Terrible refereeing ruining football - the saga continues.

[Hoop Blah]

It's not a problem though is it ? It's the nature of the game. It's a problem because people witter on about 'consistency' rather than actually trying to understand what the laws of the game are about and how they are applied. The problem is with the fans and 'experts' who argue from a point of view that is removed from what the game actually is. It is (I would argue) impossible to make the rules black and white without fundamentally changing the nature of the game.

I'd also hope that at the highest level of the game there is less variation in interpretation between officials as they are all given the same briefing. It will never appear to be 100% (partly because we're so guided by incompetant fools in the media and partly because I don;t the law makers do enough to communicate with fans, players and managers about the way decisions are made and how they are instructing referees to view certain offences.

Whilst Premiership managers still go on about players deserving red cards for being 'the last man', as David Moyes has done in this WC I think we have big problems with the running of the game. I can;t imagine another other sport has such poorly informed participants as football does.

FFS, 'the last man' is a rule of thumb. Only the autistic have a problem with it not being in the letter of the law because anyone with a bit of common sense knows that 99% of the time if you're fouled by the last man you're left with a clear goalscoring opportunity because you are left one-on-one with the keeper!

WR has it spot on, video technology won't take away different perceptions of the same event, irrespective of your understanding of the laws, because of that any matter of opinion decisions can't be judged by technology.

I'd happily see some form of goaline technology that can answer the factual decisions on the ball being in or out of play, but that's about it for me.

I do agree it's not the problem it's made out to be though Sun Tzu.

[Flyingkiwi]

Actually; given that Leonardo is one of the footballers that Kaka looks up to, you'd think he'd know how to throw a decent elbow!

[Maguire]

'gree with you RR

He just tensed up and the guy ran into him. It wasn't a yellow in a million years and I 100% guarantee that Keita wasn't hurt in the slightest.

Also don't agree with Behrami's red card yesterday. I did that all the time when I was playing football - just holding off a guy who's clinging on to you. It's not the same as throwing an elbow.

he had time to step aside, he could have used his hands, or just turned his back. he deliberately raised the elbow and used the hardest most nobbly part of his body to hit the guy.

on its own, no it wasnt a yellow, but 5 mins after his yellow in a set to with the same player and being told to leave it, it was.

I can only assume you've been taking hits from the bong all day because that is bare jokes. The black matey ran straight into him in entirely deliberate shenanigans. What's Kaka supposed to do, wait to get floored or just tense up and take the impact? It wasn't a yellow in a billion years - just shameful gamesmanship.

And LOL at "raising the elbow". You total homo.

[brendywendy]

he had time to step aside, he could have used his hands, or just turned his back. he deliberately raised the elbow and used the hardest most nobbly part of his body to hit the guy.

on its own, no it wasnt a yellow, but 5 mins after his yellow in a set to with the same player and being told to leave it, it was.

More importantly, why was the Ivorian running into him? He had plenty of time to stop or sidestep. Instead he deliberately tried to get Kaka sent off. If Kaka desvered a yellow card the Ivorian deserved a straight red.

he wasnt even looking in kakas direction till he hit him!

personally id have sent him off for the rolling around, but thats not the point

[brendywendy]

'gree with you RR

He just tensed up and the guy ran into him. It wasn't a yellow in a million years and I 100% guarantee that Keita wasn't hurt in the slightest.

Also don't agree with Behrami's red card yesterday. I did that all the time when I was playing football - just holding off a guy who's clinging on to you. It's not the same as throwing an elbow.

he had time to step aside, he could have used his hands, or just turned his back. he deliberately raised the elbow and used the hardest most nobbly part of his body to hit the guy.

on its own, no it wasnt a yellow, but 5 mins after his yellow in a set to with the same player and being told to leave it, it was.

I can only assume you've been taking hits from the bong all day because that is bare jokes. The black matey ran straight into him in entirely deliberate shenanigans. What's Kaka supposed to do, wait to get floored or just tense up and take the impact? It wasn't a yellow in a billion years - just shameful gamesmanship.

And LOL at "raising the elbow". You total homo.

no no no

[brendywendy]

'gree with you RR

He just tensed up and the guy ran into him. It wasn't a yellow in a million years and I 100% guarantee that Keita wasn't hurt in the slightest.

Also don't agree with Behrami's red card yesterday. I did that all the time when I was playing football - just holding off a guy who's clinging on to you. It's not the same as throwing an elbow.

he had time to step aside, he could have used his hands, or just turned his back. he deliberately raised the elbow and used the hardest most nobbly part of his body to hit the guy.

on its own, no it wasnt a yellow, but 5 mins after his yellow in a set to with the same player and being told to leave it, it was.

