• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Massimo Giovanni

Old Timer⭐
Joined
May 10, 2011
Messages
9,568
Location
Siena
I am watching the NZ 1st innings at Headingly and England have just called the 2nd successful review of a LBW; a huge game changer that has given two wickets and two important, reviewed correct decisions.
Interestingly NZ made their appeals and didn't call them right.
What is wanted is the correct decisions, speedily and openly decided.
Well done to the cricket and surely there must be better ways to get more decisions right in football?
And is goal line technology maybe the start of opportunities for other reviews?
 

fbm

Blue tinted optimist⭐
Joined
Oct 28, 2003
Messages
9,084
Location
Cloud cuckoo land
The difference in cricket is that there are so many natural stoppages it is easy to use technology.

In football, the game is so fluid that even a wrong decision over a throw in can lead to a goal so where do you stop? I wasn't in favour of goal-line technology but as they are bringing it in anyway I hope that's where it stays and that the game isn't strangled by too much technology.
 

fbm

Blue tinted optimist⭐
Joined
Oct 28, 2003
Messages
9,084
Location
Cloud cuckoo land
To follow on from that (see what I did there?), I think the solution is to invest more in the officials and have a team of say 6 officials per game and for the refs to get their heads out of their backsides and allow the assistants to do just that - assist - instead of pompously restricting the decisions they can make and allow them to flag for anything. I'm particularly referring to the goal-line assistants in the European games who were practically mute.

That's my understanding of their roles anyway - if Mick (or any other qualified ref) is reading, is that about right or am I way off the beam?
 

Massimo Giovanni

Old Timer⭐
Joined
May 10, 2011
Messages
9,568
Location
Siena
What we (all?) want is the correct decisions; if each side had a very small number of reviews then they would need to think hard before appealing; especially if it relied on TV replay evidence existing & showing decisive yes/no result rather than interpretation.
Very few times would anyone waste an appeal on a throw in decision however a corner/goalkick might be decided from a replay and make a difference, or a hand ball, dive instead of foul etc.,
And from the test matches I have seen a review decision ADDS to the excitement although it does take a minute or so (as an injury break or goal celebration does).
 

GNH

Fish House Ultras⭐
Joined
Oct 26, 2003
Messages
3,130
Location
Rayleigh
The problem is not as simple as reviewing decisions with the aid of technology. Cricket has been used here as an example of where it works well, and it does. The trouble is the decisions of cricket are matter of fact. It either is lbw or not, it either pitched in line or does not, it's either hitting the stumps or it's not.

The laws of football are set out to be determined by the referees interpretation of the incident. If a player is touched and goes down in the box, the ref must decide if the contact was enough to warrant a foul and a penalty. It's not a case of there was the slightest contact therefore it is a penalty so how on earth is a replay going to help with that? You are effectively undermining the ref on every decision he makes. The only way it will work is goal line technology which, like cricket, is a law that is matter of fact, the whole of the ball either crossed the line or it didn't
 

leeblue

Members⭐
Joined
Aug 22, 2006
Messages
8,508
Location
On the seafront c c csiders
I despise the notion of using any technology in football. The dodgy decisions, missed fouls/dives/goals especially the big ones become the stuff of legend and what ifs.......this is part of the very human fabric of the game.......do one technology the game has survived fine for over a hundred years without it......yawn fest approaching
 

buffalowolf

Director
Joined
Sep 1, 2012
Messages
2,918
Location
ON MY *** IN FRONT OF COMPUTER
GOAL LINE TECHNOLOGY FAIR ENOUGH , BUT CANT SEE IT WORKING ELSEWHERE. BUT I MUST ADMIT I SURE THE eNGLAND TEAM WOULD HAVE LOVED IT IN 2 WORLD CUP INCIDENTS , ONE VERSUS gERMANY IN THE LAST WORLD CUP , AND WAY BACK IN THE hAND oF gOD INCIDENT.
 

