refs,what will it take?

[Manchester33]

Yesterday at Cardiff was a prime example. Can that ref be anything other than corrupt? He gives the foul according to the rules but not the punishment. The 4th official should step in and send the player off.

What if Cardiff go down, losing their prem status by a point. Millions of pounds lost, players leaving, club staff like cleaners and ticket staff all reduced back a level.

All because of ONE man. Ridiculous.

Got to disagree with that. In my opinion, the worst three teams get relegated every season and the best team wins it. It's not a straight knock out, teams have 38 games to prove they are good enough to stay up. United do seem to get a lot of decisions, but in general these things work in swings and roundabouts, for example Everton could have had a penalty against us, then arguably we could have had a pen against spurs. Human error makes the game more entertaining, it gives the fans an incentive to get on the referee's back and create an atmosphere, or shout and jeer every time a player is knocked over in the box. The inclusion of reviewed decisions would slow the game down and create an even more sterile atmosphere in the premiership as well as being impossible to replicate further down the leagues. Football is good the way it is, we don't need to 'modernise' it to fit in with other, less popular sports.

 

[Bill]

Yesterday at Cardiff was a prime example. Can that ref be anything other than corrupt? He gives the foul according to the rules but not the punishment. The 4th official should step in and send the player off.

What if Cardiff go down, losing their prem status by a point. Millions of pounds lost, players leaving, club staff like cleaners and ticket staff all reduced back a level.

All because of ONE man. Ridiculous.

Got to disagree with that. In my opinion, the worst three teams get relegated every season and the best team wins it. It's not a straight knock out, teams have 38 games to prove they are good enough to stay up. United do seem to get a lot of decisions, but in general these things work in swings and roundabouts, for example Everton could have had a penalty against us, then arguably we could have had a pen against spurs. Human error makes the game more entertaining, it gives the fans an incentive to get on the referee's back and create an atmosphere, or shout and jeer every time a player is knocked over in the box. The inclusion of reviewed decisions would slow the game down and create an even more sterile atmosphere in the premiership as well as being impossible to replicate further down the leagues. Football is good the way it is, we don't need to 'modernise' it to fit in with other, less popular sports.

absolute tosh.

too many cases where one club benefits every season.

 

[Blue Hefner]

To say it will 'slow the game down' is rubbish. There is that much arguing, diving etc it easily gives the ref/4th official time to look at a monitor.

Nothing should be left to 'interpretation'. Rules should be matter of fact

 

[hertsblue]

The worst thing about it is twice the authorities have failed to deal with it.
How much more can he get away with, from that shocking cowardly attack from behind the other year at Wigan which only led to a cuddle from Clattenburg, his 2 footed lunge at the Swamp in the Derby last year to this incident.
Firstly the ref, that was shocking and he should be made to explain why he thought it only warranted a yellow. But then new retrospective punishment rules were brought in for such cases where the ref did not act or did not see clearly the incident. Again this time the FA failed to act and impose those rules.
You only have to look at the Chelsea game where Terry spoke to Webb, Webb was seen nodding and after that every decision went their way and he also played to the crowd. Its a multi billion pound business and its being run by incompetent amateurs. There should be an official watching on a TV and in contact with the ref. It takes seconds in Rugby to sort out incidents, so why not football. Every single weekend games are won or lost based on referee errors and we all know its not a even playing field. Our players seem to pick up soft yellows for 1st, 2nd fouls where some teams can commit 10 fouls per player and not get booked.

 

[Anonymous]

I've been of the opinion for some time that the game could be reffed by someone watching TV in the stand who could then speak to the ref on the pitch advising what the correct decision is.

 

[quiet_riot]

To say it will 'slow the game down' is rubbish. There is that much arguing, diving etc it easily gives the ref/4th official time to look at a monitor.

Yep, until we have to put up with "REPLAY: Sponsored by Budweiser" announcements/clips, or #twitter #votes to decide on the decisions.

 

[supercrystal7]

I am not a fan of video technology and I think too often football fans bring up sports like tennis and rugby, which they don't watch. In tennis Hawkeye is only used for line calls and it has already made some high profile mistakes. The benefit is that there is no arguing over the decision, but it's more of a gimmick to get fans interested than anything else. Federer himself did not think it was particularly needed. As for Rugby Union the video technology here is even more useless. It's only ever used for tries and half the time it's not conclusive. It's not used for offsides, hands in the rucks, forward passes etc really at all. In addition rugby and tennis are natural games with stops and starts. Football is a free flowing game.

Even then a lot of decisions are a matter of interpretation and people are going to disagree about them whether they have been seen on video or not.

 

[kippaxblue76]

Yesterday at Cardiff was a prime example. Can that ref be anything other than corrupt? He gives the foul according to the rules but not the punishment. The 4th official should step in and send the player off.

What if Cardiff go down, losing their prem status by a point. Millions of pounds lost, players leaving, club staff like cleaners and ticket staff all reduced back a level.

All because of ONE man. Ridiculous.

Completely agree, been saying this for years now. There is no reason not too have the 4th official review every 'major' incident or catch off the ball incidents where the ref isn't looking.

The main argument, apart from the age old crap ones being "It's how my grandad played the game" (my dad had to head a soggy leather ball that probably weighed 5 pounds, doesn't mean it's a good idea in today's game) plus "It evens out over the season" (complete bollocks and just tries to justify cock-ups) seems to be how it will interrupt the flow of play. That is also complete bollox, every time one of these incidents happens there is at least 2-3 minutes of arguing and play acting (especially if a real mistake by the ref has been made) which could be used to review an incident properly and then make a correct decision based upon proper video replay technology.

 

[mat]

"Professional refs" instructed to do as their told to sell a product not a sport.
Technology would expose this corrupt practice hence the PL along with UEFA/FIFA don't want it.

 

[andrewmswift]

virtually every sport in the U.S. has some sort of instant replay, so the debate in the UK and on bluemoon is absolutely astounding to me. you would think sports fans merely want the right decisions, but i guess not, some like this puritanical myth of "that's the game" and it "all evens out." lunacy, I say.