Difference between Promotion and Relegation

[Beefy]

How has DRS not enhanced things? Far fewer decisions have gone the wrong way this series than they would have done had DRS not been in place. If the DRS issue this Summer has shown everything it's the desire to get as many decisions right as possible.

 

[Grayson]

Australia have done a mighty good job of whinging enough to convince the general British public that DRS has failed, and even more specifically failed their team.

DRS is good. In cricket, where most of the time a decision is clear, it works. In football, there may be too many borderline decisions for it to work effectively, but we won't know unless we try it.

 

[Neil_F]

Yes, we should have video refs. Not having video refs is a real Luddite position to be in. The technology is there so use it.

Where I have a problem with technology in football is that the laws of the game are less defined than they are in, say, cricket. For an lbw decision to be overturned it simply has to be assessed on four clearly defined crtieria (did the batsman hit it, did it pitch outside leg, did it hit the batsman in line, would it have hit the stumps).

The laws of football are not so precise as it brings in both intention and the, "manner considered by the referee." Again, using the cricket analogy, whether the bowler intended to bowl full and straight to get an lbw is totally irrelevant, as is whether the umpire thought it was a good ball or a bad shot. If the measureable criteria are satisfied it is out. In football, did the defender deliberately handle the ball and did the defender make contact with the player before the ball in a manner deemed to be, "careless, reckless or using excessive force?" That is all interpretation.

This point is illustrated by the level of disagreement among TV pundits even after they have seen 30 slow motion replays. You are merely substituting one person's interpretation for another.

You can argue that it might work better for offside decisions since that is more clearly defined in the laws. Again though, you will get endless disagreement among pundits as to whether someone is offside or not, even looking at a freeze frame. The problem is cameras are never directly in line, it is often impossible to determine exactly when the ball is played and even what constitutes being "nearer the goal line" (i.e. centre of gravity, feet, head???). The expense of using hi-def cameras that tracked the last defender to always be in line would be enormous.

The laws of the game are based on interpretation. Yes, there are some obvious mistakes (usually mistaken identity or players cheating) that cost points. At the end of the season though there has never been a team that has won the league or been relegated because referees.

 

[the_forgotten_man]

Hate the cliched old line that 'football can learn a lot from rugby'. Which sport essentially allows players to stamp on their opponents' heads (see Lions Tour)? Which sport sees players front up and start a mini-brawl in every match? Which sport sees players tackle so recklessly that opponents have been paralysed? Which sport saw a club conspire to use fake blood to their advantage (that really is ****ing embarrassing).

But because the public school boys say 'sir' to the ref they're considered respectful. Load of ****.

 

[AMOTU]

Where is all going to stop ! The plastic league now have goal line technology, the Dutch are looking at some sort of automated system re off sides ... all nonsense ! The game might as well be played by computers if this goes on. Forwards miss sitters, goal keepers make mistakes and so, amazingly enough, do officials. But these are all factors that make the game what it is, exciting and debateable. Would you really like a game to be stopped just so a forward can have another go at a shot he fluffed ? That's where thing are heading though. So there should be a stop to this tampering with our game and it should be left alone !!

 

[londonblue]

Very true! The whole DRS, Hotspot malarky has taken a real shine off the game, just let the umpires get on with it. Its not used as intended, more guess work hoping you get a lucky reprieve, instead of being used to rectify the odd clanger

We may be going off topic here, but who cares. We won The Ashes again!

 

[Jam_Man]

Cricket is a stop start game, football is far more flowing.

You could have an incident at one end of the pitch that results in having play being brought back when it has already gone up the other end of the pitch.

As I said earlier, there may be technolgy available but it would disrupt the game far too much and would be too costly for clubs our size to run just to save on the odd decision here or there.

 

[OldBlueLady]

Thank you to whoever corrected the spelling in the thread title, it was really winding me up!!!

 

[Beefy]

Cricket is a stop start game, football is far more flowing.

You could have an incident at one end of the pitch that results in having play being brought back when it has already gone up the other end of the pitch.

As I said earlier, there may be technolgy available but it would disrupt the game far too much and would be too costly for clubs our size to run just to save on the odd decision here or there.

