Corrupt Officiating Within the English game

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

The Wales v Scotland match yesterday: for the first time I can remember the video ref got a decision wrong! A try was awarded when there was an obvious offside - that's a rugby offside which, to my eye, is a different kettle of fish to a footy offside. But that was the first I can recall in all the years that I've been watching video-teched rugby, and there was a clear mistake in the week using Hawkeye in an ATP Women's tennis match. But in both rugby and tennis the way the game is officiated is a lesson to football. The only trouble is that the game is governed by ostriches who cannot see the advantage of arriving at results which reflect what takes place on the pitch. Or perhaps they DO see the advantage in maintaining the status quo, where referees have clearly been 'misguided' as to the awarding of sanctions, whether it be penalties or sendings off. There are numerous examples from just CIty games this season where a second view, I am certain, would have resulted in a different decision. And I am perfectly happy for a fourth official to deliver a decision of 'inconclusive' as they do with a try in rugby which doesn't appear to show a clear try.

The biggest stumbling block to using video technology in football is whether the goons, like Howie Redshirt, would be the men in the shed with the telly! The same people who clearly saw Ash the Crash diving for his umpteenth penalty of the season. Would they still not acknowledge the yard gap of atmosphere between the two protagonists?

 

[Steve68]

I have to disagree on two counts, mate.

Firstly I cannot see how it is beyond the wit of man, given current technology levels, to devise something that works as effectively and accurately as goal-line technology.

Secondly I am violently opposed to anything that interrupts the flow of the game; as that feature of the game contains football's innate, distinguishing beauty. A third referee would alter the nature of the sport, much for the worse imo.

I think you underestimate the complexity of the total problem and the effort it would take to get something that could never be demonstrated to be 100 percent accurate anyway. Players with shock proof sensors on knees, arse, each shoulder, head front and back, chest, two or more each boot.

All to not guarantee to solve a problem that hasn't been demonstrated to be anything other than inevitable human error. Officials make mistakes, that's just an inevitable part of the game.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I think you underestimate the complexity of the total problem and the effort it would take to get something that could never be demonstrated to be 100 percent accurate anyway. Players with shock proof sensors on knees, arse, each shoulder, head front and back, chest, two or more each boot.

All to not guarantee to solve a problem that hasn't been demonstrated to be anything other than inevitable human error. Officials make mistakes, that's just an inevitable part of the game.

Well have to agree to disagree on the technology. If we can put a man on the moon etc...

I don't think human error is the real concern, but rather something much more sinister.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

Well have to agree to disagree on the technology. If we can put a man on the moon etc...

I don't think human error is the real concern, but rather something much more sinister.

Setting my sky blue tinted specs to one side, Tim Peake would have seen that it was a clear foul on Sterling by Stones, and, similarly, by Mirallas on Navas. How the two referees, somewhat nearer than our intrepid spaceman, thought differently, lays open the notion that there is summat else afoot than simply 'not being 100% sure'! The cheating aspect of both referees is clearly evident when, the following match they demonstrate an immediate and decisive approach in pointing to the penalty spot when a similar incident occurs. No self doubt, no dithering, no clamming up when asked. And we have the ever-red Howie concurring with all decisions!

 

[Steve68]

Well have to agree to disagree on the technology. If we can put a man on the moon etc...

I don't think human error is the real concern, but rather something much more sinister.

The moon landing was powered by computers and programs your mobile would point and laugh at. Amazing feat that as a kid I fell asleep on the couch waiting to witness. :(

NASA owes me a Mars shot in the next few years.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

The moon landing was powered by computers and programs your mobile would point and laugh at. Amazing feat that as a kid I fell asleep on the couch waiting to witness. :(

NASA owes me a Mars shot in the next few years.

I'm aware about the disparity between Apollo and contemporary communications technology, mate - that was sort of the point I was making :-)

Personally, I was subject to the gestation process at the time.

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

The Wales v Scotland match yesterday: for the first time I can remember the video ref got a decision wrong! A try was awarded when there was an obvious offside - that's a rugby offside which, to my eye, is a different kettle of fish to a footy offside. But that was the first I can recall in all the years that I've been watching video-teched rugby,

You are indeed correct. The Wales scrum half was offside. He could not get behind Dan Biggar from where he was kicking it, so he had to retreat 10 yards, which he didnt do. I think the TMO checked for offside concerning the challenge for the ball between Jamie Roberts and whoever the Jock was, but that still didnt cover the scrum half who went for the ball from an offside position. In reality, most players just make an effort to get back a few yards in such circumstances and that is usually enough in a fast game, but he didnt make any effort at all and ended up scoring a great try. So suck on that Scotland

 

[MillionMilesAway]

You are indeed correct. The Wales scrum half was offside. He could not get behind Dan Biggar from where he was kicking it, so he had to retreat 10 yards, which he didnt do. I think the TMO checked for offside concerning the challenge for the ball between Jamie Roberts and whoever the Jock was, but that still didnt cover the scrum half who went for the ball from an offside position. In reality, most players just make an effort to get back a few yards in such circumstances and that is usually enough in a fast game, but he didnt make any effort at all and ended up scoring a great try. So suck on that Scotland

Davies certainly moved forwards slightly, but as you say, this tends to be ignored in most circumstances if they don't get involved with the challenge.

If the Scots player jumping touches it, he's played back onside - I thought he did in the air, that is that Roberts knocked the ball back onto the Scot's hand.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

You are indeed correct. The Wales scrum half was offside. He could not get behind Dan Biggar from where he was kicking it, so he had to retreat 10 yards, which he didnt do. I think the TMO checked for offside concerning the challenge for the ball between Jamie Roberts and whoever the Jock was, but that still didnt cover the scrum half who went for the ball from an offside position. In reality, most players just make an effort to get back a few yards in such circumstances and that is usually enough in a fast game, but he didnt make any effort at all and ended up scoring a great try. So suck on that Scotland

Was it Howie Redshirt in the shed with the telly, or was Crappers doin' a bit of ruggerbugger moonlighting?

 

[Tom_mcfc]

It's riddled from top to bottom. I could be watching a game as a neutral and the game could hold no relevance to me or my club and I immediately have a preference to what team I want to win. I don't care how unbiased you try to be and if a referee is that into football they have a preference themselves. Like that twat from Wythenshawe claims he's an Alty fan from a family of United fans but if I remember right he's a Sunderland fan. how on earth does he ref in the top league?