|
Post by Panda on Aug 21, 2007 11:55:59 GMT 1
Rob Styles has been consistently bad for years.
|
|
frag
Member
*Paranoid Android*
I have no idea what you're talking about, so here's a bunny with a pancake on its head.
Posts: 25,136
|
Post by frag on Aug 21, 2007 18:33:28 GMT 1
I do think this all highlights the need for video technology, it's used in rugby well, and is needed in football, maybe for goalline stuff and penalties, but not offsides yet. Exactly - we have the technology, so why not help the refs out?
|
|
|
Post by suedehead on Aug 21, 2007 18:43:29 GMT 1
I do think this all highlights the need for video technology, it's used in rugby well, and is needed in football, maybe for goalline stuff and penalties, but not offsides yet. Exactly - we have the technology, so why not help the refs out? The powers that be are looking into a technological solution to settle whether the ball crossed the line. However, they are not yet satisfied that a sufficiently reliable solution has been found. If a system can alert the referee immediately when the ball crosses the line - and can be relied on to get it right every time - then I think we'll see it being introduced.
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Aug 21, 2007 19:17:33 GMT 1
I suppose it's an interesting experiment to see if these things really do balance out over the course of a season or whether poor decisions make a difference come May. Yup, remember Bolton's first game at the Reebok?.
|
|
|
Post by o on Aug 21, 2007 19:40:18 GMT 1
Exactly - we have the technology, so why not help the refs out? The powers that be are looking into a technological solution to settle whether the ball crossed the line. However, they are not yet satisfied that a sufficiently reliable solution has been found. If a system can alert the referee immediately when the ball crosses the line - and can be relied on to get it right every time - then I think we'll see it being introduced. Just needs a 4th official with access to replays.
|
|
|
Post by Maximo Mark on Aug 21, 2007 19:42:17 GMT 1
They have hawkeye in Tennis and Cricket. They use video technology in Rugby. Why is football so far behind?
|
|
|
Post by suedehead on Aug 21, 2007 19:43:18 GMT 1
The powers that be are looking into a technological solution to settle whether the ball crossed the line. However, they are not yet satisfied that a sufficiently reliable solution has been found. If a system can alert the referee immediately when the ball crosses the line - and can be relied on to get it right every time - then I think we'll see it being introduced. Just needs a 4th official with access to replays. 1) Replays aren't necessarily conclusive. 2) It could tak a while - and a number of different angles - before the 4th official reaches a conclusion. If the game hasn't been stopped, a lot could happen in that time.
|
|
Tom
Member
*Of Royal Blood*
Posts: 15,419
|
Post by Tom on Aug 23, 2007 12:26:48 GMT 1
I've just seen the pen in the liverpool v chelsea game, I know the ref was close, but carragher shifted his body as if to block malouda, who did an acrobatic dive, it wasn't a pen, but I can see why he gave it, what I cant see if why all this fuss about it all, seems very extreme and now they have a made a rod for their own back by demoting him for a week or whatever. Tell me what happens when 3 or 4 refs make "blunders"? Do they all get demoted the following week, who refs the games then? And it is adding to the club/player power over officials. Next time that ref sees a pen in the box, he wont give it, there will be doubt in his mind now. I do think this all highlights the need for video technology, it's used in rugby well, and is needed in football, maybe for goalline stuff and penalties, but not offsides yet. Claridge has repeatedly said that if you introduce technology for goaline decisions then you have to go the whole hog and use it for everything else, as penalty and offside decisions are just as critical. Another guy on Talksport said over the weekend that by not introducing it across the board, for everything, it could open room for clubs to take legal action. Can understand their point, but that may take away the beauty of the game if they go too far, and apart from goaline decisions it would take too long. Personally I've got my debates about Hawkeye, but thats a whole another issue! Ordinary TV footage would be fine. Oh and I thought it was Finnan's "challenge" on Malouda that led to the penalty?
|
|
|
Post by o on Aug 23, 2007 12:45:24 GMT 1
Just needs a 4th official with access to replays. 1) Replays aren't necessarily conclusive. 2) It could tak a while - and a number of different angles - before the 4th official reaches a conclusion. If the game hasn't been stopped, a lot could happen in that time. Play is stopped, the 4th official would be watching the game and have the instant replay, any doubt, goal/pen not given simple as that. With offside I would hold off the technology and tell linesmen there has to be clear daylight for the guy to be offside, give the benefit of the doubt to strikers, let those that live on the shoulders of defenders prosper. If there is an off the ball incident, should the 4th official have powers to tell the ref what happened as well?
|
|
|
Post by suedehead on Aug 23, 2007 14:36:40 GMT 1
1) Replays aren't necessarily conclusive. 2) It could tak a while - and a number of different angles - before the 4th official reaches a conclusion. If the game hasn't been stopped, a lot could happen in that time. Play is stopped, the 4th official would be watching the game and have the instant replay, any doubt, goal/pen not given simple as that. With offside I would hold off the technology and tell linesmen there has to be clear daylight for the guy to be offside, give the benefit of the doubt to strikers, let those that live on the shoulders of defenders prosper. If there is an off the ball incident, should the 4th official have powers to tell the ref what happened as well? But if play is stopped and the verdict is "no goal" or "no penalty", how do you restart the game? You can hardly have a drop ball on the goal line.
