Nothing To Do With Football.................

[JimS]

............Costa of Portugal is sent of for ............what????

total farce.........football's a joke........

[The Big Man]

If only we had video technology yawn !!

[Hot Shot]

Portugal player definately had a look at his opponent and deliberatly raised his elbow in the direction of his head, wether he made contact or not is hard to see, Spanish player totally acted out the rest. I'd have sent them both off.

[erzamacaroonbars]

Agree with comment above! Contact is not neecessary, its all about intent! I would have sent them both off also!

[uberteeb]

I don’t think we were shown the right angle to see the contact but I reckon it was there. Capdevilla was raging for ages afterwards, you wouldn’t be raging if you knew you had cheated to get him sent off and hadn’t been struck.

[Mr Bunny]

I don’t think we were shown the right angle to see the contact but I reckon it was there. Capdevilla was raging for ages afterwards, you wouldn’t be raging if you knew you had cheated to get him sent off and hadn’t been struck.

 

Don't know if you're correct about the incident but you make a really good point those calling for video technology ignore. The cameras don't always catch everything either - and even when they do the camera angles don't always make it clear. I've seen TV incidents which look like a clear foul from one angle and nothing like a foul from another.

 

Not saying that such big games shouldn't have the technology used to help decide incidents but nobody should expect it's going to always show what really happened.

Edited June 30, 2010 by Mr Bunny

[redandyellowallover]

Don't know if you're correct about the incident but you make a really good point those calling for video technology ignore. The cameras don't always catch everything either - and even when they do the camera angles don't always make it clear. I've seen TV incidents which look like a clear foul from one angle and nothing like a foul from another.

 

Not saying that such big games shouldn't have the technology used to help decide incidents but nobody should expect it's going to always show what really happened.

 

I think if video technology was to be brought in, it should only be used for determining whether the ball has crossed the line or not.

 

It's the only decision that a referee makes in a game that's totally black or white. The ball is either over the line or not, there's no ambiguity whatsoever.

 

Introducing it to other decisions wouldn't necessarily eradicate errors. So many decisions come down to a referee's interpretation of the situation anyway and how many times do we see arguments raging on for days over a decision when it's been seen from umpteen angles?

[crazy davie]

Spain's goal last night didn't look as if it had crossed the line...

[uberteeb]

Spain's goal last night didn't look as if it had crossed the line...

 

Villa was offside in any case, well the bottom half of his leg was.

[Steven H]

I think if video technology was to be brought in, it should only be used for determining whether the ball has crossed the line or not.

 

It's the only decision that a referee makes in a game that's totally black or white. The ball is either over the line or not, there's no ambiguity whatsoever.

 

Introducing it to other decisions wouldn't necessarily eradicate errors. So many decisions come down to a referee's interpretation of the situation anyway and how many times do we see arguments raging on for days over a decision when it's been seen from umpteen angles?

 

They were discussing this on the Real Radio Phone-in last night and I agree that the over-use of video replays would turn the game into a bit of a farce...BUT i do feel it should be introduced under certain constraints.

 

I would like to see a situation where Captains can make 3 challenges to decisions during a game, these challenges would be for goals which were offside/marginal (or onside but ruled out); to confirm whether the ball has crossed the line or not; whether their was cheating involved which produced a goal (such as Henry v Ireland, Fabiano v SomeTeamICanny Mind, The Hand of God & Casalacheato fae Dundee Utd). These challenges would not be used to determine whether it was a penalty or not, whether it was a free-kick or not or for daft things like who's throw-in/corner it is (those are decisions which must be left to the referees and assistant referees discretion).

 

This sort of system would not slow the game down at all because a goal has been scored so the game has stopped anyway (in most of the cases) and it is being used to determine the validity/legality of goals (whether wrongly allowed or wrongly disallowed). Goals change games, would Dundee Utd have won the Scottish Cup if this system was in place? Probably, coz they would probably still have beaten us .

 

*steps down off soap box *

Edited June 30, 2010 by Steven H

[Tom Hosie]

I would like to see a situation where Captains can make 3 challenges to decisions during a game

 

No. No. No.

 

I’ve reservations about that suggestion on so many levels. It works in tennis where there is a natural break between points in any case. It worked in cricket when they had the ‘review’ experiment. Again that is a sport with a natural break.

 

Football, however, doesn’t lend itself to that in the same way. For one who appeals and to whom? You say the captain. What if the captain is, for example, the goalkeeper and the incident under appeal happens at the other end of the park? Is he in the position to make an appeal? How does he do so and to who? Should it be the responsibility of the manager? Does he appeal to the referee or fourth official? How does the message get relayed? How quickly can it be done especially if the manager, as in the case on Sunday, doesn’t immediately realise the goal hasn’t been given?

 

It’s also, I feel, open to abuse. Let’s revisit Sunday’s game. Lampard has his shot, it strikes the underside of the bar but clearly DOESN’T cross the line. Germany quickly clear the ball and within a second or two the ball is at the other end and it is one on one with the keeper. An appeal could be used simply to halt play. Where would the game restart from in any case?

 

Best stick to what we have. Games are often decided on human error in any case. Sure it hurts like hell if you are on the wrong end of a bad call but the fallibility of match officials is as much part of football as the fallibility of players.

[Steven H]

No. No. No.

 

I’ve reservations about that suggestion on so many levels. It works in tennis where there is a natural break between points in any case. It worked in cricket when they had the ‘review’ experiment. Again that is a sport with a natural break.

 

Football, however, doesn’t lend itself to that in the same way. For one who appeals and to whom? You say the captain. What if the captain is, for example, the goalkeeper and the incident under appeal happens at the other end of the park? Is he in the position to make an appeal? How does he do so and to who? Should it be the responsibility of the manager? Does he appeal to the referee or fourth official? How does the message get relayed? How quickly can it be done especially if the manager, as in the case on Sunday, doesn’t immediately realise the goal hasn’t been given?

