|
Post by suedehead on May 1, 2009 20:06:58 GMT 1
Been a long while since this was posted in but seems like a good time to bump it up now. Poll made an interesting observation in his Mail article at the start of the week that those refs who are given the cup final often then give penalties to the home team in their next game following the appointment. There were quite a few examples from the last decade or so. But were any of these penalties questionable? If not, the point is interesting (a bit) but irrelevant.
|
|
Tom
Member
*Of Royal Blood*
Posts: 15,419
|
Post by Tom on May 2, 2009 11:35:20 GMT 1
Poll made an interesting observation in his Mail article at the start of the week that those refs who are given the cup final often then give penalties to the home team in their next game following the appointment. There were quite a few examples from the last decade or so. But were any of these penalties questionable? If not, the point is interesting (a bit) but irrelevant. I couldnt actually remember them myself so i dont know. Having been brought up i assumed they were. But im not sure whether Poll actually mentioned whether they were the correct decision or not (and he was one of the refs mentioned!).
|
|
Paddy
Member
*Pick up a P..P...P.. Paddy*
Best newcomer 2009
Posts: 19,422
|
Post by Paddy on May 5, 2009 21:39:49 GMT 1
If refs got decisions correct....
Darren Flecter would be playing the final of the Champions League.
|
|
|
Post by Maximo Mark on May 5, 2009 21:48:36 GMT 1
I don't think that was a particularly bad decision... He might not have deserved to go but there was no way the ref (or any ref) could see any touch on the ball. He may have got a small touch but he also brought him down, in the area as last man.
That was only ever not going to be a red card with the aid of TV replay.
|
|
|
Post by Earl Purple on May 5, 2009 21:58:39 GMT 1
I'm all for using TV evidence at the time of major incidents. Man U would lose in the long run with them.
|
|
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: 25,374
|
Post by frag on May 6, 2009 1:20:34 GMT 1
I don't think that was a particularly bad decision... He might not have deserved to go but there was no way the ref (or any ref) could see any touch on the ball. He may have got a small touch but he also brought him down, in the area as last man. That was only ever not going to be a red card with the aid of TV replay. Hear hear. Even with the replay ITV gave, it looked like a pretty clear penalty to me. So I can definitely see why the ref gave it, and I certainly don't think it was as clear cut as the manu-supporting ITV commentators were making out. Admittedly, I have only seen the replay almost immediately after the incident, so I may have developed some subconscious myopia at the time, but my reaction was 'clear penalty' (and therefore red card), so my reaction to the ITV commentators' comments was roughly .
|
|
|
Post by Earl Purple on May 6, 2009 8:07:07 GMT 1
I think he was stupid to dive in for the challenge myself. He was always risking a red card and his team were pretty certainly through at the time
|
|
|
Post by o on May 6, 2009 10:43:08 GMT 1
Was Jim Beglan one of the commentators, he never seems to say anything good about United! From the ref's viewpoint, he could see Fletcher putting his leg round Fabregas, and then see the ball go right, who did he think moved the ball?
|
|
|
Post by suedehead on May 6, 2009 18:07:14 GMT 1
I'm all for using TV evidence at the time of major incidents. Man U would lose in the long run with them. Definitely not. Technology could be used to determine matters of FACT (e.g. did the whole of the ball cross the whole of the line?) where a decision can be made instantly but nothing else. Look at the debate over last night's penalty. There isn't a consensus. The same applies to many other controversial decisions.
|
|
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: 25,374
|
Post by frag on May 6, 2009 22:58:52 GMT 1
I'm all for using TV evidence at the time of major incidents. Man U would lose in the long run with them. Definitely not. Technology could be used to determine matters of FACT (e.g. did the whole of the ball cross the whole of the line?) where a decision can be made instantly but nothing else. Look at the debate over last night's penalty. There isn't a consensus. The same applies to many other controversial decisions. Surely three heads and fifteen angles are better than two of each?
|
|
|
Post by o on May 7, 2009 8:28:34 GMT 1
I always say, if in doubt, dont give it, that's what they do in rugby with the video official.
|
|
|
Post by suedehead on May 7, 2009 18:49:32 GMT 1
Definitely not. Technology could be used to determine matters of FACT (e.g. did the whole of the ball cross the whole of the line?) where a decision can be made instantly but nothing else. Look at the debate over last night's penalty. There isn't a consensus. The same applies to many other controversial decisions. Surely three heads and fifteen angles are better than two of each? But you can end up taking several minutes trying to reach a decision. Plus there are times when the ball doesn't go out of play. Do you stop the game? If so, how do you restart it if the decision is that there was no offence committed?
|
|