Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:58 am
Liverpool FC Forum
Liverpool Football Club Discussion
https://www.liverpoolfc-newkit.co.uk/
Appalling referring standard - Video technology needed now...
Page 3 of 4
Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:58 amPosted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:59 amliamac wrote:You have an excellent point LAKES , and like you said that scenario would be a hard one to call , hence why i say try it out in a mini tournament , iron it out there , decide where video footage can be used and where it cant . Its like a trial run where they chew over it and decide if it does work.
The thing is , its pretty obvious that at some point it will have to be used for example....... goals like the one that wasnt allowed in the scum game ..........ok an easy one to choose i know , but all the same there is way to much at stake now.
There is always another way to...............have an official watching the game on the screen who ca nrelay messages to the ref ...............the technology has been there for years, why not try that as well
i think you are right we should have an official watching the game on the screen but they could also give goals after the game like tonights one
Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 3:01 amI think we had a similar thread couple months ago when we got mugged by the ref AGAIN. I opposed to it then because there are just too many technical issue on the implementation and might also affect the flow of the game. I also stated that you win some and you lose and things will average out but unfortunately our team has been screwed over and over again and I was too naive believing in the ref. I think we should use video reply in situation when deciding whether the ball crossed the line, whether it was a penalty when the whistle is blown or deliberate foul. As for offside, its impossible to use video replay as there is no fixed line on the pitch like American Football but if the FA implement the above changes, there should be minimum effect on the flow of the game as it might only add about 5 to 10 minutes to the game maxed.
Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 3:07 amit might only add about 5 to 10 minutes to the game maxed.
***********************
in that case a player should not be aloud to ask for a replay and it should only be down to the ref and the 4th offical.
if they dont do this you would have every player asking all the time for it , every time a foul is given or not given that they would be chasing the ref. and i could see teams like man u and the as*'s asking for it every time a goal is scored against them.
***********************
in that case a player should not be aloud to ask for a replay and it should only be down to the ref and the 4th offical.
if they dont do this you would have every player asking all the time for it , every time a foul is given or not given that they would be chasing the ref. and i could see teams like man u and the as*'s asking for it every time a goal is scored against them.
Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 3:10 ammust get some sleep all this thinking doing my head in lol good noght.
Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 3:16 amGood for you and I just started working....Anyway, in most cases, the rule of thumb for going to video replay is when the 2 refs cannot agree on a certain call. I think there should be an adjusting period but when the rule is set down and being enforced, the players would have no choice but to follow.
Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 3:21 amI think is useless we all ( the fans ) talking about video replay because we all just a fan. What we should do now is to talk to all clubs not only in England, around the world too. Maybe if all the clubs refuse to play on the match day because the video replay is need in soccer , maybe the FA or FIFA might listen and change the rules of the game.
Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 3:34 amIts tough enough to sell the idea in England as many of them are old schooled footballer who will reject anything they don't know. Don't mind pusing FIFA to agree. But I guess if we can do it well in England, the rest will follow.
Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 11:22 amHas no one ever thought that maybe some refs/linesmen are just downright cheats. There is no other explanation for what happened at Old Trafford. If Robinson had made the error, the goal would have stood.
About 80% of these comical decisions always seem to favour Man U.
About 80% of these comical decisions always seem to favour Man U.
Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 12:19 pmI read somewhere recently that an ex German referee has developed a football that when it crosses the line a buzzer on the referee's wrist goes off, I can't fond the article on it at the moment ut thats one solution
Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 12:31 pmStan Laurel wrote:Not sure about video technology, because I do feel it will ruin the football game.
What is the problem with the 4th official who can INSTANTlY see if it's a goal, penalty, offside etc..... and give the signal to the ref ? After all thats what Assistant referees on the line are allowed to do ?
he stands there with his finger up his ****** anyway doing little in the way iof officiating except to get the managers back in their zones
Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 12:37 pmTheres an often trotted out comment at times like this that it balances itself out over the season
Absolute tosh in my opinion.
Liverpool have had an offside against Bolton = Disallowed goal
Offside against Boro = Disallowed goal
Handball against Chelsea = No penalty
A corner conceded that never was against the Mancs which led to their second goal.
What have we had in the way of a favour then ?
And anyway you can't excuse poor decisions by saying you will get a poor decision in your favour in the next game .
This is football, not a sport decided by the refereee's whim .....
Absolute tosh in my opinion.
Liverpool have had an offside against Bolton = Disallowed goal
Offside against Boro = Disallowed goal
Handball against Chelsea = No penalty
A corner conceded that never was against the Mancs which led to their second goal.
What have we had in the way of a favour then ?
And anyway you can't excuse poor decisions by saying you will get a poor decision in your favour in the next game .
This is football, not a sport decided by the refereee's whim .....
Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:19 pmFA explains Man United goal ruling -
An FA spokesman after the game absolved the linesman of any responsibility for the apparently mistaken decision not to award a goal to Spurs after a shot from the halfway line crossed the goal line by at least a meter.
"The shot came in from an unusual distance and as such caught the linesman out of position forcing him to race back towards the goal as the play developed", explained the spokesman, "As he ran, the United scarf he was wearing under his shirt came loose and fluttered up into his face obscuring his view and preventing him from making the call. It was just one of those things."