 

It’s also, I feel, open to abuse. Let’s revisit Sunday’s game. Lampard has his shot, it strikes the underside of the bar but clearly DOESN’T cross the line. Germany quickly clear the ball and within a second or two the ball is at the other end and it is one on one with the keeper. An appeal could be used simply to halt play. Where would the game restart from in any case?

 

Best stick to what we have. Games are often decided on human error in any case. Sure it hurts like hell if you are on the wrong end of a bad call but the fallibility of match officials is as much part of football as the fallibility of players.

 

Too many questions and too much common sense for me to comprehend, but I'll try . I agree the England one the other night would be difficult in a 'when do you make the appeal?' way, but I also think the Tevez offside goal is a situation where it would be easy to impliment. I also think in our own case the Dundee Utd goal could have been easily dealt with and the Henry farce against Ireland (imagine having to miss out on the chance of going to a World Cup because of a goal like that )...none of those incidents would have cut into any time because the game would have stopped for the 'goal' anyway.

 

The other problems you mention can be remedied when the 'use of technology' rules are written and it may be better if the 4th official makes the call, i.e reviews the footage and decides if the referee should act, this would ensure the system is not open to abuse in the way you mention because it wouldn't involve players/management of the clubs involved. I agree goals such as Lampards are more difficult but if it is a goal and the ref/assistants miss it then it takes seconds for the 4th official to see a replay and to inform the ref.

 

Goals are the most important aspect of football and if there is technology available that will ensure cheating players/mistakes by officials won't unfairly penalise a team then Im all for it. However, a bigger problem could be the availability of technology? Is it a viable option for Scottish 2nd and 3rd clubs? Could the filming for Clubs own highlights package be used?

[lady-isobel-barnett]

I don’t think we were shown the right angle to see the contact but I reckon it was there.

Agree.

Admittedly I had a few beers & malts last night but I thought I saw a flying elbow. I wasn't surprised when the red card came out. I stand (easier tonight than last night) to be corrected.

[Hot Shot]

Agree.

Admittedly I had a few beers & malts last night but I thought I saw a flying elbow. I wasn't surprised when the red card came out. I stand (easier tonight than last night) to be corrected.

 

 

I also thought there was more than likely some contact, it still wouldn't alter my choice, afterall, he wasn't shot in the ear like he made out, he was just hit with an elbow, both red carded.

[uberteeb]

I also thought there was more than likely some contact, it still wouldn't alter my choice, afterall, he wasn't shot in the ear like he made out, he was just hit with an elbow, both red carded.

 

If I ran up behind you and elbowed you in the ear as hard as I could I bet you wouldn't be playing it down saying "I was just hit with an elbow", it would be agony and you would be raging.

 

As for the wider technology debate, I see no problem with an Ice Hockey style buzzer system which goes off when the ball has fully crossed the line but I don't like the idea of video replays. As mentioned above, imagine Germany had gone up the end and scored straight away after the Lampard incident (which they almost did), it would be farcicle. The Tevez goal was stupid the other night but offside is open to all sorts of interpretations with 'players being involved', even with a still frame that they show on the replay on the telly you can debate if it was offside of not. What if his big toe was offside? Henry's hand ball was a joke as well but not all handball is a foul, if it brushes your upper arm unintentionally some would say its a foul and some wouldn't.

 

Nothing other than a buzzer for over the line for me.

[Jaggernaut]

If I ran up behind you and elbowed you in the ear as hard as I could I bet you wouldn't be playing it down saying "I was just hit with an elbow", it would be agony and you would be raging.

 

As for the wider technology debate, I see no problem with an Ice Hockey style buzzer system which goes off when the ball has fully crossed the line but I don't like the idea of video replays. As mentioned above, imagine Germany had gone up the end and scored straight away after the Lampard incident (which they almost did), it would be farcicle. The Tevez goal was stupid the other night but offside is open to all sorts of interpretations with 'players being involved', even with a still frame that they show on the replay on the telly you can debate if it was offside of not. What if his big toe was offside? Henry's hand ball was a joke as well but not all handball is a foul, if it brushes your upper arm unintentionally some would say its a foul and some wouldn't.

 

Nothing other than a buzzer for over the line for me.

A good line will always give you a good buzz.

Edited July 1, 2010 by Jaggernaut

[Exiled AusJag]

I'm really not keen for technology to be brought in, but the experiment that was used in the Europa League would have been ideal in both the Henry and Lampard incidents.

With the assistant being in the vicinity of the goal, he would have easily seen Henry's hand ball, and Lampard's shot being over the line. Both incidents would have been communicated immediately to the referee who could then have taken the appropriate action without having a delay for a review. I'm not saying it's infallible, but it would help in the most important aspect of the game, which is whether or not a goal has been scored.

[Hot Shot]

If I ran up behind you and elbowed you in the ear as hard as I could I bet you wouldn't be playing it down saying "I was just hit with an elbow", it would be agony and you would be raging.

 

 

I admit that even a clip in the ear can be very sore if caught the right way, but as grown adult I can assure you that not even a crack in the stones from a pair of steel toe cap riggers would have me rolling on the deck play acting in the way the spanish player did.

Yes i'd floored, yes it'd be agony and yes i'd be raging, I wouldn't go for the oscar winning performance though.Which is why i'd have carded him too, if I was to take your point on board and change my mind i'd still only reduce it to yellow

 

BTW ,I don't normally like to draw attention to internet identity/anonimity but seen as I know who you are, i'd be pretty disappointed if you managed to run up behind me at all nevermind get an elbow swing at my ear