Gemmill 35026 Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 There will still be contentious decisions, but I can't understand why anyone would argue for continuing with a situation where deciding whether the ball has/hasn't crossed the line is done on the fly by people who, when called upon, often get it wrong. This doesn't undermine the refs because it's not a question of judgement. There's no interpretation attached to it. It was either a goal or it wasn't. It crossed the line or it didn't. If I was an official I'd be pushing to get this introduced to take the pressure off me a little bit. This seems like misplaced nostalgia from you and basic resistance to changing something, even though it would be an obvious change for the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 14724 Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Why not just follow your argument to it's conclusion and have decisions decided by the toss of a coin? So the ref has been irrelevent for 125 years?... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew 4242 Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 you understand what the purpose of the system is don't you? the refs not going anywhere, its taking out the part of the game where he is essentially guessing whether or not to award a game changing decision that is not remotely up for interpretation, its either in or its not, why is having that information totally correct a bad thing? you seem to think that the referee is to be replaced by a terminator or something, you're like platini technology = skynet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 14724 Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 There will still be contentious decisions, but I can't understand why anyone would argue for continuing with a situation where deciding whether the ball has/hasn't crossed the line is done on the fly by people who, when called upon, often get it wrong. This doesn't undermine the refs because it's not a question of judgement. There's no interpretation attached to it. It was either a goal or it wasn't. It crossed the line or it didn't. If I was an official I'd be pushing to get this introduced to take the pressure off me a little bit. This seems like misplaced nostalgia from you and basic resistance to changing something, even though it would be an obvious change for the better. Cant deny much of that, but as I first said its the thin end of the wedge...some prick on Sky will start chirping on about offsides, then diving, then what?....its precisely how and why its being sanctioned by Blatter now. I understand this sounds a case of "after the horse has bolted" but tv now dictate fixture dates and kick off times where once they were the preserve of the governing body of the sport. Now tv wants to interfere with how the laws of the game are interpretated all because theres now a huge tv audience. I understand how this sounds, but they can frankly fuck off on this one for me. The FA is an old fashioned, out dated mausoleum full of pricks with their own agendas. And I dare say loads of them think tv replays are a good idea. But the FA used to be in charge of a game and now they are subserviant to the business they allowed to replace their game as we used to know it. I dont long for lots of things that came with football 20 odd years ago, am not a luddite either. I'm just fuckin sick of change for the sake of commercial gain. For me a line has to be drawn somewhere. Might as well be here, because its a step too far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 14724 Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 you understand what the purpose of the system is don't you? the refs not going anywhere, its taking out the part of the game where he is essentially guessing whether or not to award a game changing decision that is not remotely up for interpretation, its either in or its not, why is having that information totally correct a bad thing? you seem to think that the referee is to be replaced by a terminator or something, you're like platini technology = skynet Offside isnt up for debate either, you're of or you're on. Diving as well. Replays to decide penalties? If youve got the technology you can get every single thing right. Look at cricket, the umpires might as well not be there. Thats what I dont want for football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonGoodwyn 1 Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Offside isnt up for debate either, you're of or you're on. Diving as well. Replays to decide penalties? If youve got the technology you can get every single thing right. Look at cricket, the umpires might as well not be there. Thats what I dont want for football. That really isn't true at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 6441 Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 (edited) Football will become an anachronism next to other sports if it does not embrace the technology which refines decision making. "This week Charles Smithington-Smythe presents: LIVE FROM BEAMISH! Sponsored by Chesterfield; a real man's smoke, A rousing game of unadulterated Association Football." Edited July 4, 2012 by trophyshy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 14724 Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 That really isn't true at all. tbh mate, I'm not an expert. But I do take an interest and thats how it comes across to this layman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 14724 Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Football will become an anachronism next to other sports if it does not embrace the technology which refines decision making. "This week Charles Smithington-Smythe presents: LIVE FROM BEAMISH Sponsored by Chesterfield; a real man's smoke, A rousing game of unadulterated Association Football." I know I sound like a silly old twat but its just the way I feel about this. Theres really no need for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYD 0 Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Just leave it to the likes of Trelford Mills to make the correct decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 35026 Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Football will become an anachronism next to other sports if it does not embrace the technology which refines decision making. "This week Charles Smithington-Smythe presents: LIVE FROM BEAMISH! Sponsored by Chesterfield; a real man's smoke, A rousing game of unadulterated Association Football." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 14724 Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Just leave it to the likes of Trelford Mills to make the correct decision. You'll always have fuckers like that though... as long as the machines dont take over that is...go on the Newcastle Online thread and look at the ref in the Derby game....we've always had them and football has thrived in the last 20 years, with many innovations that have been good for the game and the fans. Not this though. Its unecessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew 4242 Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Offside isnt up for debate either, you're of or you're on. Diving as well. Replays to decide penalties? If youve got the technology you can get every single thing right. Look at cricket, the umpires might as well not be there. Thats what I dont want for football. Diving is as what constitutes enough to knock an individual over and what constitutes a foul is essentially down to the interpretation of a referee offside is not, and I'd be happy for it to be technologically determined though none of these things can be determined by hawk eye or a chip in the ball so whats the problem with the goal line methods? perhaps best not to comment on another sport if you don't really know what you're on about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 14724 Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 (edited) Diving is as what constitutes enough to knock an individual over and what constitutes a foul is essentially down to the interpretation of a referee offside is not, and I'd be happy for it to be technologically determined though none of these things can be determined by hawk eye or a chip in the ball so whats the problem with the goal line methods? perhaps best not to comment on another sport if you don't really know what you're on about First point yeah, but you could actually stop the game and see if theres been any contact at all, especially in the box. Once you go a yard down that road (eg goaline only), some bell end in the media will want more. Thats how the case for goaline technology started, despite it making no difference whatsover to any significant Premier League outcome that I can remember. Correct me if I'm wrong on that. And I know enough about cricket to know that the referall system is despised by umpires and indeed some teams, India for instance. I'm not a cricket addict, but I do understand the game very well and played a fair bit in my youth and if anyone who is heavily into their cricket wants to contradict me then thats fine. So if goaline technology was to be introduced, and the ball is found not to have crossed the line fully, how is the game re started?.... Edited July 4, 2012 by PaddockLad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brock Manson 0 Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 First point yeah, but you could actually stop the game and see if theres been any contact at all, especially in the box. Once you go a yard down that road (eg goaline only), some bell end in the media will want more. Thats how the case for goaline technology started, despite it making no difference whatsover to any significant Premier League outcome that I can remember. Correct me if I'm wrong on that. Pedro Mendes' goal at OT for Spurs immediately springs to mind for starters. You have been corrected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 14724 Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Pedro Mendes' goal at OT for Spurs immediately springs to mind for starters. You have been corrected. Thats the only one I csn think of and the league has been going 20 years....see what I mean? It changed nothing too...manu finsihed 3rd, 18 points behind Chelsea in 2005, Spurs finsihed 9th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
citizenerased 0 Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 (edited) First point yeah, but you could actually stop the game and see if theres been any contact at all, especially in the box. Once you go a yard down that road (eg goaline only), some bell end in the media will want more. Thats how the case for goaline technology started, despite it making no difference whatsover to any significant Premier League outcome that I can remember. Correct me if I'm wrong on that. And I know enough about cricket to know that the referall system is despised by umpires and indeed some teams, India for instance. I'm not a cricket addict, but I do understand the game very well and played a fair bit in my youth and if anyone who is heavily into their cricket wants to contradict me then thats fine. So if goaline technology was to be introduced, and the ball is found not to have crossed the line fully, how is the game re started?.... India are the only one's who oppose it, and it's purely political on their part. The only reason umpires are against it is because it shows them up for what tools they are. Also, with your last point, play doesn't stop at all if they use the German system. If the ball crosses the line, the sensor goes off, the ref is instantly alerted and a goal is awarded. If the sensor doesn't go off, the ref will wave play on as the ball hasn't crossed the line. No stoppages. Rugby,Cricket and Tennis have basically introduced and undermined the ref's authority in those sports at the behest of Rupert Murdoch. No, just no. Edited July 5, 2012 by citizenerased Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 14724 Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 India are the only one's who oppose it, and it's purely