Is football corrupt?

[CBlue]

I am suggesting a manager should be able to question a referee's call x amount of times per game. Nothing more, nothing less. If the manager believes the decision is fair (even if it isn't) then nothing happens. If he disagrees then a challenge is made when the ball is out of play.
Earlier this season (when we played Southampton). Webb gave a goal kick based on the replays shown on our large screens. Play didn't stop but technically the referee saw the incident and overruled the linesman. There was no stoppage, hold up or delay etc. Just the correct decision.

What happens in the time between the incident taking place & the ball going out of play? It could be a while before that happens & any number of subsequent incidents could occur before play is naturally stopped - I said before, in theory you could play a full game with only 2 stoppages in play - half time & full time. If you continue to play for, say, 5 minutes after an incident & it is sucessfully reviewed do you add an additional 5 minutes back onto the playing time? If the natural stop in play was because the ref gave a foul & books/sends off a player but after reviewing the incident 5 minutes ago you have to go back - what happens to the booking/red card? What happens if the ball goes out of play very quickly & is returned to the field of play very quickly before an appeal can be made? Is the chance lost?

My suggestion isn't perfected.

What happens now when a player goes down injured? It is the referee's decision to stop play? Yes it is. There is no reason why the same concept cannot be used in different scenario's. It would obviously need to be perfected but you need to acknowledge that in the past clubs weren't allowed subs. This sport needs to continuously improve. Maybe, just maybe your great grandad would have laughed at the suggestion of substitutions. When would subs be made, 5 minutes later, after a goal etc. THINK.

He will only stop play if it is a serious injury or a head injury - other than that he shouldn't stop play - that's why the players kick the ball out - because the referee can't stop play.
The introduction of substitutes didn't actually change anything - players have always only been allowed to join & leave the field of play with the referees permission - which is why you can be offside even if you're off the pitch! It isn't ice hockey. My grandad may have laughed at the idea that a goal keeper was restricted to using his hands in an 18 yard box rather than being able to use his hands anywhere in his own half as the rules used to be. Again, an adjustment of an existing law. All that doesn't answer any of the questions I posed though. I can see why you're struggling.

 

[CBlue]

I am suggesting a manager should be able to question a referee's call x amount of times per game. Nothing more, nothing less. If the manager believes the decision is fair (even if it isn't) then nothing happens. If he disagrees then a challenge is made when the ball is out of play.
Earlier this season (when we played Southampton). Webb gave a goal kick based on the replays shown on our large screens. Play didn't stop but technically the referee saw the incident and overruled the linesman. There was no stoppage, hold up or delay etc. Just the correct decision.

What happens in the time between the incident taking place & the ball going out of play? It could be a while before that happens & any number of subsequent incidents could occur before play is naturally stopped - I said before, in theory you could play a full game with only 2 stoppages in play - half time & full time. If you continue to play for, say, 5 minutes after an incident & it is sucessfully reviewed do you add an additional 5 minutes back onto the playing time? If the natural stop in play was because the ref gave a foul & books/sends off a player but after reviewing the incident 5 minutes ago you have to go back - what happens to the booking/red card? What happens if the ball goes out of play very quickly & is returned to the field of play very quickly before an appeal can be made? Is the chance lost?

Sky TV cameras don't need 5 mins to get replays together. I don't think the previous guy was suggesting stewards investigations like in F1, which is what you describe sounds like.

The "what happens if this..." argument fails if things are dealt with promptly or left as they are.

You're not making sense. I'm not suggesting Sky TV (WTF they have to do with anything is beyond me - unless you're thinking of turning over the TV scrutiny of refereeing decisions to a comapny that may hold an investment in one of the teams participating? No conflict of interest there!!) take 5 minutes to get replays together - I'm suggesting that the game may continue for 5 more minutes before there is a "natural" stop in play & a review can take place.
What do you mean by "promptly"? 30 seconds? a minute? 5 minutes...

 

[CBlue]

Manager communicates the challenge through the 4th official. Bear in mind he only gets to do this twice in 90 mins, so won't use it flippantly. At most 30 seconds after, lets say.

How does the ref know that 30 seconds have elapsed - he doesn't know what the appeal is for? How do you stop the game to conduct the review? Who conducts the review? Who determines which cameras/views the ref can have? Intersting to see how this can work in Europe with, say, a Russian 4th official & a German manager!

