Rogorn
member
Reged: 24/03/2007
Posts: 310
|
|
I don't think that extra referees or linesmen is the way forward at all to solve the problem of wrong decisions in football. It would involve more people cluttering the sidelines and the field of play to end up making the same mistakes as always. Or not many less. Or even new and different ones.
When even a TV replay sometimes can't give us a final verdict on a particular incident, how can we expect any human being to get it right all the time without the benefit of time to consider and multiple angles? How many times any of us viewers have changed our mind after a TV replay ('oh, look, it was a dive', 'hey, no, there was contact from the defender') when we had thought the first time that we had seen it right and clear? Finding a way of working the use of technology into the refereeing of games is the way to go. Limited challenges to the decisions, limited cases in which it can be asked for, whatever, but there are ways, and they must be explored.
|
worldsoccer
member
Reged: 08/06/2006
Posts: 229
|
|
This month's Big Issue is FIFA's decision to experiment with two additional referees
Edited by worldsoccer (17/03/2008 17:06)
|
barney
member
Reged: 08/06/2006
Posts: 235
|
|
I agree with Rogorn's initial analysis. The problem I envisage with using additional referees is quite simple: more officials=more disagreements between those officials. Interview several people who have witnessed a crime and you will get several different opinions as to what happened. Ask several referees whether the ball has crossed the line and you'll get several different opinions. All of which can only cause further delays and risk heightening friction between players and officials.
However, where I disagree with him is with his suggestion that introducing technology would benefit the game. Why can't we, as we have done for over a hundred years now, just accept that human error is part of the game. At the end of the day it's just a sport played by fallible human beings, officiated by fallible human beings. I know some people argue that it's now 'big business', but so what. Just because the game is awash with money does not mean that its inate simplicty and fluency - which lies at the very core of its appeal, and which sets it apart from the likes of Rugby and NFL - should in any way be jeopardised.
|
stephen_woodside
member
Reged: 02/05/2007
Posts: 1880
Loc: Huyton, Merseyside
|
|
I agree in parts with what has been said so far, but also disagree to a larger extent regarding other thoughts. Firstly i am in favour of seeing instant replays introduced albeit for limited incidents, ie "a ball coming off the upright and bouncing down towards the goal-line and during penalty claims". Many believe that video technology will slow the game down, "nonsense". What slows the game down is players deliberately timewasting by feigning injuries etc.
Having four Assistant referee's, two either side of the halfway line would certainly not clutter up the sidelines as each assistant would be designated to marked out areas in which to work within, not that i am entirely convinced by having four assistant referee's. Human error is only to be expected, and it is true that football as done without all this technology since the game began. Also, introducing tv replays etc, will extinguish the drama of uncertainty and controversy. But at this present time, too many decisions cost clubs millions in an era that richer clubs get richer, and poorer clubs get poorer.
This phenomenen is a stigma in England in general life alone, but in football terms, one wrong decision could cripple a club's stature. The solution if not bringing in instant replay technology for match officials, would be to at least ask for those to review wrong or contencious decisions at a later date and then to admit if there decisions may have been incorrect. Saying that, i dont feel even that system would work out. Without going into many details, think of Aliadiere's sending off at Anfield following a stright red card then having his ban extended, then compare Lampard's straight red card sending off day's later against West Ham, but having the ban totally lifted.
I still believe ex-players should eventually replace these many incompetant officials, who fail to see incidents from 10/15 yards that fans can see clearly way back in the stands. How many times have i heard people say " the referee cant make certain decisions because he was too far from the incident". Ref's are well paid on matchdays, they have also been through grueling training programmes, so they should consistantly be positioned well on the field of play, to witness incidents. Plans to introduce four assistants only emphasises the fact that referee's need all the help they need.