IloveShrimp

Director⭐
Joined
Dec 31, 2007
Messages
2,660
Location
Wickford
Technology breaks will happen... Just another excuse for advertising space on the telly. Money talks!
 

londonblue

Topgun Pilot
Joined
Feb 18, 2004
Messages
17,112
What we (all?) want is the correct decisions; if each side had a very small number of reviews then they would need to think hard before appealing; especially if it relied on TV replay evidence existing & showing decisive yes/no result rather than interpretation.
Very few times would anyone waste an appeal on a throw in decision however a corner/goalkick might be decided from a replay and make a difference, or a hand ball, dive instead of foul etc.,
And from the test matches I have seen a review decision ADDS to the excitement although it does take a minute or so (as an injury break or goal celebration does).

The thing about cricket is that the action all happens in a very specific area of the "pitch", making it easy aim the cameras. Football moves far too much, and far too fast to be guaranteed that a camera will pick up the incident correctly. It's OK when sky have their cameras at a game, but when they don't, then all we've got (using Roots Hall as an example) is one camera above the West stand. Who is going to pay to have sky-type coverage of every game in the football league each week?

Don't also forget that it isn't perfect in cricket either. When England toured India there was no DRS because (I believe) the local broadcaster didn't want to provide the extra cameras needed. In my opinion, you either have it at all matches at that level or you don't use it at all.
 

chapperzUK

Guest
I despise the notion of using any technology in football. The dodgy decisions, missed fouls/dives/goals especially the big ones become the stuff of legend and what ifs.......this is part of the very human fabric of the game.......do one technology the game has survived fine for over a hundred years without it......yawn fest approaching

You must be an Aldershot fan then :winking:

As has been already mentioned, football is a free flowing game and that is why people love it. With cricket, rugby and tennis there are natural breaks in play for technology to be used. For the goal line technology, from what I read it doesn't interrupt the natural flow of the game as if it is a goal it will notify the ref instantly without the need for stopping play.

The only other decisions that maybe helped by technology are offside decisions and if the ball went out of play anywhere else on the pitch as they are clear cut yes or no decisions. For fouls, there is no way technology can decide the outcome as it will come down to the interpretation from the ref and it isn't a simple case of "was there contact or not?". Same with handballs, there is much more to consider when it hits an arm.

I'm just hoping that if the technology is used for goal line decisions, then it has been thoroughly tested. Could you imagine if a team was relegated because technology got it wrong .....
 

dannypav

President
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
5,807
It doesn't matter how many decision reviews you have in football , you're never going to get a League 2 striker given out L.B.W
 

Mick

Life President
Joined
Oct 28, 2003
Messages
10,378
GOAL LINE TECHNOLOGY FAIR ENOUGH , BUT CANT SEE IT WORKING ELSEWHERE. BUT I MUST ADMIT I SURE THE eNGLAND TEAM WOULD HAVE LOVED IT IN 2 WORLD CUP INCIDENTS , ONE VERSUS gERMANY IN THE LAST WORLD CUP , AND WAY BACK IN THE hAND oF gOD INCIDENT.

Hmmm .. can see why you might be apprehensive about technology :winking:
 

Mick

Life President
Joined
Oct 28, 2003
Messages
10,378
I despise the notion of using any technology in football.


Yes, it was a sad day when the tape across the top of the goal was replaced by a crossbar.


And just think how much less damage the likes of Deadman could do with a white handkerchief rather than that new fangled whistle.
 

Fish

Manager
Joined
May 14, 2005
Messages
1,414
Location
Witham
Whoever said that football is too fluid and fast for technology to work nearly made me choke on my tea.

Football has so many unnecessary and lengthy stoppages that it wouldn't make the blindest bit of difference if we had a technology appeal system too. All that faffing around with direct free kicks, time wasting, stoppages for cards, arguments etc make for a very jilted spectacle many weeks.

Secondly, a football really doesn't move that fast that a camera can't track it. It's not like it's cricket-ball sized and pinging round the pitch at 90 miles an hour is it?

How about each team has just one 'life' each half for referring to a video ref, which they lose once they appeal a decision incorrectly? It would be simple to determine what sort of decisions could be referred/appealed and which couldn't. And the end result would be you'd be more likely to get the critical decisions correct.