I don't see why it would take any longer to have a guy watching on screens in the stands making a decision than it would for the guy on the pitch with the whistle.

Realistically, whilst I'd have everything (especially offsides) decided by technology in reality a referral system like that in use in just about every other sport that has managed to get into the 20th century let alone the 21st, wouldn't require the game to be stopped very often. Football is a stop start game. The ball is barely in play for an hour in a game.

 

[Neil_F]

Football is a stop start game. The ball is barely in play for an hour in a game.

How about the following: one team have an appeal for a penalty after the ball strikes the defender's arm in the box. His arm is at his side, not raised, but the ball has travelled 10 yards and was goal bound. The referee does not give a penalty. From the rebound the other team go down the other end and score without the ball going out of play.

How would your referral system work?

 

[Beefy]

The same way it would work in other sports... The manager indicates to the officials straight away that they're appealing the call and when the ball is out of play the decision is reviewed. You seem to be suggesting that football is the only fast game where this sort of thing happens. NFL may be stop-start but the equivalent situation you're describing happens.

You can come up with hypothetical situations where it won't work, and maybe you'll find some. I'd have thought that anything that allows us to get more decisions right would be preferable to just shrugging our shoulders and writing-off bad mistakes as "one of those things".

 

[Neil_F]

. I'd have thought that anything that allows us to get more decisions right would be preferable to just shrugging our shoulders and writing-off bad mistakes as "one of those things".

My point is there are limited circumstances in which a decision in football can be considered "right". Was it handball? Not everyone will agree so what is the point of using technology?

In the scenario I described there would be absolute outrage if a goal was disallowed and a penalty given at the other end because one official had a different interpretation from another. Reviews in football wouldn't be correcting errors for the most part but getting a second opinion in the hope that someone else would interpret it differently.

 

[londonblue]

The same way it would work in other sports... The manager indicates to the officials straight away that they're appealing the call and when the ball is out of play the decision is reviewed. You seem to be suggesting that football is the only fast game where this sort of thing happens. NFL may be stop-start but the equivalent situation you're describing happens.

You can come up with hypothetical situations where it won't work, and maybe you'll find some. I'd have thought that anything that allows us to get more decisions right would be preferable to just shrugging our shoulders and writing-off bad mistakes as "one of those things".

That's fine, but assuming the appeal is successful, the penalty is given and the goal disallowed. What do you do with the clock? Let's assume that 20 seconds elapsed between the handball incident and goal. Do you add the 20 seconds back? Do we get into an NFL situation where the clock continually stops? I know that I wouldn't like that to happen.

 

[Jam_Man]

The same way it would work in other sports... The manager indicates to the officials straight away that they're appealing the call and when the ball is out of play the decision is reviewed. You seem to be suggesting that football is the only fast game where this sort of thing happens. NFL may be stop-start but the equivalent situation you're describing happens.

You can come up with hypothetical situations where it won't work, and maybe you'll find some. I'd have thought that anything that allows us to get more decisions right would be preferable to just shrugging our shoulders and writing-off bad mistakes as "one of those things".

NFL by its nature is a stop start game where its the norm for the game to have been stopped. Its stopped pretty much more than its actually being played.

Fans get frustrated at a soccer game if the ref blows for offside, imagine if he was doing it after 30 seconds or more had passed.

Im all for goal line technology but I dont see how it, or more video technology can be applied at a cost effective level outside of the premiership.

My point is there are limited circumstances in which a decision in football can be considered "right". Was it handball? Not everyone will agree so what is the point of using technology?

In the scenario I described there would be absolute outrage if a goal was disallowed and a penalty given at the other end because one official had a different interpretation from another. Reviews in football wouldn't be correcting errors for the most part but getting a second opinion in the hope that someone else would interpret it differently.

Some decisions are black and white but how many questionable decisions are discussed by pundits at half time and they still dont make a definitive statement after seeing 6 replays from different angles? Thats with all the cameras sky can bring to bear on the game.

Just dont see how its feasible to even do it properly.

 

[Beefy]

My point is there are limited circumstances in which a decision in football can be considered "right". Was it handball? Not everyone will agree so what is the point of using technology?

