Disagree. If a horse goes over the line first with no SE you win. If you play roulette and the ball falls out the wheel you don't lose.
Why should shit descisions cost me dough
Disagree. If a horse goes over the line first with no SE you win. If you play roulette and the ball falls out the wheel you don't lose.Hate to say it but that is the risk you take by gambling, I didnt loose that much but i lost on both. Its one of those things.
Disagree. If a horse goes over the line first with no SE you win. If you play roulette and the ball falls out the wheel you don't lose.
Why should shit descisions cost me dough
No he wasn't.
Disagree. If a horse goes over the line first with no SE you win. If you play roulette and the ball falls out the wheel you don't lose.
Why should shit descisions cost me dough
yes he was not largely but he was
Because that is football, human error is a part of that.
That would've been the argument for cricket, tennis, both codes of rugby, American Football before technology was intro'd in them sports. Football needs to move with the times, them 5th and 6th officials was a good idea, but they failed as they do nothing in terms of decision making, even when there has been a clear chance to. Goal line technology and a TMO is the way forward.
International cricket teams can make a decision on whether they have the review system, India don't like it so they are not using it n the current test series against England.
That would've been the argument for cricket, tennis, both codes of rugby, American Football before technology was intro'd in them sports. Football needs to move with the times, them 5th and 6th officials was a good idea, but they failed as they do nothing in terms of decision making, even when there has been a clear chance to. Goal line technology and a TMO is the way forward.
That would've been the argument for cricket, tennis, both codes of rugby, American Football before technology was intro'd in them sports. Football needs to move with the times, them 5th and 6th officials was a good idea, but they failed as they do nothing in terms of decision making, even when there has been a clear chance to. Goal line technology and a TMO is the way forward.
Regardless, the system works and has made cricket better. Football should follow suit.
You have a point about goal line technology, but how far should they take it?
You mentioned cricket, tennis and amercan football. They are not fast flowing like foitball. Cricket stops after each ball is bowled. Tennis stops after each serve when the ball goes out or don't go over the net. American football also stops all the time. Football can carry on for ages without stopping. Should we have several officials looking at screens looking for anything missed by the officials? To what level of football should this be done?
Over the season things should level out. Fans will always complain. Sometimes you can look at things that happen even in slow motion and not be sure what happened. Would you be happy for the game to stop all the time so decisions can be made?
It is interesting, baring in mind only PL fixtures tend to have multiple camera angles. Us an and our league one counterparts tend to have 1 grainy picture at our games. Yes that camera angle would have spotted the onside goal but the replay from edges goal vs Colchester was inconclusive, it didn't spot the Leon Clarkes handball for the pen vs Sc-unithorpe either, etc.
Regardless, the system works and has made cricket better. Football should follow suit.
Cricket is a very different game. Also I would dispute in some respects it has made it better. Spin bowlers now get some very marginal LBW decisions which would not be made by umpires who have to rely on the naked eye. The other point on review systems is what are they used for and how many reviews can you have? Cricket has a very restricted review useage (2 for Tests) as does Tennis. So even if you could do it it would still have limitations.
International cricket teams can make a decision on whether they have the review system, India don't like it so they are not using it n the current test series against England.
Cricket is a very different game. Also I would dispute in some respects it has made it better. Spin bowlers now get some very marginal LBW decisions which would not be made by umpires who have to rely on the naked eye. The other point on review systems is what are they used for and how many reviews can you have? Cricket has a very restricted review useage (2 for Tests) as does Tennis. So even if you could do it it would still have limitations.
Reviews have helped cricket and imo would help football. Rather a small delay in the game and the right decision than no delays and shit decisions.
So answer the one question. When should the game be stopped so a review could be done? Cricket stops after each ball.
Similar to cricket. Each team can challenge, say, two refereeing decisions per match. Simple.
So what should happen if someone wants a review in football?
Should the game stop? Fans would love this if they were on the break and the other side wanted a review. They would lose an excellent chance of scoring. I would bet this would be when most reviews are used.
Oh I hear you say the game should be allowed to stop before doing a review.
A team wants to have a review. The ball doesn't go out of play. Their opponents get the ball and score on the break. Then the review is allowed. Review shows call was good. Goal disallowed
So what would make you the happiest as a fan?
Fast flowing game stopped whilst your team is on the break because reviews allowed?
Watch your team score, celebrate your goal, wait for the review so your opponents can restart the game......review is a close one.....after a min or so find out you didn't score and there is a free kick for something you can't even remember happening
........or leave it as it is.........
If you look at what I said, a review or challenge system would be best implemented for goals (after they have been scored/not scored). For example, Cov score a goal, but it is ruled offside, we challenge, the incidence gets looked at, decision is made. Or Cov concede, we suspect offside, we challenge, decision made. Doesn't interrupt flow of play because a goal stops the game for a good minute of 2 anyway. You with me?
Also, it could mean advantages are made on offsides so a team can challenge the resulting outcome.
Ball might have crossed line, goal not given. Review asked for. Should game be stopped or not?
Game stopped before ball goes out of play......no goal......restart game somehow
Team going forward. other team claim a review....game has to stop for review. Good chance lost.
Game not stopped.......defending side go forward and score..fans celebrate....review done.......1st goal given :slap: What a way of bringing the fans together
The proposal for goal line tech (i read) is a sensor in the ball, which will make a sound in the refs earpiece if it goes over, doesn't interrupt play at all as he'll hear the noise, give the goal.
Offsides I don't think are on the table, that'll be left to human error
Just Penalties and disallowed goals ( possible straight reds) Why you have to be so obstropoulos???
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?