|
|
|
Post by suedehead on Aug 23, 2007 14:41:04 GMT 1
I've just seen the pen in the liverpool v chelsea game, I know the ref was close, but carragher shifted his body as if to block malouda, who did an acrobatic dive, it wasn't a pen, but I can see why he gave it, what I cant see if why all this fuss about it all, seems very extreme and now they have a made a rod for their own back by demoting him for a week or whatever. Tell me what happens when 3 or 4 refs make "blunders"? Do they all get demoted the following week, who refs the games then? And it is adding to the club/player power over officials. Next time that ref sees a pen in the box, he wont give it, there will be doubt in his mind now. I do think this all highlights the need for video technology, it's used in rugby well, and is needed in football, maybe for goalline stuff and penalties, but not offsides yet. Claridge has repeatedly said that if you introduce technology for goaline decisions then you have to go the whole hog and use it for everything else, as penalty and offside decisions are just as critical. Another guy on Talksport said over the weekend that by not introducing it across the board, for everything, it could open room for clubs to take legal action. Can understand their point, but that may take away the beauty of the game if they go too far, and apart from goaline decisions it would take too long. Personally I've got my debates about Hawkeye, but thats a whole another issue! Ordinary TV footage would be fine. Oh and I thought it was Finnan's "challenge" on Malouda that led to the penalty? The difference between whether the ball crossed the line and other issues is that we would be dealing with simple fact. How many times have a panel of pundits in the studio failed to agree on whether a penalty decision (for example) was correct? I agree that Hawkeye is not totally reliable as was demonstrated at Wimbledon this year. However, it should be possible to come up with a way of alerting the referee immediately when the ball crosses the line. Whoever perfects this technology stands to make a fortune.
|
|
|
Post by Maximo Mark on Sept 15, 2007 23:28:11 GMT 1
Was Kalou's goal offside? The two Alan's seem to think it wasn't...
|
|
|
Post by suedehead on Sept 15, 2007 23:38:34 GMT 1
No it wasn't offside. But that doesn't excuse Mourinho's whingeing. No doubt he's already forgotten the penalty they got against Liverpool.
|
|
|
Post by Razzle Dazzle on Sept 16, 2007 0:06:32 GMT 1
yeah kalou was a mile on
|
|
|
Post by o on Sept 16, 2007 14:31:02 GMT 1
I actually thought it was off, the ball went forward, didn't know any of this man behind the ball stuff, thought that was rugby! As for Mourinho, oh do please SHUT UP, telling the linesman he expects an apology, what a chuffing tw*t! I hope he gets a TURD through the post!
|
|
frag
Member
*Paranoid Android*
I have no idea what you're talking about, so here's a bunny with a pancake on its head.
Posts: 25,136
|
Post by frag on Sept 16, 2007 18:52:40 GMT 1
"A player in an offside position is only committing an offside offence if, "at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team", in the opinion of the referee, he is involved in active play. A player is not committing an offside offence if the player receives the ball directly from a throw-in, goal kick or corner kick.
In order for an offside offence to occur the player must be in an offside position when the ball is touched or played by a team-mate; a player who runs from an onside position into an offside position after the ball was touched or played by a team-mate is not penalised."
Therefore, it was onside.
Makes a change for chelski to be denied points by a bad decision...
|
|
|
Post by greendemon on Sept 16, 2007 20:35:28 GMT 1
there's no way that wasn't a goal. no way at all. he was very clearly onside. but, as glenn says, it does make a change
|
|
|
Post by o on Sept 16, 2007 21:18:04 GMT 1
So you cant be offside from a goal kick? I knew it applied to throw ins, but goal kicks?
|
|
|
Post by Razzle Dazzle on Sept 17, 2007 0:20:46 GMT 1
ive never ever seen an offside from a goal kick so surely in the history of sport a striker has been behind the defenders from a goal kick so it makes sense really, its not like its humanly possble fora keeper to kick it from the floor far enough for a team to gane an advantage from being offside. the ball always drops just inside the oponents half so thats where the strikers stand in order to challenge for the ball. and ofcourse a corner the ball is played backward and a throw like you say you also cant be offside
|
|
Tom
Member
*Of Royal Blood*
Posts: 15,419
|
Post by Tom on Sept 17, 2007 11:11:54 GMT 1
ive never ever seen an offside from a goal kick so surely in the history of sport a striker has been behind the defenders from a goal kick so it makes sense really, its not like its humanly possble fora keeper to kick it from the floor far enough for a team to gane an advantage from being offside. the ball always drops just inside the oponents half so thats where the strikers stand in order to challenge for the ball. and ofcourse a corner the ball is played backward and a throw like you say you also cant be offside Reading have actually scored from a goal kick, and come close on another occasion that i recall, so it can be done. As for when a player is onside if they are behind the ball, i first came across that when reading about a Reading match about 5/6 years ago, though i've never really understood it. You can also never be offside in your own half, or if the defender is the last player to touch the ball. Its amazing how many times refs miss that last one.
|
|