-- Tue Nov 06, 2012 7:37 pm --

In many circumstances the challenge would be to a decision already made, so no further break in play than has already occured. The manager is only likely to challenge a decision that has already resulted in a break in play, and in any case the ref can add this time to the match just like he does now via injury time.

That's total nonsense - Mancini would have appealed Yaya's penalty decision in today's game - how would he have done so? You can't change the laws of the game based on "many circumstances", they have to cover "all circumstances".

With regards to 30 secs, the ref has a watch for a reason. I never set that in concrete either, 30 secs, lets say, I said.

The 4th official, and he has access to all TV cameras.

Today, the game played on so no "challenge" could have been given for Yaya. Mancini couldn't have appealed it, ref played on.

I never said it was perfect. Video tech can be made to work when issues like this are ironed out.

WOW! The original premise was the elimination of corruption - it sounds like you're working on a blueprint to allow corruption to happen without impediment!
The only decisions that are reviewable are those that the referee gives! It's an interesting idea!!!!
The 4th official isn't the referee - there is only 1 referee allowed to make decisions - the linesmen are assistants - hence the phrase assistant referee's. The final decision is always the referees. Now you are advocating that the 4th official makes the decisions based on Sky TV cameras - do they have Sky in Russia?

 

[ManCitizens.]

What happens in the time between the incident taking place & the ball going out of play? It could be a while before that happens & any number of subsequent incidents could occur before play is naturally stopped - I said before, in theory you could play a full game with only 2 stoppages in play - half time & full time. If you continue to play for, say, 5 minutes after an incident & it is sucessfully reviewed do you add an additional 5 minutes back onto the playing time? If the natural stop in play was because the ref gave a foul & books/sends off a player but after reviewing the incident 5 minutes ago you have to go back - what happens to the booking/red card? What happens if the ball goes out of play very quickly & is returned to the field of play very quickly before an appeal can be made? Is the chance lost?

My suggestion isn't perfected.

What happens now when a player goes down injured? It is the referee's decision to stop play? Yes it is. There is no reason why the same concept cannot be used in different scenario's. It would obviously need to be perfected but you need to acknowledge that in the past clubs weren't allowed subs. This sport needs to continuously improve. Maybe, just maybe your great grandad would have laughed at the suggestion of substitutions. When would subs be made, 5 minutes later, after a goal etc. THINK.

He will only stop play if it is a serious injury or a head injury - other than that he shouldn't stop play - that's why the players kick the ball out - because the referee can't stop play.
The introduction of substitutes didn't actually change anything - players have always only been allowed to join & leave the field of play with the referees permission - which is why you can be offside even if you're off the pitch! It isn't ice hockey. My grandad may have laughed at the idea that a goal keeper was restricted to using his hands in an 18 yard box rather than being able to use his hands anywhere in his own half as the rules used to be. Again, an adjustment of an existing law. All that doesn't answer any of the questions I posed though. I can see why you're struggling.

Should my answer not have been obvious? The parts of NFL and Tennis that would improve football would be potential challenges. I don’t want a direct duplication from the two sports, but something similar should be implemented.

You really need to watch your arrogance, stop avoiding my questions. Referees only stop for head/ serious injury now. That rule has been changed for the better; previously it was used to stop play for any injury. Understand my point, football can always improve. You have even helped support my point with the goalkeeper hands law. Football and its rules evolve.

Tell you what, if you truly are a blue and support the numerous wrong decisions every weekend then I will never ever convince you otherwise, so no worries, forget it. You support wrong decisions, well done.

 

[Yaya_Tony]

What happens in the time between the incident taking place & the ball going out of play? It could be a while before that happens & any number of subsequent incidents could occur before play is naturally stopped - I said before, in theory you could play a full game with only 2 stoppages in play - half time & full time. If you continue to play for, say, 5 minutes after an incident & it is sucessfully reviewed do you add an additional 5 minutes back onto the playing time? If the natural stop in play was because the ref gave a foul & books/sends off a player but after reviewing the incident 5 minutes ago you have to go back - what happens to the booking/red card? What happens if the ball goes out of play very quickly & is returned to the field of play very quickly before an appeal can be made? Is the chance lost?

