2012 - 2013 Football Thread! - Page 146

On October 29 2012 21:20 Liquid`Drone wrote:
it's certainly possible to argue that stuff like offsides, penalty appeals, general calls through the game shouldn't be done by video officiating as it'd break the pace of the game to some degree. I think there are several valid points of view here and several viable solutions, e.g. let both teams contest 2 calls through a game or whatever.. but say, not adding goal line technology in the top competitions is an absolute farce. you already have replays showing whether the ball was over the line 10 seconds after the incident.

not really directing this reply at anyone, just throwing it out there. stuff like wrong red carding and wrongly given penalties and wrong offside calls might just be here to stay; I really don't want it to be possible to start interjecting 15 second commercials every 5 minutes. but the goal line technology not being implemented.. is sooo stupid.

On October 29 2012 21:20 Liquid`Drone wrote:

I genuinely dont believe being able to review a sending off or an offside goal would break the flow at all.

On October 29 2012 22:31 Rebs wrote:


I thought about the breaking the flow argument quite a few times. Lets be honest here, it takes all of 16 secs to get most decisions down in football. You know from the first replay onwards what the correct decision should be.

Considering the amount of time players will hog the ref, the shit will hit the fan and the general time spent in the guy walking of the field, restart and or so much other shit that goes on we usually have seen atleast 3-4 replays of said incident. Even 2 reviews is a bit much. You can just give every team a review, that doesnt get spent if you overturned the decision on the field

They have been using technology in other sports for a while now and the amount of damage it has limited is so overwhelmingly obvious there just seems to be no sense in not using it.

And its not like officials in those other sports feel neutered by it either. They are pretty happy to use it, makes their jobs easier and they dont end up being hated by the world. Who wouldnt want that?

I genuinely dont believe being able to review a sending off or an offside goal would break the flow at all.

On October 30 2012 05:00 Liquid`Drone wrote:


well, ok. I don't really disagree. With the fact that players already tend to waste half a minute of time complaining to the referee, the let's say 20ish seconds it'd take to review a replay should be insignificant.

But with the exception of calling goals, it's just not always that black and white, and I can easily picture several scenarios where adding video refereeing for non-goal/offside situations would create additional problems. I'll try to number the rest of my post to make it more comprehensible.

1: goals are easy, because there being a goal means that the game always discontinues. and with proper technology, it's always possible to determine whether a goal was actually over the line or not.
2: offsides seem like the second easiest choice. The reason being that, like goals, an offside is rarely controversial post-replay; it's always possible to come to an actual conclusion. If there's a goal, and offside is signalled, and it shows that there was no actual offside, then you could say that the goal should count anyway, not overly complicated. But what if say, there was an actual offside that wasn't signalled. And it didn't lead to a goal - but the counter attack DID lead to a goal. Okay, so good job by the referee giving the advantage. Or, let's say, there's an offside that wasn't signalled, and the defender, in his panic, does a studs first tackle that should result in a red card. But technically, the ball should've been regarded as out of play already.
3: Penalties and red cards are often controversial even post-replay. Let's look at the infamous chelsea vs barcelona game from 2008 or whatever year it was, where chelsea didn't get any penalties yet deserved anywhere between 0 and 5 penalties depending on who you ask. Personally, I think they should've had 2-ish. I mean, people have looked at the replays like, 20 times, but on this very forum, I've seen barcelona supporters claim none of the situations were actual penalties, and I've seen chelsea supporters claim they deserved 4-5. Controversial decisions in football are often hard to tell even if you're watching a slow motion replay from 4 different angles - this might actually be an issue with the rules not being sufficiently clear though, I guess. And, even though video refreeing wouldn't be a guarantee that the correct decision was made, then absolutely, 3 world class referees agreeing on a decision after watching slow motion replays would certainly yield better results than one referee watching the situation as it progressed. Still though, this only really works without problems in those situations where the referee made a call in the first place. In football, the referee often makes the call to continue play - and when play is continued, more possible situations occur in the following 15 seconds. Thus, you really can't compare this to say, tennis, or american football, or basketball - sports where video refereeing is successfully implemented - because in all these sports, play has already discontinued when the video refereeing takes place.
4: Following the previous point; Imagine a fantasy scenario where liverpool are title contenders, and they're facing united in the final game of the season. it's 1-1 after 86 minutes and manchester united is on the offense, and rooney goes down appealing for a penalty. no penalty is given. liverpool goes on the counter attack, and suarez embarasses evra and rio ferdinand and scores the winning goal for liverpool. but instead, while the crowd is going ballistic, the video referee squad decides that united actually deserved a penalty. the goal is overturned, and united instead scores the winning goal. I think this scenario would actually be more likely to result in supporter death than not. I mean, people are already complaining about referee conspiracies favouring big teams - I think this might become worse than better.
5: The slippery slope argument. I don't accept it for goal line refereeing, but I am also absolutely fearful of football turning into its american bastardised version, where more time is spent showing commercial breaks than actual gameplay. Once you open the gates, they're not closing.

On October 30 2012 04:25 Denzil wrote:
Young doing what he does best flailing his legs in the air no change there need to find the superman picture that has him in it

According to Mata the ref called him a Spanish twat which I have no doubt we'll consider full maximum racial hostility.

This racism shit is stupid along with the refusing to wear the shirt and the bending of the rules to convict people. A lot of no longer relevant people are jumping on the bandwagon

On October 30 2012 05:28 hasuprotoss wrote:


Is Spanish twat really considered racism? I mean, he is Spanish, right? I can understand that appending twat to it does make it sound worse, but really I think some people are being a bit too thin-skinned about all of this. I don't want racism in the game, but it also means we shouldn't jump at shadows really.

On October 31 2012 04:22 Kotreb wrote:
Why would it be considered racism it he called him by his nationality, not his skin color? I mean, if calling someone spanish,swedish,russian etc. would be considered racism then the whole word and struggle to fight against the racism would be kinda lost imo. Mata may be insulted by word "twat", but being insulted by word "spanish" is just plain idiotic...