I can only assume you've been taking hits from the bong all day because that is bare jokes. The black matey ran straight into him in entirely deliberate shenanigans. What's Kaka supposed to do, wait to get floored or just tense up and take the impact? It wasn't a yellow in a billion years - just shameful gamesmanship.

And LOL at "raising the elbow". You total homo.

[ScottishRoyal]

Todays event...

Gourcuffs red for France, given for an elbow when competing for a header. His elbow wasn't even above his chest FFS.

[brendywendy]

he elbowed him right in the face quite hard though-


hard to elbow someone if your elbow was above chest height too

[FORSTERS_RIGHT_FOOT]

Soon all players will be told to jump for the ball with their arms at their sides.

[Row Z Royal]

Soon all players will be told to jump for the ball with their arms at their sides.

Personally, I think we just need to make them wear Subbuteo suits from the off.

[Hoop Blah]

he elbowed him right in the face quite hard though-


hard to elbow someone if your elbow was above chest height too

Depends how high each player has jumped surely?

Gourcuff is no Woody Harrelson.

[Sun Tzu]

FFS, 'the last man' is a rule of thumb. Only the autistic have a problem with it not being in the letter of the law because anyone with a bit of common sense knows that 99% of the time if you're fouled by the last man you're left with a clear goalscoring opportunity because you are left one-on-one with the keeper!
.

It seems utterly stupid to claim that something that is wrong is a 'rule of thumb'. There's a perfectly good way of judging an offence so why use a very poor way as an unreliable 'short hand'.

Well done on using the 'autistic' line, seems really cool and trendy right now. Shame it makes no sense in this context.

[Millsy]

NeandeROFLthaLOLs indeed. Yeah, enjoy the four-hour spectacle of every single football match being pulled back to replay every single contentious incident. Instead, focus your mis-placed ire on the cheating of the Ivory Coast player tonight.

I agree totally. Which is why I say game-changing incident mate i.e. red cards, penalties, goals. Not enough of those in any game to make a serious impact on time. Besides, video analysis takes literally seconds - far less than the time it takes to celebrate a goal or argue about a card or offside decision. Utterly unnoticable. And in the longrun it'd hugely reduce diving/cheating thus actually making the game much smoother.

So yes for every little thing it might well make the game unbearably slow. Hence only for game-changing decisions.

Apologies to those of you from the Neander Valley.

[Sun Tzu]

So yes for every little thing it might well make the game unbearably slow. Hence only for game-changing decisions.

Game changing decisions are multiple. Every offside (those given and those not), every free kick within 40 yards of goal (given and not), every corner, throw ons within 40 yards of goal.

If you just focus on pens you have to look at every challenge in the box, and every corner because the ref may have missed something for which a penalty could be awarded.

Thinking that you can boil it down to the very obvious seems incredibly naive.
You also have the problem that it certainly doesn;t take seconds to work out what decision may be correct, often even multiple replays don't give a conclusive answer.

Perhaps allowing the ref to consult an official who has access to TV footage might work, but as I've always said it is more likely to simply add to controversy rather than remove it.

[Dirk Gently]

I'm definitely in favour of using technology for line decisions - with the proviso that the ref has a instantaneous alert if the ball is over the line.

But everything else (fouls, handballs, even off-sides) are subjective - when you consider that things like intent have to be taken into considerations they're all matters of opinion, which two people might see in different ways even with the best technology in the world. The "wisdom of crowds" doesn't apply if you just add a couple of people looking at replays - you need lots of people before it applies, so whilst we have a small team of people whose job it is to give opinions on the decisions then that's fine by me.

Anything that stops a game and potentially takes it back on a matter of opinion will irrevocably change the game for the worse, IMHO>

[handbags_harris]

I couldn't have put my own point better than Dirkers. I wholeheartedly agree.

[Sun Tzu]

I'm definitely in favour of using technology for line decisions - with the proviso that the ref has a instantaneous alert if the ball is over the line.

Don't think that can really be objected to, although I'm not that convinced it is really needed. The rare instances of controversy get publicity way above their real importance IMHO but if a cost effective way of dealing with the goal line issue did exist and could be made available throughout the 'professional' game then why not ?

Anything else ? I just don't think the case is there. Using fallible and inconclusive technology rather than stamping out dissent and finding pubs for ex players to go and run seems pointless.

[Hoop Blah]

Agreed there Dirk/Sun Tzu. If we start trying to review 'game changing' situations the game will change for the worse.

FFS, 'the last man' is a rule of thumb. Only the autistic have a problem with it not being in the letter of the law because anyone with a bit of common sense knows that 99% of the time if you're fouled by the last man you're left with a clear goalscoring opportunity because you are left one-on-one with the keeper!
.

It seems utterly stupid to claim that something that is wrong is a 'rule of thumb'. There's a perfectly good way of judging an offence so why use a very poor way as an unreliable 'short hand'.

Well done on using the 'autistic' line, seems really cool and trendy right now. Shame it makes no sense in this context.

I only live to be seen as cool on Hobnob Sun Tzu, especially by you, so you've just made my day...that's topped even England winning!

It's a rule of thumb because, as I've said before, when you've beaten the last man you're generally through on goal which by default means it's a clear goalscoring opportunity. It's often part of the decision as to how you come to decide if it's a clear opportunity and so, as a throw away comment, and rule of thumb, its a good starting point. You usually find it caveated with the second part of the equation, 'but he's going away from goal' to come up with the right view on it being a clear scoring opportunity. Neither are in the letter of the law, but both are very much part of the decision making process.

...part of the autistic spectrum is taking things far too literally by the way.

[Sun Tzu]

Agreed there Dirk/Sun Tzu. If we start trying to review 'game changing' situations the game will change for the worse.

FFS, 'the last man' is a rule of thumb. Only the autistic have a problem with it not being in the letter of the law because anyone with a bit of common sense knows that 99% of the time if you're fouled by the last man you're left with a clear goalscoring opportunity because you are left one-on-one with the keeper!
.

It seems utterly stupid to claim that something that is wrong is a 'rule of thumb'. There's a perfectly good way of judging an offence so why use a very poor way as an unreliable 'short hand'.

Well done on using the 'autistic' line, seems really cool and trendy right now. Shame it makes no sense in this context.

I only live to be seen as cool on Hobnob Sun Tzu, especially by you, so you've just made my day...that's topped even England winning!

It's a rule of thumb because, as I've said before, when you've beaten the last man you're generally through on goal which by default means it's a clear goalscoring opportunity. It's often part of the decision as to how you come to decide if it's a clear opportunity and so, as a throw away comment, and rule of thumb, its a good starting point. You usually find it caveated with the second part of the equation, 'but he's going away from goal' to come up with the right view on it being a clear scoring opportunity. Neither are in the letter of the law, but both are very much part of the decision making process.

Nice attempt to spin away, sadly for you it isn't how the 'pundits' tend to use it. Any tackle where they think the defender was the last man is greeted with 'must be a red, he's the last man'. Sometimes it's relevant, but ALWAYS relevant is whether a goalscoring opportunity was denied. It's a great example of pundits simply getting things wrong, not them being smart and summing up a law in a simple sentence.

...part of the autistic spectrum is taking things far too literally by the way.

That sentence means absolutely nothing. If you don;t know anything about autism then it might be a good idea not to use it as an insult and then try and back that up with gibberish.

[Hoop Blah]

Nice attempt to spin away, sadly for you it isn't how the 'pundits' tend to use it. Any tackle where they think the defender was the last man is greeted with 'must be a red, he's the last man'. Sometimes it's relevant, but ALWAYS relevant is whether a goalscoring opportunity was denied. It's a great example of pundits simply getting things wrong, not them being smart and summing up a law in a simple sentence.

No attempt at spinning away at all. It's how I see it generally used and it's basically become a short hand for describing a lot of clear goalscoring opportunities.

...part of the autistic spectrum is taking things far too literally by the way.

That sentence means absolutely nothing. If you don;t know anything about autism then it might be a good idea not to use it as an insult and then try and back that up with gibberish.

For what it's worth, my understanding is on pretty much on laymans terms (I'm sure you're a fully qualified expert though), but with 3 members of my close family working in mental health I've picked up enough along the way thanks.

The autistic spectrum is the range of symptoms a sufferer might display which defines the level of their autism, eg Aspergers or 'plain' Autism or some of the other recognised conditions. One of the basic tests health professionals use to assess a childs potential autism is to ask a series of questions and assess the answers to see if they just take them literally or if their social skills are tuned in enough to perceive the real meaning of the question being asked.

Not sure why I've bothered with that here on the GF forum, but I hope that helps explain it for you!!!