--------------------
Nil Satis Nisi Optimum
|
Rogorn
member
Reged: 24/03/2007
Posts: 310
|
|
I can see why many reactions to this topic have a touch of 'if it isn't broken, don't fix it': it is a very nice idea to see football as a simple and uncomplicated game, with sensible and strictly human solutions to the most visible problems, and a set of basic rules under which the sport has always been the same at heart. It is all very well to feel the kind of affection one feels for an old car, or an old and comfy pair of jeans, things you love because they've always been with you, and you hate to change or discard them, but I feel that there are broken things in the game, in my view, and some of them can be fixed, or at least a genuine attempt can be made. And it wouldn't be some kind of treason to try. The European Cup or yellow and red cards, for example, weren't there from the beginning in the history of football, and they were improvements on the original.
Nowadays one of the main areas for improvements is decidedly the accuracy of refereeing decisions. If there ever was an age in which players, managers and fans were prepared to shrug wrong decisions off, sportingly saying that 'some you win, some you lose', the number of people ready to accept that is dwindling rapidly. Roy Keane is one, for example. This week I read him say that these things don't balance themselves out over a season, and obviously there is nothing to suggest that a decision against you will be 'repaired' by another for you in a few matches' time. Everyone moves on because the show doesn't stop, but those lost points won't come back, millions depend on the outcome, and there are new matches to play (and new mistakes to debate). It's never been an ideal situation, though.
I'm not for stopping the game at every decision to look at replays, but at some points in the game even the fans watching want to know what was the right call. And you can sense those moments, and I think the public, the players and everyone involved would accept a little stoppage time to sort the matter out properly, as it happens in rugby with dubious tries. Besides, often it is the players who hold up the game with their protests if the decision is really contentious, so the time-waste is already there.
And to fix this, extra pairs of eyes are not going to do it. Or they're only going to do it if they're in the parking lot inside a van looking at it from several angles.
|
squidge
member
Reged: 01/04/2008
Posts: 1
|
|
I think extra linesmen would certainly help with offsides/goal line moments due to frantic pace of todays game (a excuse they always have when they get it wrong). It may not be perfect but given FIFA's reluctance to embrace technology it may be better than nothing
|
badgerboy
member
Reged: 26/03/2007
Posts: 727
Loc: Bucks, England
|
|
I'm a big fan of Platini on most things.
But this isn't one of them.
Goal-line technology itself makes sense - although I'm not even convinced that has to be as "technical" as people make out. Appropriately stationed TV cameras & the general rule that - "if studying the replay for a limited amount of time doesn't clearly show the ball is over the line, then it isn't a goal" makes sense.
Indeed - instead of introducing extra officials - why not just give more power to the fourth official. Allow him (rather than forbid him) to use TV monitors to review close decisions & ensure he is in constant communication with the actual referee.
I also don't hold with the argument that: "it's wrong to introduce technology into top level football because it should be the same as park football". Why?
Just because they have hawkeye at Wimbledon doesn't mean they have access to it at all tennis clubs around the country. Even at Wimbledon the technology is only available on the show courts (I think!) and I'm 100% sure nothing of the sort is available in the qualifiers. That doesn't make it a "different game" it just gives the top games the opportunity to be fairer.
|
AndyNeill
member
Reged: 27/07/2007
Posts: 20
|
|
My gut reaction is that extra officials would be preferable to using cameras or microchips-in-balls for the key reason that expensive technology would inevitably distance the top-level professional business even further from the grass roots game.
This inequality is not just a threat to the romantic idea that kids in the park play by the same rules as a World Cup final; it is also a threat to the fair competition between teams from different areas/countries. For example, the Albanian league might struggle to afford microchip balls, and if an Albanian team played a in the UEFA Cup or Champions League (qualifiers) against a team from a richer league, their inexperience with the new set up would put them at a disadvantage. Domestic cups like the F.A. Cup would also suffer from this imbalance.
To be honest though, is it not depressingly true that the haves already have a technological advantage over the have-nots? Better training facilities, better medical equipment and staff to use it, nutritionists, first class travel and so on.
Perhaps on-field technology is just an extension of that, but an option like extra linesmen, which could be implemented at all levels and across the globe, would to my mind be preferable to allowing the elite yet another advantage.
