[Ghostavo]

Originally posted by aldo_14
It's worth noting...for every dodgy decision against you, there's a decision that goes for you.
eye for an eye? that doesn't work very well in sports now does it?

I'm not for TV evidence; I think it'd slow down the game to do instant replays, even if just after the goal.

One of the advantages IMO of footie is that after a goal, you have kick-off within minutes and usually the conceding team giving it laldy; I think if you use replays even at that stage, you'd lose that momentum (although use for tech to instantly decide offside / over the line could be useful).

 I'm pretty much opposed to the widespread use of TV replays during play because I think they'd spoil the flow.
Imagine a group of people watching the game in a TV and sending messages to the referee for example. It won't slow down the game. Besides, it's a bit odd, when every person in the stadium sees a faul and nothing is done about it (which is probably why I like chess more, less fauls, more playing, and no luck that the referee didn't saw a faul stuff).

[BlackDove]

Originally posted by kietotheworld


Who would score them if all 11 players are back?

The opposing team.

[Kie99]

Which would leave them exposed to a counter-attack.

[Corsair]

You can't remove the offsides rule... it's part of what defines the game.

[aldo_14]

[q]eye for an eye? that doesn't work very well in sports now does it?[/q]

It's true, though; fans will moan about decisions against them and the unfairness about it all, but when they get a dodgy penalty...........

[q]Imagine a group of people watching the game in a TV and sending messages to the referee for example. It won't slow down the game. Besides, it's a bit odd, when every person in the stadium sees a faul and nothing is done about it (which is probably why I like chess more, less fauls, more playing, and no luck that the referee didn't saw a faul stuff).[/q]

Well, every person in the stadium sees a foul for their team being missed by the ref.......besides which, there are countless times you watch the match on the telly in real-time and can't tell how good a decision is.  It's worse now with some of the diving that goes on.

Ultimately a team that can't cope with a couple of bad decisions doesn't deserve to win.  Take the example at the start of this thread; Hungary lost 2 nil to goals on 30 and 55 minutes.  It's not like they were sucker-punched.

[q]Which would leave them exposed to a counter-attack.[/q]

And hence holding the vast majority of their team back.  This is exactly what I meant; with offside a team can afford to push the back line up the pitch, all the way to the half way line.  Without it, they can't lest someone just stand on the D and wait for a punt.

[Kie99]

On the upside, it might stop Peter Crouch being absolutely useless.

[BlackDove]

Originally posted by kietotheworld
Which would leave them exposed to a counter-attack.

Not really.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by BlackDove


Not really.

why?

[psycho_fergo]

i would like to say about hockey, i play grass/roller/ice hockey and have played for 5 years now. and they are all as kick ass as the other

they all need a different set of skills, and i would say grass hockey is the hardest of them all...

also, all of them break out in fights. not just in ice hockey, i got 7 stitches from getting hit in the head with a hockey stick in roller (he tried to kill me, the little poo head)

ive broken 3 fingers punching a mans stick as he went to hit me with it in grass hockey, and then i socked him in the head with my other hand

and in ice hockey im the only person to be banned from one of the ice rinks for throwing my skate at someones head(it split his helmet..mwuhahaha)

they all kick ass, and the offside rule is no good for hockey, but thats because the defencive stratagies are different compared to soccer...and it is a much faster paced game than soccer too..

thats my few cents..

also, i saw that game with hungary-bulgaria..it was a hell of a call that. that reff needs to be shot.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by psycho_fergo
i would like to say about hockey, i play grass/roller/ice hockey and have played for 5 years now. and they are all as kick ass as the other

they all need a different set of skills, and i would say grass hockey is the hardest of them all...

also, all of them break out in fights. not just in ice hockey, i got 7 stitches from getting hit in the head with a hockey stick in roller (he tried to kill me, the little poo head)

ive broken 3 fingers punching a mans stick as he went to hit me with it in grass hockey, and then i socked him in the head with my other hand

and in ice hockey im the only person to be banned from one of the ice rinks for throwing my skate at someones head(it split his helmet..mwuhahaha)

they all kick ass, and the offside rule is no good for hockey, but thats because the defencive stratagies are different compared to soccer...and it is a much faster paced game than soccer too..

thats my few cents..

also, i saw that game with hungary-bulgaria..it was a hell of a call that. that reff needs to be shot.