Sky TV cameras don't need 5 mins to get replays together. I don't think the previous guy was suggesting stewards investigations like in F1, which is what you describe sounds like.

The "what happens if this..." argument fails if things are dealt with promptly or left as they are.

You're not making sense. I'm not suggesting Sky TV (WTF they have to do with anything is beyond me - unless you're thinking of turning over the TV scrutiny of refereeing decisions to a comapny that may hold an investment in one of the teams participating? No conflict of interest there!!) take 5 minutes to get replays together - I'm suggesting that the game may continue for 5 more minutes before there is a "natural" stop in play & a review can take place.
What do you mean by "promptly"? 30 seconds? a minute? 5 minutes...

You are completely missing the point. In the top flight, Sky cameras are everywhere. Replays are pulled up within seconds. Referees don't have that luxury at the moment. The Sky tech can be used to create a fairer game. I'd suggest that any review would need to be more immediate than 5 mins later. The quick free kick might then be in trouble though. 5 mins from 90 would not qualify as prompt. Replays would need to be faster than that.<br /><br />-- Wed Nov 07, 2012 5:14 am --<br /><br />

How does the ref know that 30 seconds have elapsed - he doesn't know what the appeal is for? How do you stop the game to conduct the review? Who conducts the review? Who determines which cameras/views the ref can have? Intersting to see how this can work in Europe with, say, a Russian 4th official & a German manager!

-- Tue Nov 06, 2012 7:37 pm --


That's total nonsense - Mancini would have appealed Yaya's penalty decision in today's game - how would he have done so? You can't change the laws of the game based on "many circumstances", they have to cover "all circumstances".

With regards to 30 secs, the ref has a watch for a reason. I never set that in concrete either, 30 secs, lets say, I said.

The 4th official, and he has access to all TV cameras.

Today, the game played on so no "challenge" could have been given for Yaya. Mancini couldn't have appealed it, ref played on.

I never said it was perfect. Video tech can be made to work when issues like this are ironed out.

WOW! The original premise was the elimination of corruption - it sounds like you're working on a blueprint to allow corruption to happen without impediment!
The only decisions that are reviewable are those that the referee gives! It's an interesting idea!!!!
The 4th official isn't the referee - there is only 1 referee allowed to make decisions - the linesmen are assistants - hence the phrase assistant referee's. The final decision is always the referees. Now you are advocating that the 4th official makes the decisions based on Sky TV cameras - do they have Sky in Russia?

Not quite, I was suggesting that the 4th official could, as an assistant ref, assist the ref to make decisions based on video replays.

How the fuck do I know if they have Sky in Russia?

 

[BlueOz]

Absofuckenlutley after witnessing the refs tonight, i will bet my right nut that football is corrupt.

 

[CBlue]

My suggestion isn't perfected.

What happens now when a player goes down injured? It is the referee's decision to stop play? Yes it is. There is no reason why the same concept cannot be used in different scenario's. It would obviously need to be perfected but you need to acknowledge that in the past clubs weren't allowed subs. This sport needs to continuously improve. Maybe, just maybe your great grandad would have laughed at the suggestion of substitutions. When would subs be made, 5 minutes later, after a goal etc. THINK.

He will only stop play if it is a serious injury or a head injury - other than that he shouldn't stop play - that's why the players kick the ball out - because the referee can't stop play.
The introduction of substitutes didn't actually change anything - players have always only been allowed to join & leave the field of play with the referees permission - which is why you can be offside even if you're off the pitch! It isn't ice hockey. My grandad may have laughed at the idea that a goal keeper was restricted to using his hands in an 18 yard box rather than being able to use his hands anywhere in his own half as the rules used to be. Again, an adjustment of an existing law. All that doesn't answer any of the questions I posed though. I can see why you're struggling.

Should my answer not have been obvious? The parts of NFL and Tennis that would improve football would be potential challenges. I don’t want a direct duplication from the two sports, but something similar should be implemented.

I'm trying to point out with numerous questions & scenarios that "something similar" isn't possible! If you have any ideas I'm sure FIFA & the FA will be all ears - they're constantly looking at this issue - & they actually know the laws of the game!

You really need to watch your arrogance, stop avoiding my questions.

FFS! What questions have I avoided? I have a number that you haven't even scratched the surface of answering.