I don't really get this argument. There are plenty of cases where there's a right or wrong. Look at the Barry Corr dismissal on Saturday. The linesman advised the referee that Corr had kicked out. He was wrong. Had it been reviewed the whole situation could have been cleared up in seconds.

In your example if the referee saw the ball hit the arm but decided it wasn't a penalty then it couldn't be reviewed. If he didn't see it hit the hand and would have given it had he have seen it then it could be reviewed. It's not about interpretations it's about clearing up the numerous cases of clear right and wrong decisions being given the wrong way.

In the scenario I described there would be absolute outrage if a goal was disallowed and a penalty given at the other end because one official had a different interpretation from another. Reviews in football wouldn't be correcting errors for the most part but getting a second opinion in the hope that someone else would interpret it differently.

Only if you're deciding that those are the criteria and that anything can be reviewed purely to provide a second opinion. Which I don't think anyone has called for.

 

[Jam_Man]

I don't see why it would take any longer to have a guy watching on screens in the stands making a decision than it would for the guy on the pitch with the whistle.

Realistically, whilst I'd have everything (especially offsides) decided by technology in reality a referral system like that in use in just about every other sport that has managed to get into the 20th century let alone the 21st, wouldn't require the game to be stopped very often. Football is a stop start game. The ball is barely in play for an hour in a game.

Having to back up and watch the incident again takes longer, the Sky team will often look at an incident several times and still not come up with a definitive answer.

There will be times when it would work, ie the Corr incident. But there will be plenty when it wouldnt, well where it wouldnt benefit the game.

Tennis Hawkeye is great, in or out.

Cricket should work, ie it hit the bat or it didnt, or it was going to hit the wicket or it wasnt.

Trying to judge some of the stuff that happens in football can be a lot harder. Certainly easier with replays, but its the time that it takes to review it when the game is going on that makes it unfeasible for me.

 

[Beefy]

But it doesn't take longer. It's clearly easier to assess an offside from a TV screen in real time than it is for a linesman running the line waving a silly flag. A linesman cannot be looking in two places at once and therefore by default there's guesswork involved in every single offside call. Have that decision made in the stands and it will be more accurate and no slower.

 

[Jam_Man]

But it doesn't take longer. It's clearly easier to assess an offside from a TV screen in real time than it is for a linesman running the line waving a silly flag. A linesman cannot be looking in two places at once and therefore by default there's guesswork involved in every single offside call. Have that decision made in the stands and it will be more accurate and no slower.

If you arent going to use replays and just view the TV then yes it will be the same speed, however you still need to look in two places to know when the ball is played, albeit possibly easier on TV,however when they analyse these decisions on TV they always use replays in slow mo before deciding.

 

[Neil_F]

In your example if the referee saw the ball hit the arm but decided it wasn't a penalty then it couldn't be reviewed. If he didn't see it hit the hand and would have given it had he have seen it then it could be reviewed. It's not about interpretations it's about clearing up the numerous cases of clear right and wrong decisions being given the wrong way.

From your description it sounds as though you are talking about having a permanent TV referee who constantly communicates with the referee on the field rather than a review system? Or something where the referee asks a 4th official to have a look?

That could work better than a team driven review system (as per cricket). I still think logistics are a problem though given the phases of play. For example, ball is played forward and the referee asks for an offisde review after the defender puts it out for a throw. That isn't an easy thing to review in real time as the 4th official can't watch both the game and the defensive line without having 3 monitors and the right camera angle. Do we then have to wait for the throw in to be taken to check it? Even if it is 15 seconds that will add up.

My position is it isn't worth it. I think it makes a difference in cricket because once a batsman is out he is done for the game. In football you have 90 minutes to win a game. Some decisions will go for you and some against, but I'm yet to see a football match decided by the referee.

 

[wally4pm]

I'm in favour of technology because at the end of the day we all want fair and correct decisions. In rugby and cricket waiting for the decision on the big screen actually enhances the enjoyment of cheering or booing the decision. I would rather wait a few moments to get a correct decision than lose a goal or player by a rank poor decision.