So, the big clubs might moan about loss of revenue if a decision goes against them in a big game. Tough. For 99% of the world, football is a sport, about glory, passion and controversy, not a business about markets and revenue streams, and long may it stay that way.
|
subhankar_mondal
member
Reged: 29/08/2006
Posts: 1995
|
|
Who got their names into the magazine this time around, huh?
--------------------
Subhankar Mondal is a football writer for www.goal.com.
|
Rogorn
member
Reged: 24/03/2007
Posts: 310
|
|
No-one. The Summer issue is the special edition about Euro 2008.
|
AndyNeill
member
Reged: 27/07/2007
Posts: 20
|
|
Well said Rogorn.
It is not a competition. If Rogorn, Badgerboy, Druryfire and myself have appeared a few times, it just means we've submitted interesting replies. I'm perfectly to happy to read other people's stimulating, informatve letters!
|
ranckoner
member
Reged: 27/06/2007
Posts: 16
|
|
Goal-line technology is the only new device we require in football. It is the simplest debate- was it in or wasn't it? And therefore, it is the easiest to answer. Using tv footage to debate wether or not it was offisde/foul/penalty is done every weekend on MotD and doesn't prove anything anyway. As for keeping football the same at every level- we only get a referee when we play amateur and he's got to judge offsides as well.
|
AndyNeill
member
Reged: 27/07/2007
Posts: 20
|
|
Coming soon! The All-Time World Cup at Play4ATeam.com
-The site developed for players BY players!
The failure of all four home nations to qualify for Euro 2008 has led to nostalgic conversations in pubs up and down the land, pining for the days of old when there were players who did the shirt proud.
Surely England would be unstoppable if they still had Lineker up front and Moore at the back? Wouldn’t Scotland have gotten through the qualifiers with Law and Dalglish up front?
But just who would be selected for an England all-time team? Just as importantly, how would they fare against the all-time teams from the rest of the world?
Which is the greatest footballing nation on Earth? Which country has produced the finest talents? Could Baresi and Maldini snuff out Pele and Romario? Who would come out on top between Beckenbauer and Matthaus’ German machine and a Dutch Cruyff-Van Basten dream team?
Well, the time has come to find out once and for all, at the ALL-TIME WORLD CUP!
|
Rogorn
member
Reged: 24/03/2007
Posts: 310
|
|
What has this got to do with linesmen?
Unless Tofik Bakhramov officiates...
|
MKMark
member
Reged: 09/06/2008
Posts: 9
|
|
I do not think having extra referees/linesman is the answer. As has been mentioned previously in an earlier post their for a start could be different opinions i.e. one linesman thinks the ball was over the line and one does not.
To stop the game to look at talking/flash points in the game will not work as it breaks up the game too much and takes away the enjoyment of end to end football like the Netherlands v Italy yesterday evening.
Why not invent a system like they have in ice hockey where if the whole ball crosses the line a light or sound system is activated. May sound illogical but it works for other sports. May have issues with faulty equipment I suppose but you cannot say that the linesman and referees get it right 100% of the time hence we would not be having this conversation
|
washiefrog
member
Reged: 20/06/2008
Posts: 5
|
|
We don't need either, all we need is goalline technology.
|
footballisfixed
member
Reged: 01/08/2008
Posts: 1
|
|
All other major sports use one or both of video technology (rugby, cricket, even horseracing) and/or the rights for players to question a certain number of refereeing decisions in the game (tennis).
Some Premier League matches have betting turnover of over £1 billion ($2 billion) and the skewed incentives of economics are certain to ensure that certain officials will be coerced or bribed into criminalised behaviour.
World Soccer acknowledges this state of affairs in the second and third tier footballing nations but studiously avoids comment on the English Premier League.
Perhaps it is something to do with the bookmakers that advertise in the magazine, I donno.
All key decisions must be taken out of the referees hands and a larger roster of match officials created - the Premier League used just 14 referees for 92% of last season's games while Serie A and the Bundesliga have 2/3 times as many available referees, hence reducing chances of the creation of a small pool of rogue refs.
For a real-time blog on corruption in football, check: http://footballisfixed.blogspot.com/
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