Referees only stop for head/ serious injury now. That rule has been changed for the better; previously it was used to stop play for any injury.

That's a new one on me! When did this happen? I suggest you may be getting confused with the restart of the game when a player is down injured. I can't believe that a scenario could have existed where Aguero is about to score the title winning goal & the referee stops play because a QPR player falls over injured on the half way line!

You have even helped support my point with the goalkeeper hands law. Football and its rules evolve.

Of course it does & some of that is based around new technology - goalkeepers aren't allowed to swing from the bar when the ball is still in play - crossbars used to be made of tape or string so goalkeepers could pull on the tape & reduce the height of the goal. Defenders aren't allowed to touch the goal posts on, say, a corner as the goals used to be made of flimsy pieces of wood & a defender could "move the goal posts" by pushing on them. There's lots of examples. None of which help with VR though.

Tell you what, if you truly are a blue and support the numerous wrong decisions every weekend then I will never ever convince you otherwise, so no worries, forget it. You support wrong decisions, well done

[/quote]
Not sure how you get to that conclusion? Because your solution to that problem will, once you've started to answer my questions you'll come to realise, only lead to even more "wrong decisions" & the introduction of an appeals system that will bring gamesmanship in football to a whole nother level. Nice try at the "if you were a blue" shit though. I was there when we were shit.

 

[CBlue]

Sky TV cameras don't need 5 mins to get replays together. I don't think the previous guy was suggesting stewards investigations like in F1, which is what you describe sounds like.

The "what happens if this..." argument fails if things are dealt with promptly or left as they are.

You're not making sense. I'm not suggesting Sky TV (WTF they have to do with anything is beyond me - unless you're thinking of turning over the TV scrutiny of refereeing decisions to a comapny that may hold an investment in one of the teams participating? No conflict of interest there!!) take 5 minutes to get replays together - I'm suggesting that the game may continue for 5 more minutes before there is a "natural" stop in play & a review can take place.
What do you mean by "promptly"? 30 seconds? a minute? 5 minutes...

You are completely missing the point. In the top flight, Sky cameras are everywhere. Replays are pulled up within seconds. Referees don't have that luxury at the moment. The Sky tech can be used to create a fairer game. I'd suggest that any review would need to be more immediate than 5 mins later. The quick free kick might then be in trouble though. 5 mins from 90 would not qualify as prompt. Replays would need to be faster than that.

No. You're completely missing the point. If a game is in progress then to fit in with any time limit you would have to stop the game within that limit so a review could take place. If you're still advocating that only some ridiculous decisions are reviewable then you have to have a law that stops the opposition from preventing you from appealing - a quick free kick/ throw in may do that. What do you put in pace to stop that from happening? The opposition don't know you're going to appeal. They are completely justified in taking a quick restart. In fact, if they delay the restart then they can be booked for timewasting!
Sky cameras aren't at games where they don't have the broadcasting rights. I would supsect that they are outsourced anyway.

 

[Bill]

This is the bit I find a bit sad.
On the way to west brom a couple of weeks back I wanted to turn back when I found out who the ref was. That can't be right, we should go to a game with anticipation of what the players may serve up not the referee.
I am put off attending by the fact we will be shafted not by a better team but a corrupt official. It costs far too much money to attend a game nowadays as it is without uour team being cheated. All through this completion we have been very poorly reffed, last year was the same. I accept we haven't help ourselves at times but we have have been denied some very clear cut pens. Why is that? One maybe, two even, throw in the odd offside but we get hammered both in the prem and this cup.
Someone somewhere doesn't like our progress.

I consider myself a keen follower yet I'm actually thinking I'm wasting my time and money following my team and shouting my head off at games because the result has been decided far far away from the stadium we are playing in.

That's the sad fact of today's football and its all down to money.

 

[St Helens Blue (Exiled)]

Is football corrupt...I suppose it is like asking are mp's on the fiddle,are there bent cops etc..

Of course we know the answer in the main is no,however a small percentage of people in any walk of life be it sport,politics,law and order are corrupt and always will be however to label football as being corrupt as a whole is a little concerning.

I can see why people think there is an agenda against us. Some of the decisions we aren't getting does make you question things. Lack of cards dished out last night,nailed on pen not given however I like to think that things will even themselves out.

Imagine the uproar if bacon faces team had been on the receiving end of that pen decision last night.