Is football corrupt?

[Deleted member 14625]

I disagree. If you have watched how video technology has made rugby, cricket
and tennis much fairer in their decisions. There is much more chance of making mistakes/cheating when you make decisions in an instant and their is no way to correct or check your call.

Video refs for:
1. Red card/no red card decisions
2. Penalty/no penalty decisions
3. Check questionable incidents directly leading to a goal (offside/foul/handball etc)
4. Goal line incidents.

Nothin more, nothing less.


Football is almost impossible to officiate properly the day it is. There's too much doubt at the pace the game is now played. Even watching back The Big Match Revisited on ITV4 with games from just 25-30 years ago, the game is unbelievably faster now to then. We need a video ref.

1. What's a "no red card decision"?
2. What's a "no penalty" decision? Who decides that a situation should be reviewed? It can't be the ref - he would have given the decision if he saw it.
3. How far back do you go? What happens to the time played if an offence is found to have taken place at some stage during the build-up to a goal?
4. How can a camera tell if a ball has crossed the line when there are bodies obstructing the picture(s)? How are you going to prevent the vandals nicking/breaking them on Hough End?

1. Whether its a red card or not. If the ref thinks it might be a red card offence but there's an element of doubt and takes it upstairs and the video ref says "no red card, free kick to defending team for a dive" (see Rodwell's red card in the Merseyside derby last season at Goodison, for example).
2. If the ref sees it he gives it, don't have to take everything up to the VR.
3. DIRECTLY leading to a goal. If it goes back down the other end of the pitch that would be stupid, the team still has every opportunity to stop a goal numerous times (Suarez's disallowed not offside goal last week at Everton, for example; Odemwinge's handball leading up to his goal last night, for example).
4. Who cares abut Hough End? There's no Hawk Eye or Hot Spot or Video ref at amateur tennis cricket or rugby.

 

[CBlue]

Incompetence and partiality, not corruption.

Do you believe that no referees or player has received a brown envelope to ensure a result?

 

[Deleted member 14625]

You're forgetting the option that a perfectly good goal could be ruled out by a VR. Are the players going to charge into the stands & start banging on the doors to argue a decision? If an on-field ref doesn't make a call then the VR could make the call - against your team.

This doesnt happen in any other sport. Reviewing a decision gives much fairer results. The Video refs dont just jump in and over rule the ref they have to be called in to help. Do you watch other sports like rugby? The review system generally is superb.
I generally agree with danburge82:

Video refs for:
1. Red card/no red card decisions
2. Penalty/no penalty decisions
3. Check questionable incidents directly leading to a goal (offside/foul/handball etc)
4. Goal line incidents.
Nothin more, nothing less.
... We need a video ref. .

For me too only contentious goals, sending offs and penalties.

Rugby, cricket, tennis, blah blah blah...
These are all games that are start/stop. Football is continuous - in theory a game can be played with 2 stoppages in 90 minutes - half time & full time. Why would a ref stop the game to ask someone to overrule his opinion on a decision he didn't give? Take the Torres sending off against the rags - despite the VR from all angles, there are still differences of opinion.

Football flows no more or less than rugby league. Stoppages at corners, free kicks, goal kicks (I count up to 40 seconds for goal kick sometimes from time wasting teams, Stoke took 1min and 10seconds once), stoppages for injuries can take anything from one minute to seven minutes. Then you have the surrounding the ref and swearing at him, or squaring up the the opposition saying you'll knock them out and actually do nowt happens all the time in football taking anything up to two minutes at a time.

Rugby league is a fast flowing sport.

 

[Feanor]

For the last four years, this question proves to be the vital one in big games. I am sure that most of the associations are corrupted and have interest in giving preference to one team or another.

 

[CBlue]

This doesnt happen in any other sport. Reviewing a decision gives much fairer results. The Video refs dont just jump in and over rule the ref they have to be called in to help. Do you watch other sports like rugby? The review system generally is superb.
I generally agree with danburge82:

For me too only contentious goals, sending offs and penalties.

Rugby, cricket, tennis, blah blah blah...
These are all games that are start/stop. Football is continuous - in theory a game can be played with 2 stoppages in 90 minutes - half time & full time. Why would a ref stop the game to ask someone to overrule his opinion on a decision he didn't give? Take the Torres sending off against the rags - despite the VR from all angles, there are still differences of opinion.

Football flows no more or less than rugby league. Stoppages at corners, free kicks, goal kicks (I count up to 40 seconds for goal kick sometimes from time wasting teams, Stoke took 1min and 10seconds once), stoppages for injuries can take anything from one minute to seven minutes. Then you have the surrounding the ref and swearing at him, or squaring up the the opposition saying you'll knock them out and actually do nowt happens all the time in football taking anything up to two minutes at a time.

Rugby league is a fast flowing sport.

...and they only have a review to determine if a try is scored or the decision if a try isn't scored. This is a natural stop in play. This isn't the case in football. It's either a goal or no goal - the game doesn't stop unless it is declared a goal. A subtle but extremely important difference.
What are you reviewing when a ball goes out for a goal kick? What are you reviewing when a player goes down injured? What are you reviewing when the players surround the ref? Is the game still going on? Wouldn't you surrounding the ref while the game continues a little dangerous? They are obviously surrounding him because they don't agree with his opninion - why would he then defer his opinion to a VR? He obviously saw an incident & deemed it not an offence - why would he ask someone else's opinion? Who's opinion would he seek? Who appoints this other opinion maker, or referee? Is he faceless? Can he make decisions knowing that the ref is getting all the shit for it? Has this other referee taken a bribe? Have both refs taken a bribe & are in on the corruption?

 

[Joga Bonito]

Probably not corrupt in the conventional sense, but there must be some shady business going on on the inside (I feel having big names like Ferran Soriano and Begiristein will help our cause in the future but maybe it goes even beyond them).

There is no doubt that real fixing goes on though, I have met a few people that are involved with it although I've never heard of a fixed match in England (one in a lower division Scottish match before), usually lower South/Central American leagues and African internationals.

 

[Yaya_Tony]

Bent or not can we please have someone on the back post and the front post when defending corners ? Thanks.

Tonight, absolutely this.

 

[Freestyler]

Do i believe there is an agenda against us personally?

hmmm probably not.

Do i believe there is corruption in Football in general?

yes, yes i do.

 

[Yaya_Tony]

The way I see video tech working, is based on the fact we can replay any incident a few seconds after it happens. Keep the game as it is, give managers a set number of "challenges", say 2 each for the whole game. Ref makes decisions, 4th official verifies it, manager can challenge in real time. Would only work at the top level where it is all televised, one excuse for holding up this tech is that it won't work at grassroots...

Won't happen, but would like it to.

 

[LoveCity]

The way I see video tech working, is based on the fact we can replay any incident a few seconds after it happens. Keep the game as it is, give managers a set number of "challenges", say 2 each for the whole game. Ref makes decisions, 4th official verifies it, manager can challenge in real time.

All good ideas but you'll find certain clubs such as United, Real Madrid, and Barcelona will probably use all of their pull to contest such a rule as it'd work against them more often than not. All three are regular recipients of advantageous decisions that video technology would quickly overturn.