So, in other words, you're a violent wankpot whose main investment in sport is how much damage he can do to the opposing players?

[Ghostavo]

Originally posted by aldo_14
It's true, though; fans will moan about decisions against them and the unfairness about it all, but when they get a dodgy penalty...........

But it leads to a team having an unfair advantage over another as it is pretty rare for the referee to miss fauls equally and of equal oportunity

Well, every person in the stadium sees a foul for their team being missed by the ref.......besides which, there are countless times you watch the match on the telly in real-time and can't tell how good a decision is.  It's worse now with some of the diving that goes on.

Ultimately a team that can't cope with a couple of bad decisions doesn't deserve to win.  Take the example at the start of this thread; Hungary lost 2 nil to goals on 30 and 55 minutes.  It's not like they were sucker-punched.

It may not be the perfect referee system but it will reduce the number of missed fauls significantly.

As for a team that can't cope with a couple of bad decisions, I'd remind you of Maradona's hand of god if you weren't scot but still... a couple of penalty shots and red/yellow cards can seriously change the match, in one way or another. Each change is significant no matter how tiny it seems.

[Flipside]

Yes, sometimes referees make enormous, world shaking mistakes, but the problem with European football, as opposed to American football, is that the game is pretty slow anyway, so, for example, stopping to look at footage every time someone calls a foul, would add yet more time to overtime and injury time. This messes about with costs and profits, which the sponsors don't want, if anything, they want a way to have more goals in a football game, and make them shorter. This is why 5-a-side is gaining in poplularity.

Personally, I'm bored with football, it's all Prima-donnas whining about the fact that the 300,000 cheque they recieved this month isn't enough for someone as good as them etc. Personally I think, as cricket and rugby start to gain interest (possibly because the people who play it are more 'human' seeming than footballers) I can see Football dropping into a big hole for a while, and it will deserve it.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Ghostavo

But it leads to a team having an unfair advantage over another as it is pretty rare for the referee to miss fauls equally and of equal oportunity

I mean across seasons.

Originally posted by Ghostavo

It may not be the perfect referee system but it will reduce the number of missed fauls significantly.

At what cost, though?  Would you want to see the game brought back every 5 minutes for a missed infringement - like a shirt tug - the ref missed but has just been viewed on the replay?

So often you end up with 'maybes', anyways; not every foul (or non-decision) is obvious on TV.

Originally posted by Ghostavo

As for a team that can't cope with a couple of bad decisions, I'd remind you of Maradona's hand of god if you weren't scot but still... a couple of penalty shots and red/yellow cards can seriously change the match, in one way or another. Each change is significant no matter how tiny it seems.

Aye, with Maradona it;s worth noting he then went on to score one of the best goals in history, so it's not like that was the winner....

Yeah, you can get big decisions that change games; but at the same time a team has to be able to react to those decisions, whether they are right or wrong.  If a team concedes a penalty, etc, it doesn't matter if it was a dodgy decision; they just have to get up, and play on.

[Fragrag]

Originally posted by psycho_fergo
i would like to say about hockey, i play grass/roller/ice hockey and have played for 5 years now. and they are all as kick ass as the other

they all need a different set of skills, and i would say grass hockey is the hardest of them all...

also, all of them break out in fights. not just in ice hockey, i got 7 stitches from getting hit in the head with a hockey stick in roller (he tried to kill me, the little poo head)

ive broken 3 fingers punching a mans stick as he went to hit me with it in grass hockey, and then i socked him in the head with my other hand

and in ice hockey im the only person to be banned from one of the ice rinks for throwing my skate at someones head(it split his helmet..mwuhahaha)

they all kick ass, and the offside rule is no good for hockey, but thats because the defencive stratagies are different compared to soccer...and it is a much faster paced game than soccer too..

thats my few cents..

also, i saw that game with hungary-bulgaria..it was a hell of a call that. that reff needs to be shot.

