villa4europe Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 (edited) its not quite this though is it - iirc that was lowton sliding to clear it so it wasnt 100mph but its still a bloke stood 20m away with a post and a player blocking his view with about 2mm to play with in his judgement, that is completely unrealistic to expect the lino to get it right the ref in the QPR game wrongly thinking that because he's the last man or because that was a goalscoring opportunity its a red card isnt the same, ignore how soft the foul was, the red card decision shows a fundamental flaw in that refs ability or knowledge that replays wont fix Edited January 4, 2017 by villa4europe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoof hearted Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 Hasn't FIFAs stance been "what happens at the top of the game should happen at grass roots level" RE: The rules/video referring? So should/could never be implemented? I've been involved in and played Sunday morning footy for about 25 years now, and in all honesty there are some amateur referees that are far far better (than the dross in the championship) getting £14 a game to be abused by half drunk rocket polishers. The FAs recruitment initiative for amateur referees is non existent so it negates their fingers-in-the-ears la la la ing and unequivocal backing of some of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villakram Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 Bloody Clattenburg was whoring himself to the Chinese newly monied league the other day in one of the daily rags... surely we could have a whip around? Maybe add in Dean as a buy one get one free type of deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtsimonw Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 Clattenburg is a very good ref IMO. The fact he gets criticised a lot is exactly why we need video replay. Because even the very best are going to make mistakes, it happens. It's just that they need help of being able to see things in slow motion or have a different view of it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 2 hours ago, villa4europe said: its not quite this though is it - iirc that was lowton sliding to clear it so it wasnt 100mph but its still a bloke stood 20m away with a post and a player blocking his view with about 2mm to play with in his judgement, that is completely unrealistic to expect the lino to get it right the ref in the QPR game wrongly thinking that because he's the last man or because that was a goalscoring opportunity its a red card isnt the same, ignore how soft the foul was, the red card decision shows a fundamental flaw in that refs ability or knowledge that replays wont fix No, it's not of the same magnitude, but it is provably hard for referees to see everything on the pitch, which is partly, after all, why we're in 'the refereeing crisis' thread talking about bad refereeing decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 49 minutes ago, kurtsimonw said: Clattenburg is a very good ref IMO. The fact he gets criticised a lot is exactly why we need video replay. Because even the very best are going to make mistakes, it happens. It's just that they need help of being able to see things in slow motion or have a different view of it. Clattenburg is the best ref by far 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted January 4, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted January 4, 2017 (edited) Isn't he also allegedly a little tainted? Cough. Edited January 4, 2017 by Chindie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 10 minutes ago, Chindie said: Isn't he also allegedly a little tainted? Cough. Not sure if you mean the shit tattoos or being an ed sheeran fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted January 4, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted January 4, 2017 He was suspended a while back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 He's done 2 things to my knowledge, one was something to do with a business he had going on the side, the other was travelling home after a match by himself rather than travelling to a local hotel with his assistants before making his way home, he had to rush home to see ed sheeran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 4 hours ago, villa4europe said: the ref in the QPR game wrongly thinking that because he's the last man or because that was a goalscoring opportunity its a red card isnt the same, ignore how soft the foul was, the red card decision shows a fundamental flaw in that refs ability or knowledge that replays wont fix I fundamentally disagree that upon second viewing the referee wouldn't have viewed the Onuoha incident differently. If he HAD seen it the same and the red card had stood, fair enough. I'd say he's mad, but ok. I don't however see what your objection is to him having another look under those circumstances. It's no different to consulting the assistant referee, as per our penalty against Leeds. What's your problem with the technology per se? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 29 minutes ago, villa4europe said: He's done 2 things to my knowledge, one was something to do with a business he had going on the side, the other was travelling home after a match by himself rather than travelling to a local hotel with his assistants before making his way home, he had to rush home to see ed sheeran The Ed Sheeran thing is only half the story. It was the headline because it sounds ridiculous, the reason he was suspended was that after he left the stadium, as well as breaking the rules by travelling alone not with his assistants, he spoke to Neil Warnock (whose team was involved in the game) on the phone, in his car, without his assistants present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted January 4, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted January 4, 2017 59 minutes ago, dont_do_it_doug. said: What's your problem with the technology per se? A lot of people's (not necessarily v4e's) issue seems to be that a new system would still get mean some decision are wrong so don't bother. A system doesn't have to be perfect. If a new system could improve 50% of decisions then it's worth it. Just because you can't guarantee 100% are given correctly doesn't mean it shouldn't still be an option. As for the other debate about a ref seeing a video replay and still not being able to tell the right decision, I think the rule should be similar to rugby "is there anything on the video to show that the original decision made was incorrect" If the ref has given a penalty, then he's looking for something that makes him sure his decision was wrong. If it's still inconclusive then his original decision stands. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 That's my issue with it, after years of shit refs and shit pundits and shit journalists I have absolutely no faith in the technology making things better, a shit ref who has a poor understanding of the rules, of football in general and a bias towards big home teams won't suddenly drop all of those because he's got a replay to watch, he'll still be shit im convinced you can make refs better but making them better is admitting they aren't very good, technology is just saying they need help, which isn't necessarily wrong but there are some horrific refs out there that the FA either need to train or get rid of, that should the priority, not a tv camera helping to get him out the shit when he **** up, it won't fix the problem it'll cover it up technology will not stop Cardiff kicking Jack grealish 20 times a game, a good ref would Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 1 hour ago, villa4europe said: technology will not stop Cardiff kicking Jack grealish 20 times a game, a good ref would Sure. Two separate problems, two different solutions. They can tackle both, they have the resources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtsimonw Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 15 hours ago, villa4europe said: im convinced you can make refs better but making them better is admitting they aren't very good, technology is just saying they need help, which isn't necessarily wrong but there are some horrific refs out there that the FA either need to train or get rid of, that should the priority, not a tv camera helping to get him out the shit when he **** up, it won't fix the problem it'll cover it up But as DDID says, it doesn't have to be either/or. A decision being over turned is still the referee being wrong with his initial assessment. Except with technology, a team won't be **** over by him being wrong. In an ideal World, the referee wouldn't be watching the videos himself, because one issue I can see is that they will always want to side with them self rather than overturn it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted January 5, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted January 5, 2017 15 hours ago, villa4europe said: That's my issue with it, after years of shit refs and shit pundits and shit journalists I have absolutely no faith in the technology making things better, a shit ref who has a poor understanding of the rules, of football in general and a bias towards big home teams won't suddenly drop all of those because he's got a replay to watch, he'll still be shit I completely disagree with this in a couple of ways. Firstly, I don't think most refs, certainly at the top level, are shit because they have a poor understanding of the rules. Sure that must contribute at times but I'd wager most mistakes are made because they haven't seen the incident properly or have made a split decision incorrectly and then stuck to their guns. Secondly, I don't agree that being able to see the incident again would fail to make him change his mind or improve his understanding of the rules. I think it would give him the opportunity to rewatch an incident from a couple of angles and, also, to have a moment to think about the decision more carefully. Merely the opportunity to change your mind without looking weak for doing so would change things, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 (edited) 16 hours ago, dont_do_it_doug. said: What's your problem with the technology per se? I know you didn't address me here, but... ...referees will have a huge safety net and will therefore bottle decisions more often in the "knowledge" that something will be there to help them out... ...which in turn will massively slow the game down, not to mention the reviewing process. The sports that currently use technology to aid decisions (cricket, tennis, rugby) are a] incredibly stop-start and easy to manage and b] referees have nowhere near the same number of decisions to make. The third problem is that referees really aren't that bad at all. They get some decisions wrong, sure, but I'm fine with that. The same way that players get decisions wrong. Have a 5th official available to contact the referee if something is massively wrong. Nothing more is needed. Edit: Also slight lol at people saying referees need to be fitter etc. etc., Mike Dean (e.g) is 48 years old. Why are people expecting these guys to be at a similar fitness to (e.g) 20 year old Dele Alli? Madness. Edited January 5, 2017 by bobzy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtsimonw Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 2 minutes ago, bobzy said: Edit: Also slight lol at people saying referees need to be fitter etc. etc., Mike Dean (e.g) is 48 years old. Why are people expecting these guys to be at a similar fitness to (e.g) 20 year old Dele Alli? Madness. That's an issue in itself. You should expect a referee to be at a good level of fitness, if they're not at a great level then surely they shouldn't be refereeing in the Premier League? There's no reason referees have to be 40+. Michael Oliver and Mark Clattenburg show that good referees can be in the Premier League in their 20s. Having an overweight Phil Dowd in his 50s refereeing in the Premier League is again another issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 2 minutes ago, kurtsimonw said: That's an issue in itself. You should expect a referee to be at a good level of fitness, if they're not at a great level then surely they shouldn't be refereeing in the Premier League? There's no reason referees have to be 40+. Michael Oliver and Mark Clattenburg show that good referees can be in the Premier League in their 20s. Having an overweight Phil Dowd in his 50s refereeing in the Premier League is again another issue. It's pretty rare - Clattenburg would have been late 20s when starting in the Premier League, and there's no way he would have handled, say, Liverpool vs Man Utd. Referees need to gain a lot of experience (unlike footballers, really) before taking charge of highly-scrutinised games. Michael Oliver has broken pretty much every single "young referee/assistant" record going - he got his first PL game at 25. I mean, unless you're suggesting we massively push for refereeing academies that kids can go to aged 10 to start their career, you're naturally always going to have referees that come to their peak in their mid 30s at the earliest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts