Home Travel & Free Time
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Anyone is welcome to join. Sign up here

.......anger

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
REFS A BLOODY WANKER
that is all

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    How come Blatter is the only person who doesnt want goal line technology.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Because he is a cunt.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fucking FUCK.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    G wrote: »
    How come Blatter is the only person who doesnt want goal line technology.

    He isn't and he's spot on.

    The game is played at many different levels in many different countries. The rules are always the same. That's how it should be.

    Of course, people will argue that a game in the world cup is more inportant than the others. Try telling that to a kid playing in a local league cup final.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't want to see technology bought in either i think it will kill the game , the ref has the final say sometimes it works in your favour sometimes it don't but that is a part of football.
    Having said that you did not need technology to see that Super Frank scored , the ref in this case is a blind w~*$"*
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    The game is played at many different levels in many different countries. The rules are always the same. That's how it should be.

    The rules don't change. You ability to apply them correctly, does.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    More technology = fairness (and alot less angry fans :p )
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The rules are different, fitness and referee quals are different depending on the level.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    He isn't and he's spot on.

    The game is played at many different levels in many different countries. The rules are always the same. That's how it should be.

    Why? Is cricket any worse because the game that people's jobs are depending on receive video assistance, and the local school games don't? We've just had another dodgy decision in the Argentina - Mexico game. Now you can make a decent anti-technology argument on the grounds of how it would work in practice, but this idea that every level of the game has to be identical is ridiculous. And let's not pretend that Sepp Blatter gives a shit about the game being fair. He likes these incidents, because it gets people talking about the sport and gets them loads of coverage and controversy. He as good as admitted this before the tournament.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It was a pretty clear goal for England. It landed behind the line. The ref was just blind.

    There was some pretty pathetic defence by England though.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    G wrote: »
    The rules are different, fitness and referee quals are different depending on the level.

    The rules are the same, there is a single rule book "The Laws of the Game" which each referee gets every year.

    Sure fitness levels are different, as is the level of experience of officials. That's no different to players or managers. Ultimately, even with technology a decision has to rest with the interpretation by an official and that's no different from what we already have.

    Look at today, in the England game. Technology has been mentioned in relation to the Lampard goal. Was the lack of technology at fault for any of the German goals? What about the rest of Engalnd's peformances? Would techonology change the fact that Rooney has lost the ball in possession more than any other player in the World Cup, so far?

    England didn't lose today because of one decision, but because of the rest of the 90 minutes which were played. Instead of looking for "The Excuse" which Engalnd always seem to have ready maybe we should look at the fact that we were shit.

    This is the report of the March meeting where FIFA decided not to go with technology. I think that they are pretty much spot on.

    For once it's nice to see that they are actually upholding the spirit of the game.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why? Is cricket any worse because the game that people's jobs are depending on receive video assistance, and the local school games don't?

    There is a clear stop in play everytime a ball is bowled. That provides the opportunity. Football isn't like that, it's once of the reasons we love the game.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Louisek wrote: »
    Having said that you did not need technology to see that Super Frank scored , the ref in this case is a blind w~*$"*

    Exactly. The assistant was in the wrong position, simple as that.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    There is a clear stop in play everytime a ball is bowled. That provides the opportunity. Football isn't like that, it's once of the reasons we love the game.
    Yes, but that's not the argument you made. You were concerned with there being a difference between the top level and the lower/amateur levels. Can you give us one example of a sport where the technology gap has caused a problem in the sport?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    Exactly. The assistant was in the wrong position, simple as that.

    Unless he'd gone for a shit without me noticing, he was in a great position. He was exactly where he should've been. And even if he wasn't, how can both of them miss it?

    Anyway, on the other issue, if the technology works, would you object to the ball with a sensor that gives an instant indication when the ball crosses the line? Maybe the whole goal could start flashing with a big bell, sirens and maybe a few fireworks? It wouldn't have helped with the Tevez goal, but it's better to get rid of one sort of dodgy decision than none, surely?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes, but that's not the argument you made. You were concerned with there being a difference between the top level and the lower/amateur levels. Can you give us one example of a sport where the technology gap has caused a problem in the sport?

    Can you think of another sport where the referee is routinely abused by players/coaches and fans?

    Not just amateur level, I'm talking about any level which cannot afford (or shouldn't have to afford) technology. The issues is bad decisions, not a lack of technology.
    Unless he'd gone for a shit without me noticing, he was in a great position. He was exactly where he should've been. And even if he wasn't, how can both of them miss it?

    Because they are human not automatons.
    Anyway, on the other issue, if the technology works, would you object to the ball with a sensor that gives an instant indication when the ball crosses the line? Maybe the whole goal could start flashing with a big bell, sirens and maybe a few fireworks? It wouldn't have helped with the Tevez goal, but it's better to get rid of one sort of dodgy decision than none, surely?

    Yep, for the same reason. Unless you install it for all FIFA governed matches (which includes all children's football by the way) then you are now applying different laws of the game.

    And you are quite correct in that it would only help in certain decisions, so why aren't the others considered important? The opffside rules is goal scoring opportunity, as is penalty claim, goal kick/corner, freekicks...

    Technology isn't the answer, good referees are.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Could they not do what they do in tennis and only use the replay if there is a dispute about what went on, and if calling for you "replay chance" if you are wrong, then you lose it, if you are correct then you keep it?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    G wrote: »
    Could they not do what they do in tennis and only use the replay if there is a dispute about what went on, and if calling for you "replay chance" if you are wrong, then you lose it, if you are correct then you keep it?

    Doesn't that undermine Law 5? Doesn't it encourage the challenge of decisions being made?

    Law 5, incidentally, is why FIFA couldn't ban France from this year's world cup and nor could it take England's third goal away from them in 1966.

    NB Law 5 is the one that gives the referee the full authority to enforce the laws of the game. When you start to allow that to be challenged you then take away their control. Law 5 is the basis for dissent cautions.

    ETA Again there is always a clear stoppage of play too, something which sports that use technology usually have. How would you enforce this law during a game? There are two real options:

    Stop the game immediately - (even if one side is attacking and thus you prevent a potentially goal scoring opportunity, or allow the "chllengers" to break up an attack. Think Cpello could have used that four times yesterday in break away attacks ;)

    Wait until the next stoppage - which could be for a red card offence, or a goal at the other end, maybe a penalty claim. The what, do you follow the action that you would have taken at the point the game stopped?

    You seem to think that technology will remove contentious points. I'm not so sure.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    Can you think of another sport where the referee is routinely abused by players/coaches and fans?

    Not just amateur level, I'm talking about any level which cannot afford (or shouldn't have to afford) technology. The issues is bad decisions, not a lack of technology.
    Yes the issue is bad decisions. Bad decisions that would be made much more accurate with the application of technology.
    MoK wrote: »
    Yep, for the same reason. Unless you install it for all FIFA governed matches (which includes all children's football by the way) then you are now applying different laws of the game.

    And you are quite correct in that it would only help in certain decisions, so why aren't the others considered important? The opffside rules is goal scoring opportunity, as is penalty claim, goal kick/corner, freekicks...

    Technology isn't the answer, good referees are.
    You're not applying different laws, you're just having certain levels where technology helps in the application of the law. Hawkeye takes less than 1 second to determine whether the ball has crossed the line, and that can be fed instantly via a direct link to the ref's earpiece. Frankly, that would save time compared to the minutes wasted as players confront the referee. You say that good referees are the answer, but the referees are the ones that are calling for this technology to be introduced. Why not give them the tools to do their job to the best of their ability? Can referees actually get any better than they are already by......well you tell me?

    And it has nothing to do with the importance of one incident over another, (although obviously whether the ball is over the line is always an important decision, whereas offside or other decisions can be depending on the circumstance) just the decisions that we can identify as being easy to clear up without any disruption to the game. So that's why goal line technology is worthy of special attention.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    G wrote: »
    Could they not do what they do in tennis and only use the replay if there is a dispute about what went on, and if calling for you "replay chance" if you are wrong, then you lose it, if you are correct then you keep it?

    Nah that wouldn't work. Imagine a player is through on goal, one-on-one with the keeper, and the ref blows for offside, so the player naturally pulls up. It's challenged and it turns out the ref was wrong. Now what do you do? You can't have a free kick, because the attacking team would argue that it's a clear goalscoring opportunity. You can't have a penalty because the defending team would argue that their keeper would have a greater chance of saving a one-on-one chance, because he could narrow the angle.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hmm depends on whether people would complain more about refs decisions being corrected, or refs decisions not being challenged and being wrong.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes the issue is bad decisions. Bad decisions that would be made much more accurate with the application of technology.

    Would they?

    Q. Did Geoff Hurst's shot cross the line in 1966?

    You're not applying different laws, you're just having certain levels where technology helps in the application of the law. Hawkeye takes less than 1 second to determine whether the ball has crossed the line, and that can be fed instantly via a direct link to the ref's earpiece.

    I think that you've answered this yourself in your response to Gs point. To an extent.
    You say that good referees are the answer, but the referees are the ones that are calling for this technology to be introduced.

    I think you will find tht most are saying the opposite. Certainly at my Association they are. For once it seems we're supporting what FIFA re sying. Law 5 is paramount. Of course we can all get better - sometimes that's learning from others experience (we talk regularly and listen to the pros as well), otehr times you reflect on what you did during games. We also analyse games shown on TV and talk bout issues raised - the United vs Spurs goal for example (that was poor positioning by the assistant but not easy for him to improve on realistically), the Tevez goal will be another because the assistant wasn't up with play - level with last defender as he should have been. Worth noting that neither he, or the referee for the Engalnd game will be doing any more games at this world cup.

    It takes three months training to even be allowed to do lowest league, then a minimum of a year to climb each step of the ladder. It would take me about 7 years before I stood a chance of doing Premier League games, let alone UEFA/FIFA matches. I think that the standard this year has been better than previous years with a couple of exceptions - Kaka sending off, and yesterday are those that immediately spring to mind. Refereeing is improving year on year IMHO.

    Question FIFA have to address is the following - do they have the best referees there, or do that appoint people from a number of countries because of "political correctness"?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    BBC wrote:
    Blatter said the error had convinced him to reopen the debate on goal-line technology at a board meeting in July.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/world_cup_2010/8771294.stm
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru

    I love Blatter. He'll be saying something different off camera and something else to FIFA exec. He's known for saying what is convenient at the time.

    What do you think he'll be saying in March, once the focus is off?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    We were shit. No defence at all like. Even with that goal theyd ave still fuckin destroyed us like.
Sign In or Register to comment.