political on their part. The only reason umpires are against it is because it shows them up for what tools they are. Also, with your last point, play doesn't stop at all if they use the German system. If the ball crosses the line, the sensor goes off, the ref is instantly alerted and a goal is awarded. If the sensor doesn't go off, the ref will wave play on as the ball hasn't crossed the line. No stoppages. [/size][/font][/color] No, just no. Technology is available to these sports as an alternative to having human officals making important decisions. If it wasnt the power and control hungry Murdoch driving these innovations it would be someone else like him. The biggest problem facing cricket is match riggging and spot betting, and has been for the last 20 years or so. It wasn't whether a ball had pitched outside the off stump and therefore the appeal to the umpire from the bowler for lbw is turned down. Cricket had thrived for over 100 years as a global sport before Sky brought their Hawkeye system in, snickomemter,hotspot etc etc....all of it undermines the umpire. All of it brought in by Sky. I don't see how thats even debateable tbh. Its gimmicks like this,brought in for the armchair viewer and the advertisers who want to attract them, that has undermined the authority of the umpires. Rampant commercialism has replaced a sport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 35026 Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 What's gimmicky about a signal sent to the referee to let him know beyond a shadow of a doubt whether what he's just watched was a goal or not? I mean you're absolutely flailing here talking about Sky, cricket, undermining umpires, driven by money, what's next? offsides, throw ins?, but when it comes down to it, none of that is relevant. What is wrong with quickly confirming yes/no to a referee as to whether he just did/didn't witness a goal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew 4242 Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 How is ensuring a correct decision undermining the umpire? It only undermines an umpire who is wrong by correcting them, that's a good thing. Added to the fact that, in top class cricket, the umpire is right most of the time anyway and the tech is used to allow them to make the right call in situations where it is incredibly tight or they just got something wrong, anyone who isn't a complete bell would rather have the right call made for the game and move on than preserve some misplaced sense of correctness or be crucified in the press and be really analysed and pulled to pieces by MotD or SSN Human error is part of what makes sports great but it should be the players errors and the players skills that do that, not the officials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 6441 Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Howdy PaddockLad, be the first person ever on the Internet to change their mind. I double dicky dare you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 14724 Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 What's gimmicky about a signal sent to the referee to let him know beyond a shadow of a doubt whether what he's just watched was a goal or not? I mean you're absolutely flailing here talking about Sky, cricket, undermining umpires, driven by money, what's next? offsides, throw ins?, but when it comes down to it, none of that is relevant. What is wrong with quickly confirming yes/no to a referee as to whether he just did/didn't witness a goal? On the face of it, nothing. If the technology has been proven to work in all conditions then I don't see a problem with it. Its where it may lead to I'm concerned about. And the reasons for introducing it in the first place. The argument in favour seems to be "well its there, lets use it" which is as lame as me complaining about rampant commercialism. Theres been one premier league match affected by it in 20 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 14724 Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Howdy PaddockLad, be the first person ever on the Internet to change their mind. I double dicky dare you. You know it doesnt work like that!!! I have put a bit of thought into this...it may not seem like it, but I have...it was cricket and the complete bell ends in the sky tv commnetary box who made me think theres something going on thats not quite right a few years back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 What's gimmicky about a signal sent to the referee to let him know beyond a shadow of a doubt whether what he's just watched was a goal or not? I mean you're absolutely flailing here talking about Sky, cricket, undermining umpires, driven by money, what's next? offsides, throw ins?, but when it comes down to it, none of that is relevant. What is wrong with quickly confirming yes/no to a referee as to whether he just did/didn't witness a goal? Will it be implemented in all FA cup ties? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 14724 Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 How is ensuring a correct decision undermining the umpire? It only undermines an umpire who is wrong by correcting them, that's a good thing. Added to the fact that, in top class cricket, the umpire is right most of the time anyway and the tech is used to allow them to make the right call in situations where it is incredibly tight or they just got something wrong, anyone who isn't a complete bell would rather have the right call made for the game and move on than preserve some misplaced sense of correctness or be crucified in the press and be really analysed and pulled to pieces by MotD or SSN Human error is part of what makes sports great but it should be the players errors and the players skills that do that, not the officials. Why? Officals had made errors in every sport for decades and the sports had thrived. Can't you see that? Why should it change now, who wants the change and who's driving it? Instead of trotting out the party line, think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now