Wellbecks shirt was pulled it was a foul. Simple as that, got absolutley nothing to do with whether it caused him to fall over or the ref not knowing the game or watching his previous games.

If that was part of the rules that any shirt tug had to be enough to cause a player to go over you'd have a point. But it isn't. The ref enforced the rules as as his job.

 

[toffeejack]

I don't really understand that post.

It is a refs job to enforce the rules, and the rules say that as Wellbecks shirt was pulled it was a foul. Simple as that, got absolutley nothing to do with whether it caused him to fall over or the ref not knowing the game or watching his previous games.

If that was part of the rules that any shirt tug had to be enough to cause a player to go over you'd have a point. But it isn't. The ref enforced the rules as as his job.

sorry, i meant as a way of obstruction not fall over. simply, that shirt "tug" if it were that was not enough to obstruct welbeck so it shouldn't have been a foul, but the ref's looking it as "shirt tug = foul", when he should have been looking at "was that enough to make welbeck fall over like a baby giraffe like he did".

 

[toffeejack]

The studs are up. We know it didn't go near him and shouldn't be a red card because we see things from a common sense pov. But these refs are guided by interpretation of a law regarding dangerous intent. The ref in the stand would have backed Atkinson up there.

we can't be sure either way. we'd hope the guy watching the replay would have more common sense than the ref - maybe he wouldn't have.

but out of 100 decisions, they are going to get more right than wrong you'd suspect.

 

[tsubaki]

Ronaldo lol

 

[Ring master]

Ronaldo lol

Yeah,great goal that 2nd goal

 

[kenada_blue]

Norwich will still be tough for Arsenal to beat last game. If we could have got a draw today it could have made all the difference.

You're not playing well/suffer an outrageous goal or two? Deal with it up and grind out a scruffy draw. I thought we felt like a win only was acceptable there today and heads dropped when that task got harder by going behind early.

Big time.

Its time like that you need a massive character and leader. We dont really have one.

 

[toffeejack]

does anyone think ronaldo can go down as the greatest of all time?

he can't do too much more, surely?

 

[davek]

we can't be sure either way. we'd hope the guy watching the replay would have more common sense than the ref - maybe he wouldn't have.

but out of 100 decisions, they are going to get more right than wrong you'd suspect.

For the most part, though, decisions to be made are border-line and the interpretation of them would have as many scratching their heads as do now with referee decisions.

I'm not opposed to change or looking to cut down on errors. I think goal line technology and offside technology are good developments because they're measurable. Sendings off or pens will just slow the game down for the most part....though obviously a massive;y outrageous decision will be corrected. Is that enough to bring in a new way of officiating though? Maybe. I'd be inclined to use any means if it stopped cash rich/influential clubs getting the decisions...which they do. That doesn't support the argument though that the 'ref in the stand' idea is going to be a fool proof way of getting the right result.

 

[Steve0]

Millwall's injury time equaliser cost me around £150. Cockney bellends.

 

[rascal]

Why am I giving myself false hope that Newcastle will beat Arsenal? I need taken out to the back and shooting.