Having a referral system would also reduce the appalling and unacceptable dissent that footballers subject referees to as well. Because with a right to appeal, it encourages the player to put up or shut up. If they think they've got a good case, they can appeal it. If they don't feel they want to appeal it, then they can't whinge at the ref.
 

fbm

Blue tinted optimist⭐
Joined
Oct 28, 2003
Messages
9,084
Location
Cloud cuckoo land
Whoever said that football is too fluid and fast for technology to work nearly made me choke on my tea.

Football has so many unnecessary and lengthy stoppages that it wouldn't make the blindest bit of difference if we had a technology appeal system too. All that faffing around with direct free kicks, time wasting, stoppages for cards, arguments etc make for a very jilted spectacle many weeks.

Secondly, a football really doesn't move that fast that a camera can't track it. It's not like it's cricket-ball sized and pinging round the pitch at 90 miles an hour is it?

How about each team has just one 'life' each half for referring to a video ref, which they lose once they appeal a decision incorrectly? It would be simple to determine what sort of decisions could be referred/appealed and which couldn't. And the end result would be you'd be more likely to get the critical decisions correct.

Having a referral system would also reduce the appalling and unacceptable dissent that footballers subject referees to as well. Because with a right to appeal, it encourages the player to put up or shut up. If they think they've got a good case, they can appeal it. If they don't feel they want to appeal it, then they can't whinge at the ref.

But the best games are the ones without the unnecessary stoppages so you don't want to have a system that allows additional referrals. Also, you want something that is transferable to lower levels of the game without immense cost. Goal line technology of the sort that bleeps if the ball goes over the line is ok, but are they going to make it just for goalmouth stuff or is it when the ball goes out of play generally? The point I was making about the game being fluid is that cricket is a game that is broken into natural segments and what happens in one delivery doesn't necessarily affect the next one. If there is a problem the whole thing is reviewed and they look at the entire delivery, was it a no ball, hotspots, the lot. So with football, consider this scenario; there is a 15 pass move that ends up with the ball being put in from close range. The defence appeal for offside but the goal is given so there is a challenge. The review shows that the player is onside but just before the ball is played into the box, there is a deliberate handball that was missed and not appealed for. What's the verdict? If the goal isn't disallowed then the real "offence" that the review system was designed to eliminate has slipped through the net. And if the goal is disallowed, then how far back will they be allowed to go when reviewing to see if there was a problem?

It's a potential nightmare. Best left alone and try to concentrate on improving the standard of refereeing, with huge and retrospective punishments for players who try to con the refs and cheat.
 

londonblue

Topgun Pilot
Joined
Feb 18, 2004
Messages
17,112
Football has so many unnecessary and lengthy stoppages that it wouldn't make the blindest bit of difference if we had a technology appeal system too. All that faffing around with direct free kicks, time wasting, stoppages for cards, arguments etc make for a very jilted spectacle many weeks.
But if an offside is claimed, and given erroneously, but the player would have been through on goal. When do you stop the game?

Secondly, a football really doesn't move that fast that a camera can't track it. It's not like it's cricket-ball sized and pinging round the pitch at 90 miles an hour is it?
Not really relevant. The action all takes place at the batsman's end, and he hardly moves. Also, the direction the ball will be moving is almost entirely predictable, something that isn't the case in football.
 
Last edited:

Beefy

Life President
Joined
Oct 27, 2003
Messages
18,906
Location
Old Leigh
Like Fish, I don't really understand the argument about football being too quick a game for referrals. Of course it isn't. Your average 90 minute match will have the ball in play for less than 60 of those minutes. Football is a very slow-paced game with a huge number of natural breaks.

There should be a referral system at least with decisions only overturned if the evidence shows quickly that the original decision was wrong (so the issue of degrees of contact shouldn't really come into it but clear handballs or cases where the ball either is or is not out of play can be caught). Personally I'd have almost everything refereed by cameras. The idea that the richest game in the World allows offside decisions to be made by middle-aged blokes waving pieces of cloth whilst pretending that it's possible to look in two places at once is laughable.
 

dannypav

President
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
5,807
Off topic , but if I could change one thing it would be to somehow irradicate 'time wasting'.
Other than tougher laws / tougher refs , I don't see how it's done , but I hate the fact that in tight games , one team spends the last 20 or so minutes ( some could argue the entire second half ) , slowing the game down and wasting time.
Hate it !
 
Top