In response to further questions from the Press the spokesman explained "If they don't already have a United tattoo most officials on game day try to wear a scarf or a replica shirt under their regulation kit to show their support for the worlds greatest club. The linesman in this case had chosen to wear a United scarf, a common choice that is in keeping with FA guidelines. The root cause of the problem lies not with the linesman but with the players and management of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club who broke one the most important unwritten rules of the English FA: They placed a shot on target at Old Trafford. Martin Jol is new to this country and perhaps he s not yet familiar with some of our finer traditions. Fortunately if he doesn't yet understand that for the greater good of the game visiting teams, by tradition, are not expected to try to score at Old Trafford then our officials are in a position to help Mr Jol make that cultural adjustment."
Chuckling to himself the FA spokesman added "The goal had to be disallowed to avoid us descending down a slippery slope that would be bad for the national game. It's a fine line the officials have to walk. If they award a goal this week, next week someone might expect a penalty or ask that Van Nistleroy be booked for diving. Can you imagine? That would just never do. No no no. Shocking, just the thought of it."
An FA spokesman after the game absolved the linesman of any responsibility for the apparently mistaken decision not to award a goal to Spurs after a shot from the halfway line crossed the goal line by at least a meter.
"The shot came in from an unusual distance and as such caught the linesman out of position forcing him to race back towards the goal as the play developed", explained the spokesman, "As he ran, the United scarf he was wearing under his shirt came loose and fluttered up into his face obscuring his view and preventing him from making the call. It was just one of those things."
In response to further questions from the Press the spokesman explained "If they don't already have a United tattoo most officials on game day try to wear a scarf or a replica shirt under their regulation kit to show their support for the worlds greatest club. The linesman in this case had chosen to wear a United scarf, a common choice that is in keeping with FA guidelines. The root cause of the problem lies not with the linesman but with the players and management of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club who broke one the most important unwritten rules of the English FA: They placed a shot on target at Old Trafford. Martin Jol is new to this country and perhaps he s not yet familiar with some of our finer traditions. Fortunately if he doesn't yet understand that for the greater good of the game visiting teams, by tradition, are not expected to try to score at Old Trafford then our officials are in a position to help Mr Jol make that cultural adjustment."
Chuckling to himself the FA spokesman added "The goal had to be disallowed to avoid us descending down a slippery slope that would be bad for the national game. It's a fine line the officials have to walk. If they award a goal this week, next week someone might expect a penalty or ask that Van Nistleroy be booked for diving. Can you imagine? That would just never do. No no no. Shocking, just the thought of it."
Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:19 pmI personally think it's inevitable but at the same time it will inevitably bring up more problems aswell.
The problem is when you give it an inch it will take a mile. For some things like off the ball assualts or balls that have clearly crossed the line, it seems obvious. There's no middle ground with these incidents and someone in a control room could say, "that was a goal. definitely." or "Dunne just clocked someone." the ref would have a quick chat and that would be that. But then every wrong offside would be questioned and video evidence on all the questionable offsides would clearly disrupt the flow. Of course on penalty claims it could never be used, such things are not even agreed on once we've seen it 32 times, from 8 angles, in slow-motion and had andy gray scribble all over the picture. I cannot imagine the fury of players and managers if the video over-turned the ref's decision, like last night, the ball is fumbled, play on, oh no hang on a second a minute later the goal is given.
It's a tricky balance, personally i don't see why we can't just have more than 4 officials, there's 22 players in a game of football and 4 men to control them and decide everything, in tennis there is 2 men playing and 8 officials, plus some extra modern technology.
Interesting
The problem is when you give it an inch it will take a mile. For some things like off the ball assualts or balls that have clearly crossed the line, it seems obvious. There's no middle ground with these incidents and someone in a control room could say, "that was a goal. definitely." or "Dunne just clocked someone." the ref would have a quick chat and that would be that. But then every wrong offside would be questioned and video evidence on all the questionable offsides would clearly disrupt the flow. Of course on penalty claims it could never be used, such things are not even agreed on once we've seen it 32 times, from 8 angles, in slow-motion and had andy gray scribble all over the picture. I cannot imagine the fury of players and managers if the video over-turned the ref's decision, like last night, the ball is fumbled, play on, oh no hang on a second a minute later the goal is given.
It's a tricky balance, personally i don't see why we can't just have more than 4 officials, there's 22 players in a game of football and 4 men to control them and decide everything, in tennis there is 2 men playing and 8 officials, plus some extra modern technology.
Interesting
Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:58 pmDalglish wrote:Theres an often trotted out comment at times like this that it balances itself out over the season
Absolute tosh in my opinion.
Liverpool have had an offside against Bolton = Disallowed goal
Offside against Boro = Disallowed goal
Handball against Chelsea = No penalty
A corner conceded that never was against the Mancs which led to their second goal.
What have we had in the way of a favour then ?
And anyway you can't excuse poor decisions by saying you will get a poor decision in your favour in the next game .
This is football, not a sport decided by the refereee's whim .....
Not to mention Kleivert being yards offside and the ref judged him to be not interfering with play...then why the ****** is the goal credited to him? ffs, Everyone on the field are interfering with play.