*Official* English Football Season 2009-2010

[sledger]

What?

Are you saying that we can put man on the moon, but we can't use technology to tell whether a ball has crossed a line? You must be joking.

Unfortunately not, there have been numerous issues with consistency when testing such a method apparently. I for one think a video ref for disputed goal line incidents would be a reasonable option. Pretty much every premiership ground has goal line cameras anyway, so it wouldn't exactly be too hard to impliment such a system.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I don't think video evidence would clear anything up at all, because even on replay we can't agree on whether it was a penalty. You seem to think that because he fell a split-second early whilst being blatantly fouled it's not a penalty, and I disagree.

Goal-line technology is all I can see working at the moment. Football doesn't really have the stop-start mechanism of cricket, rugby or tennis. Am certainly open to suggestions though.

Couple of points there really:

a) Rooney didn't fall whilst being fouled, he started to fall before; had he waited I'd say yes, penalty, as he didn't strictly speaking it was a dive but there's no realistic way the ref could've seen that which means in practice it will be a penalty 9/10;

b) Video technology could be introduced by a couple of simple adjustments: either waiting for the next time the ball goes dead when the ref hasn't blown up for an offence but where one has been committed or if the ref blows for a foul that turns out to have been a dive he just reverses the free-kick to the defending team.

 

[sledger]

To be honest though, even if there had been a video ref, the Rooney incident in all probabilty would have been given a pen.

 

[Uppercut]

Couple of points there really:

a) Rooney didn't fall whilst being fouled, he fell before; had he waited I'd say yes, penalty, as he didn't strictly speaking it was a dive but there's no realistic way the ref could've seen that which means in practice it will be a penalty 9/10;

b) Video technology could be introduced by a couple of simple adjustments: either waiting for the next time the ball goes dead when the ref hasn't blown up for an offence but where one has been committed or if the ref blows for a foul that turns out to have been a dive he just reverses the free-kick to the defending team.

I still think it was a penalty on the grounds that Almunia fouled Rooney by throwing himself in front of his path whilst he was running full-speed, and that's a foul regardless of whether Rooney dived or not.

But the fact that we're even having this discussion shows the difficulty in video evidence being used for penalty decisions. We've watched it countless times on replay and still can't agree on whether it's a penalty or not, how would a video ref manage to make a decision on it?

Can't agree with waiting for the ball to go dead either, that can be two or three minutes (possibly culminating in a goal for the other team) that are thereafter rendered irrelevant. And the idea of reversing the free kick doesn't hold up because most penalty shouts are neither penalties nor dives.

 

[Uppercut]

Citeh have sent a letter to United warning them about a "racist" chant about Adebayor. The one that goes "his Dad washes elephants, his Mum's a whore". Don't see how it's any more offensive than saying Leeds fans shag sheep, Scousers eat rats in council houses and Park Ji-Sung eats dogs. And it's definitely less offensive than calling Arsene Wenger a paedophile. Seems a bit of a storm in a teacup to me, when I heard about the fuss I presumed there was a new one that's actually racist.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Yeah it's just neagtive stereotyping. It's not on, as I can imagine the mindset of the sort of people who sing probably is racist.

 

[sledger]

Citeh have sent a letter to United warning them about a "racist" chant about Adebayor. The one that goes "his Dad washes elephants, his Mum's a whore". Don't see how it's any more offensive than saying Leeds fans shag sheep, Scousers eat rats in council houses and Park Ji-Sung eats dogs. And it's definitely less offensive than calling Arsene Wenger a paedophile. Seems a bit of a storm in a teacup to me, when I heard about the fuss I presumed there was a new one that's actually racist.

Yeah, can see why they would have done it, but I mean, it's hardly the worst or most vulgar chant in the world. Pretty sure he had to put up with all that crap from fans when he played for Arsenal anyway. Some of the abuse he got from the Everton crowd when I went to see them play was far worse than this.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I still think it was a penalty on the grounds that Almunia fouled Rooney by throwing himself in front of his path whilst he was running full-speed, and that's a foul regardless of whether Rooney dived or not.

But the fact that we're even having this discussion shows the difficulty in video evidence being used for penalty decisions. We've watched it countless times on replay and still can't agree on whether it's a penalty or not, how would a video ref manage to make a decision on it?

Can't agree with waiting for the ball to go dead either, that can be two or three minutes (possibly culminating in a goal for the other team) that are thereafter rendered irrelevant. And the idea of reversing the free kick doesn't hold up because most penalty shouts are neither penalties nor dives.

Waiting for the ball to go dead could work when players adjust. In rugby union play goes on after a ref has awarded a penalty to see if any advantage accrues, if it doesn't play goes back to the original offence and everything that happened after is effectively null and void. Same deal with football: ref thinks a foul has been committed, might touch a button to alert the TMO and play goes on for as long as it takes until there's a break in play. If an offence was committed play just goes back to it.

It would also have the knock-on advantage of encouraging players to play to the whistle and not appeal for every ****ing thing if they knew play was going to go on.

Reversing a free-kick could also work because the ref is usually pretty sure before he blows. If he blows up for a penalty and on inspection it isn't the chances are it'll be because there's been no contact, i.e. simulation. In cases where there isn't (say the defender took the ball) knowing going to ground might give a free-kick to the defending side might encourage a few more of the accident-prone to remain verticle.

 

[Uppercut]

Waiting for the ball to go dead could work when players adjust. In rugby union play goes on after a ref has awarded a penalty to see if any advantage accrues, if it doesn't play goes back to the original offence and everything that happened after is effectively null and void. Same deal with football: ref thinks a foul has been committed, might touch a button to alert the TMO and play goes on for as long as it takes until there's a break in play. If an offence was committed play just goes back to it.

It would also have the knock-on advantage of encouraging players to play to the whistle and not appeal for every ****ing thing if they knew play was going to go on.

Reversing a free-kick could also work because the ref is usually pretty sure before he blows. If he blows up for a penalty and on inspection it isn't the chances are it'll be because there's been no contact, i.e. simulation. In cases where there isn't (say the defender took the ball) knowing going to ground might give a free-kick to the defending side might encourage a few more of the accident-prone to remain verticle.

Play only goes on in rugby for one or two phases though. Play in football could, in theory, go on for the entire game, only for it all to be rendered inconsequential because someone was fouled in the first thirty seconds.

Not having it, sorry. You'll need to do better than that to sell the idea to me.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Play only goes on in rugby for one or two phases though. Play in football could, in theory, go on for the entire game, only for it all to be rendered inconsequential because someone was fouled in the first thirty seconds.

Not having it, sorry. You'll need to do better than that to sell the idea to me.

Given the ball's in play for an average of somewhere between 60-65 minutes in Prem games I don't think your objection is one that should trouble the rule-makers unduly. I'm sure there's a stat for the average number of breaks in play during a game somewhere, but I'd guess it's about thirty a half.

& I'd have said getting more decisions right and discouraging simulation where pretty strong positives to come from it in any event.

 

[Uppercut]

It slows play down massively, a significant proportion of the time no one can agree on what the "right" decision is anyway and I suspect players would hate sprinting 80 yards down the field as part of a breakaway following a penalty shout only to have play dragged back and their efforts rendered irrelevant anyway. I'm not having it.

Also, I don't actually care about discouraging simulation.

 

[BoyBrumby]

It slows play down massively, a significant proportion of the time no one can agree on what the "right" decision is anyway and I suspect players would hate sprinting 80 yards down the field as part of a breakaway following a penalty shout only to have play dragged back and their efforts rendered irrelevant anyway. I'm not having it.

Also, I don't actually care about discouraging simulation.

Fair enough. I imagine that puts you in the minority tho. Few things more irksome to the average supporter than seeing your team beaten by some grubby little bit of cheating. If you don't see a problem I'm not going to convince you, am I?

& as for players hating having to run 80 yards: HTFU. Midfielders get through about seven miles in the average game.

 

[Uppercut]

I don't think it's as big a problem as everyone makes out. I'd rather be beaten by an iffy penalty than by a last-minute free kick. There's plenty of worse ways to lose.

I hate the feigning injury though, that really ****ing grinds my gears.

 

[Loony BoB]

As I've said many times, simulation etc. is not black and white and therefore video technology would be incredibly hard to use to any advantage. If it's a tripping where a player dives after not getting touched a la Eboue vs. United recently then power to a video ref to notify the main ref about it. But in player vs. goalkeeper and the whole trip/dive/jump/etc scenario? No thanks. Eduardo has been fined for simulation based on this exact thing and there has been a lot of people from both Arsenal and other clubs that have said it was a bad decision. This just proves that it doesn't work.

 

[GIMH]

Man U fans against video evidence for diving. Hmmm...

 

[BoyBrumby]

As I've said many times, simulation etc. is not black and white and therefore video technology would be incredibly hard to use to any advantage. If it's a tripping where a player dives after not getting touched a la Eboue vs. United recently then power to a video ref to notify the main ref about it. But in player vs. goalkeeper and the whole trip/dive/jump/etc scenario? No thanks. Eduardo has been fined for simulation based on this exact thing and there has been a lot of people from both Arsenal and other clubs that have said it was a bad decision. This just proves that it doesn't work.

I'm not one-eyed enough to suggest it was anything other than a dive. I think the precedent it sets is more alarming; if Eduardo had been called for his theatrics during the game it'd have been a yellow at worst (& now IIRC it takes three cautions for a one-game ban in Yurp?) but because the ref bought it (and, somewhat myopically, stuck by his original decision) the offence is somehow worth a two game ban?

Don't wanna get carried away, but that's surely against natural jusitce?

 

[Uppercut]

Man U fans against video evidence for diving. Hmmm...

We lost several titles to a side with Robert Pires in it

 

[PhoenixFire]

Chelsea in transfer ban?

 

[Loony BoB]

I'm not one-eyed enough to suggest it was anything other than a dive. I think the precedent it sets is more alarming; if Eduardo had been called for his theatrics during the game it'd have been a yellow at worst (& now IIRC it takes three cautions for a one-game ban in Yurp?) but because the ref bought it (and, somewhat myopically, stuck by his original decision) the offence is somehow worth a two game ban?

Don't wanna get carried away, but that's surely against natural jusitce?

GIMH: I know we dive, but so do your lot, so do players in the Championship. What I don't know is what you can do in cases such as Eduardo's and Rooney's and many others. It should only be if it's 100% a dive with no debate or "arguable" nature to it then the player should be punished. ie, when there's no goalkeeper flopping in front of them and they aren't at full speed and they really never did get touched at all etc etc.

 

[sledger]

We lost several titles to a side with Robert Pires in it

Better than Ronaldo imo.