McGoldrick was NOT offside... (7 Viewers)

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
This is my point. A pen or goal isn't given. The game continues. Your team goes from defensive to offensive. You score a goal. Then they check the video. It should have been a pen or a goal. You go from 1-0 up to 1-0 down. Or they stop play to check the video. You are on a counter attack. 3against 1 in your favour. Ref was right first time, but you have lost a good chance of scoring.

Would this be better than losing out on the occasional bad decision?

As I have said it could work in situations where the game has already stopped, but how far could we take it before it ruins the game?

A line has to be drawn and goals (over the line or not?) and offsides should be sorted out first. E.g. In rugby, the TMO don't tell the ref if it was offside or not etc.
 

SkyBlue_Bear83

Well-Known Member
Maybe have more officials dedicated to solely determining weather a player was offside, so hopefully any human error will be weeded out by having more officials

Maybe have a room of officials which have a video stream into a tv monitor of the pitch (not sure how they would do this as would need good camera angles to see down the backline properly , maybe fit the lino running the line with some sort of camera device?)
Each official has a buzzer device of some sort, lets say we have 5 officials. When 3 of these officials buzzed with in say a 2 second time gap, the referee or lino on the touchline would get a notification through his ear piece that an offside has been called
So if 1 or 2 of them made a bad call and buzzed incorrectly then an offside wouldn't be called

Ok, I know it sounds a bit daft. Shoot me down fellas
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
Maybe have more officials dedicated to solely determining weather a player was offside, so hopefully any human error will be weeded out by having more officials

Maybe have a room of officials which have a video stream into a tv monitor of the pitch (not sure how they would do this as would need good camera angles to see down the backline properly , maybe fit the lino running the line with some sort of camera device?)
Each official has a buzzer device of some sort, lets say we have 5 officials. When 3 of these officials buzzed with in say a 2 second time gap, the referee or lino on the touchline would get a notification through his ear piece that an offside has been called
So if 1 or 2 of them made a bad call and buzzed incorrectly then an offside wouldn't be called

Ok, I know it sounds a bit daft. Shoot me down fellas

One question.

Who is going to pay for it all and what level of football do we take it to? We can't even afford the rent :D
 

SkyBlue_Bear83

Well-Known Member
One question.

Who is going to pay for it all and what level of football do we take it to? We can't even afford the rent :D
What ever level of football can afford it and what stadiums can accommodate it, same question would apply to goal line technology surely
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
One question.

Who is going to pay for it all and what level of football do we take it to? We can't even afford the rent :D

One of 2 options:

1. Make the technology a mandatory part of FL/PL membership.

2. Funding from the FA/FIFA/UEFA.
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
What ever level of football can afford it and what stadiums can accommodate it, same question would apply to goal line technology surely

Could us or Sheff Utd afford it?

Could clubs in the same division that only get 3k to 4k afford it?
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
Well it should be removed. I've just been to Atlantis to a basket ball tournament. They have three refs plus use technology.
Football betting is massive. The reds need more assistance

Manure seem to get enough assistance :whistle:
 

kg82

Well-Known Member
To be honest, if we just get everything so it can be corrected by technology the game would be boring. I like a bit of controversy, it gets people talking.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Well, it isn't going to be perfect is it? On the point about spin bowlers, if is a LBW, regardless of how marginal it is, is out.

On challenges in tennis, they would take the mick if they had unlimited challenges, 3 is about right, and remember, if their challenge is correct, it doesn't deduct a challenge so if you use them in the right way, you should have 3/2 after the set. The review system I am not 100% on.

You clearly know nothing about cricket - the system is highly dubious actually in terms of assesing height and spin direction.

The point is the review system has to be called by one of the teams. If a team is winning at football or any other sport it will review anything if it means slowing the game down. Are you saying footballers wouldn't "take the mick"? :thinking about:
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
You clearly know nothing about cricket - the system is highly dubious actually in terms of assesing height and spin direction.

The point is the review system has to be called by one of the teams. If a team is winning at football or any other sport it will review anything if it means slowing the game down. Are you saying footballers wouldn't "take the mick"? :thinking about:

Fair point Grendel, but whether the ball goes onto hit the stumps is just part of the decision and where it's dubious the umpire is given discretion. The better option for football would probably be the chip in the ball-no extra delay and the same accuracy.
 

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
You clearly know nothing about cricket - the system is highly dubious actually in terms of assesing height and spin direction.

The point is the review system has to be called by one of the teams. If a team is winning at football or any other sport it will review anything if it means slowing the game down. Are you saying footballers wouldn't "take the mick"? :thinking about:

I never suggested a review system, I suggested a 'challenge system' where the challenges would challenge an offside decision in the context of a goal going in e.g. Cov score, ruled offside, we challenge (at this point the game is dead) and it is seen our player was onside, goal is given. The flip side, we score, no flag, they believe we were offside, they challenge, found we were offside, no goal. That's what I'm proposing, plain and simple. In terms of simple fouls, that will be left to the ref, like in rugby (rugby is a comparable sport, as it is fast flowing, for some teams anyway) and isn't as stop start as cricket or tennis, it has made rugby a better sport.

Goals is where it matters to me, whether 'over' or 'not over', 'offside', 'onside'.
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
Or someone that don't want to see new rules ruining the game. Goal line technology would be a big help. Anything that stops the game would not be good. A new set of tactics for managers to use to break down attacks.

I like the game how it is. Not perfect, but as long as the officials are unbiased it evens out over the season. New rules come out on occasions that do not help the game. Like now if you touch the GK it is a foul. When I first played I would go up for the ball with attackers. All part of the game. Now attackers are not allowed. Less goals are scored. No tackling from behind, not even if you get the ball. Don't even think about going in for a tackle with your studs not pointing to the ground. Sliding tackles have been outlawed. It used to be a mans game.
 

skybluelee

Well-Known Member
You clearly know nothing about cricket - the system is highly dubious actually in terms of assesing height and spin direction.

The point is the review system has to be called by one of the teams. If a team is winning at football or any other sport it will review anything if it means slowing the game down. Are you saying footballers wouldn't "take the mick"? :thinking about:

You are talking utter nonsense about drs. So you don't accept that it has improved decison making in cricket?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top