I am never, NEVER, NEVER gonna play hockey with you

[Mongoose]

Originally posted by psycho_fergo
ind in ice hockey im the only person to be banned from one of the ice rinks for throwing my skate at someones head(it split his helmet..mwuhahaha)

You sure your name isn't Happy Gilmore?

[BlackDove]

Originally posted by aldo_14


why?

Well for one, because they have 11 people as well, which can be divided, and assuming that the people who play aren't idiots, they'll be able to act accordingly with ball posession.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by BlackDove


Well for one, because they have 11 people as well, which can be divided, and assuming that the people who play aren't idiots, they'll be able to act accordingly with ball posession.

They can't push the back line up, the oppo will have the same situation, so they'll need to forego the midfield to compete for numbers in the penalty box.... plus there's no need for slick passing, because no team would leave a gap at the back as they would playing the offside trap.....

[Ghostavo]

Originally posted by aldo_14
I mean across seasons.

And how would that work out? Decisive games exist, cup games, direct rival games, etc... Mistakes can't be allowed to happen... frequently.

At what cost, though?  Would you want to see the game brought back every 5 minutes for a missed infringement - like a shirt tug - the ref missed but has just been viewed on the replay?

So often you end up with 'maybes', anyways; not every foul (or non-decision) is obvious on TV.

I admit it would up the costs quite a bit of having the referee team's numbers doubled, trippled or perhaps more, but there wouldn't be delays. It would be real time. Costs would be the only thing in the way. At least it would be a fair sport.

Yeah, you can get big decisions that change games; but at the same time a team has to be able to react to those decisions, whether they are right or wrong.  If a team concedes a penalty, etc, it doesn't matter if it was a dodgy decision; they just have to get up, and play on.

That may work out if the teams are unbalanced, but what happens when the teams are nearly of the same capacity? A single bad decision may end up screwing a team.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Ghostavo


And how would that work out? Decisive games exist, cup games, direct rival games, etc... Mistakes can't be allowed to happen... frequently.

They don't.  If they did happen frequently, then they would either be a) an accepted part of the game or b) been addressed in some way.

How many specific refereeing errors can you name that changed games this season so far in, say, the European Cup?

Originally posted by Ghostavo

I admit it would up the costs quite a bit of having the referee team's numbers doubled, trippled or perhaps more, but there wouldn't be delays. It would be real time. Costs would be the only thing in the way. At least it would be a fair sport.

What makes you think you can even do that in real time?  I've said countless times there are incidents that aren't even apparent in repeated replays from multiple angles, in real time it's not going to be any different.  

Hell, from the sort of distances most TV cameras record at, the view's worse.  And if you go close in, then either you have 22 cameras for 22 people and 22 refs on the touchline, or you miss action in fast play.

And that's not even including the diving, especially on the continent.

Originally posted by Ghostavo

That may work out if the teams are unbalanced, but what happens when the teams are nearly of the same capacity? A single bad decision may end up screwing a team.

May.  Is that a good reason to fundamentally change the game?

[Ghostavo]

Originally posted by aldo_14
They don't.  If they did happen frequently, then they would either be a) an accepted part of the game or b) been addressed in some way.

How many specific refereeing errors can you name that changed games this season so far in, say, the European Cup?

I've given up on football at the moment, so I can't say much about this season, but last season, Chelsea lost a game to Liverpool because of a goal that may or may have not happened. Carefully placed sources of information could be put in order to see if a goal is a goal or not.

What makes you think you can even do that in real time?  I've said countless times there are incidents that aren't even apparent in repeated replays from multiple angles, in real time it's not going to be any different.  

Hell, from the sort of distances most TV cameras record at, the view's worse.  And if you go close in, then either you have 22 cameras for 22 people and 22 refs on the touchline, or you miss action in fast play.

It can be done in real time with properly placed cameras. The shots you normally see on the TV is for the people watching to see the game developing, they are not properly placed for a referee to make a decision. And I'm not sugesting that there aren't going to be times where an incident is inconclusive, but the aid of other sources of information would prove to be valuable deciding most current situations where the referee has doubts.

And that's not even including the diving, especially on the continent.

Most dives can be clearly seen on the TV, so why not?

May.  Is that a good reason to fundamentally change the game?

And it may (or not) work on unbalanced teams so I'd say definatly.