Correcting An Obvious Mistake

Yep, I'm totally with you regarding being disillusioned at the moment, especially with potentially penalty situations.

I guess it's a matter of identifying the root cause of the problem. This is where I'm at a bit if a loss.

Is it because the quality of refereeing is poorer nowadays?

Is it because the pace of the game is quicker nowadays, therefore the referee's job has become too demanding for major decisions to be made by a single person?

Is it more apparent towards our own club, or do the majority of PL fans feel cheated on a weekly basis?

We do need to see changes, and I can't understand for the life of me why any change takes so long to implement. I'd much rather the FA give something a trial run, and if it doesn't improve the game, hold there hands up and revert back or change to an alternative method. At least it gives us some assurance that something bent isn't going on. What we often get with the FA is sweet F.A.
 
I'm not a fan of video replays for every decision. They have become the norm in rugby league and refs now wont make a decision if the video is available. Its boring as fuck waiting for the decisions and I've stopped going to games now partly for that reason.

I do however think that teams should be allowed one challenge per game. A bit like cricket. The challenge can only be to either appeal for a penalty or against the awarding of a penalty or to challenge a goal ruled out for offside or claim offside when a goal has been given. Nothing else so no claims that someone should be sent off or anything like that. It might also help cut out diving.

If teams only have one per game, it would cut out frivolous appeals and teams would need to be really careful how they used the appeal because they might need it in the 94th minute. There is a chance the other night that we would have used ours appealing for a pen on Aguero when he stayed on his feet and missed out on the one at the end but that illustrates the point of having to be sure that it is an appeal worth making.

This would maybe add 2 minutes onto the game and the video refs decision is final.
 
trublue55 said:
Without being dramatic, i am becoming increasingly disillusioned with being "cheated" on virtually a weekly basis.
Click to expand...
You echo my thoughts exactly!

Some refs are shite, others must be bent, there's no other explanation. At least with a video ref fro major decisions there will be transparency as to why that decision has been made. If it's still wrong then clearly it's down to something more sinister and it's there for the world to see.

In fairness to the straight refs and linesmen, the game is now a lot quicker, players are fitter and faster and it must be a much harder job than it was in the good old days.

The other thing that is really getting on my tits at the moment is time wasting and the fact that refs are not accountable for how much time they do or, in our case, don't add on.

We've seen games recently where our opponents have started running the clock down with 30 minutes to go. Fortunately it's worked for us on occasions and we've got a late winner but it kills the game. There should be an independent time keeper with the stadium clocks synchronised real-time so everybody knows how long's left and when the clock has been stopped.
 
Have 2 X 30min halves of play where the clock stops ticking when the ball goes out of play, for injuries and for video ref calls. That would stop all time wasting and rolling about on the floor like a dying fly. Video ref should be used for red cards, all penalty shouts, disallowed goals etc.

The ball in actual play figures for a match are awful. Fans are being cheated by paying more money for less and less football these days. At least with 2 X 30 you're guaranteed an hour of entertainment.
 
Some players, not all, The Ginger Pig springs to mind rather quickly, get a yellow card with their first foul. Why do players not get a yellow card for the following, the first time they do it.

  • delaying the restart of play
  • failure to respect the required distance when play is restarted with a corner kick, free kick or throw-in

Goalkeepers who take an age over a goalkick and players who stand immediately in front of the ball at a free kick.

I regard it as another example of referees cheating and bending the Laws to give them an easier time. How do they think all the effin and jeffin crept into the game? How has Rooney managed a career where he has received but a small percentage of the red cards he should have been shown? Refs are making up the Laws and ignoring others in that they adopt the most flexible of approaches. The Laws of the Game are the simplest and most black and white of any sport I know, but the wankers with the whistle don't apply them consistently and even-handedly across the board.
 
There is no need to stop play at all, they can play on, the video ref should be talking to the ref throughout the game helping him with things he hasn't seen or answering the refs questions, no need for it to become an event, the spectators need not be aware of decisions being reviewed or the ref being advised.
 
I would Love a Rugby-esque system in place.

The players would know that even if the ref isnt watching, there is a TMO who will see it, big replays up on screen that would make them squirm on the pitch in front of 50 thousand if they so much as dared to cheat.

We also need someone with the integrity and personal presence to enforce it all, in the mould of Nigel Owens.

Football may be the bigger sport, but Rugby has the most complete officiating system in place.
 
Never in a million years were we getting penalty on Wednesday night. We have to remember that Stones is the new Bobby Moore and the future of the English football and it is therefore impossible for him to have made such a piss-poor error of judgement. He also plays for Everton, the peoples club and one of the great institutions of English football so it would have been an insult to the English football to deprive them of a point when they had held out so manfully against the multi-billions of petro-rich Abu Dhabi owned, history-less, never had a crowd above 30k until 2012 Man City. The undisputed fact that Raheem Sterling is the physical embodiment of not just the moral collapse of English football but society as a whole only underlines the necessity for Roger East to protect the integrity of our national game.

If we had a pissed up psychopathic bully as manager who had free reign to intimidate and threaten officials we could easily have four more points and two away goals from the semi-final. Underserved maybe, but did the Rags deserve everything they got?

I’m not convinced video refs would make a difference, it would just highlight the inherent bias against City. Look at Webb arguing that Aguero shouldn’t have had a penalty at Leicester because his arms went up in the air. It was still a fucking foul but they’re just looking for an excuse not to give them. On Wednesday a video ref would just have said that Sterling was running the ball out of play or he went down to easily – it wasn’t and he didn’t but these decisions rely on interpretation and judgement which is the get out clause for all manner of bias and cheating.

For years now we have been on the end of some diabolical refereeing which goes well beyond incompetence. Just one example are the penalties not given during the derby at home last year. Reverse the situation and we’d have been on for an absolute hiding but that’s never going to happen to the Rags.
 
at risk of repeating what i advocated a few months back (when we'd probably been done again), i suggested when a referee thinks that a foul has been committed in the area, or indeed thinks that a foul may have been committed in the area, he blows for a "conditional penalty",that decision is then reviewed, and i honestly couldn't care less, whether it is by the referee alone, the ref and the 4th official, or a video official / panel in the stands, or a combination of the above.

Having reviewed the decision the game re-starts from the penalty spot, with either a penalty kick or a free kick to the defending side. Hopefully this safety net approach would give courage to the likes of Roger East (who unless he is bent, was presumably too scared of making a mistake and potentially give City the game) and he should have no qualms about awarding a "conditional penalty" knowing full well that he/ others will check the award, before it is taken.He may well, also have given a 'conditional' for the challenge on Sergio, and indeed Everton may have had a claim for one, however on review we certainly would have had at least one penalty. I am not suggesting this is a perfect solution, but it has to be an big improvement!!

Equally the joke penalty that a presumably good intentioned newbie referee awarded to Swansea the other night, would still have been whistled as a "conditional penalty" but once reviewed could not fail to be rescinded, and the game would have re-started with a free kick to Sunderland.

I honestly can't see any downside to this proposal
.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.