Chelsea V Blackburn 15 September 2007

[CAPT KAYOS]

It Bloody well is! Speaking from experience (before I acquired a beer belly!) It is also nigh on impossible to watch the last defender, the last attacker and where the ball is played from at the same time.

No you dont. Its a myth simply peddled by those in authority who dont want it to happen. For crying out loud suspensions have only just gone from "days" to "matches" in the Step 3 - 6 leagues - how on earth was that equitable - a Prem player is suspended for 3 matches for a red card, whereas a Unibond Division One player would have received 21 days - feasably 6 or 7 matches.

The rules of the game are not applied equally at all levels, so why does "technology" ?

Codswallup Stuwilky - from experience I totally disagree if (which there is supposed to be) daylight there is enough to give you the time to see when a ball is about to be kicked and whether a player is in line - they don't effectively do much else even at the top level.

As for technology - your statement is to me testament to exactly why technology should not be introduced

[Wild Irish Rover]

It Bloody well is! Speaking from experience (before I acquired a beer belly!) It is also nigh on impossible to watch the last defender, the last attacker and where the ball is played from at the same time.

No you dont. Its a myth simply peddled by those in authority who dont want it to happen. For crying out loud suspensions have only just gone from "days" to "matches" in the Step 3 - 6 leagues - how on earth was that equitable - a Prem player is suspended for 3 matches for a red card, whereas a Unibond Division One player would have received 21 days - feasably 6 or 7 matches.

The rules of the game are not applied equally at all levels, so why does "technology" ?

Actually the LAWS of the game (e.g. Law 11 Offside) are the same whatever level you play at and all referees seek to apply them fairly and consistently.

However, the RULES of different leagues and competitions (e.g suspension of players for infringements) do differ in important and significant ways. Referees don't normally have anything to do with the application of such rules.

It doesn't help confusing the LAWS with the rules.

[Montfort]

As an ex behavioural scientist, I dont think that it is physically possible to call off sides, fouls, penalties etc with any great degree of certainty. Be honest, how much would you bet on getting an off side decision right without the benefit of half a dozen replays, reverse angles etc. You have just got to accept that you win some you loose some. It would help if the players didn't dive so much when it came to getting a foul. For a big lad, I have seen Terry go down like a ton of bricks when it suited him.

With regards to the football, what a defensive display! what a goal keeper!! Did you see Dunn's optra stats on teletext - very impressive.

When was the last time that we took a point from Chelsea and were a bit dissapointed. It shows what our expectations are. Come on Benni still another 20 to 30 goals to score this season. I miss being able to say " isn't he frustrating but fantastic "

[stuwilky]

Codswallup Stuwilky - from experience I totally disagree if (which there is supposed to be) daylight there is enough to give you the time to see when a ball is about to be kicked and whether a player is in line - they don't effectively do much else even at the top level.

As for technology - your statement is to me testament to exactly why technology should not be introduced

Stu - I agree with your statement on technology btw, but dont start my on the whole daylight thing!

Actually the LAWS of the game (e.g. Law 11 Offside) are the same whatever level you play at and all referees seek to apply them fairly and consistently.

However, the RULES of different leagues and competitions (e.g suspension of players for infringements) do differ in important and significant ways. Referees don't normally have anything to do with the application of such rules.

It doesn't help confusing the LAWS with the rules.

If I was confusing Laws and Rules your lovely condescending tone would have been applicable. No one is talking about changing the laws for the introduction of technology, simply amending the rules of the relevant competition to allow the use of other mediums. The laws do not require changing to allow this.

But then again what do I know about the laws and rules of football I mean, I only deal with them every day

[Tris]

If I was confusing Laws and Rules your lovely condescending tone would have been applicable. No one is talking about changing the laws for the introduction of technology, simply amending the rules of the relevant competition to allow the use of other mediums. The laws do not require changing to allow this.

But then again what do I know about the laws and rules of football I mean, I only deal with them every day

Other mediums? What, like crystal balls and stuff!?

So you'd know that Law 5 would need to be substantially amended in order to allow the use of technology in the Premier League then! At least everything in bold would have to be amended, in order to allow the FAPL to change it's own "rules" as you put it.

The Authority of the Referee

Each match is controlled by a referee who has full authority to enforce the Laws of the Game in connection with the match to which he has been appointed.

Powers and Duties

The Referee:

* enforces the Laws of the Game

* controls the match in co-operation with the assistant referees and, where applicable, with the fourth official

* ensures that any ball used meets the requirements of Law 2

* ensures that the players’ equipment meets the requirements of Law 4

* acts as timekeeper and keeps a record of the match

* stops, suspends or terminates the match, at his discretion, for any infringements of the Laws

* stops, suspends or terminates the match because of outside interference of any kind

Decisions of the Referee

The decisions of the referee regarding facts connected with play are final. The referee may only change a decision on realising that it is incorrect or, at his discretion, on the advice of an assistant referee, provided that he has not restarted play or terminated the match.

[JAL]

That's not true at all. 4th officials were introduced slowly at the lower levels, as were the electronic boards for substitutions/time added on. Go down far enough down "the pyramid" and you'll see missing linesmen and even refs.

Then the debate will be how neutral are the people controlling the game, what happens when it "kicks off " between players who intervenes sounds far too sterile for me but i see your point.

Whose going to pay for the technology just ask Eric Whalley if his Stanley can pull out another 100k plus or whatever it costs, could clubs like Rossendale afford it ?

What happens on every council football pitch in Blackburn and Darwen, does football at grassroots level become a different game.

It has to be the same for everyone not just the privileged few.

[stuwilky]

Other mediums? What, like crystal balls and stuff!?

So you'd know that Law 5 would need to be substantially amended in order to allow the use of technology in the Premier League then! At least everything in bold would have to be amended, in order to allow the FAPL to change it's own "rules" as you put it.

Law 5 barely needs touching Tris, arguably if at all....

controls the match in co-operation with the assistant referees and, where applicable, with the fourth official and video referee Simply adding to the control. Of course this part of the Laws demonstrate how incosistent they are.... (where applicable) I was at an FA Cup match tonight without a fourth official.... how is that "the same at all levels"

stops, suspends or terminates the match because of outside interference of any kind - doesnt need changing - an official surely isnt outside interference

The decisions of the referee regarding facts connected with play are final. The referee may only change a decision on realising that it is incorrect or, at his discretion, on the advice of an assistant referee - surely the last two words cover a "technology" official?

Its a nonsense point - football is not the same at all levels - its pointless even pretending it is.

[colin]

Sorry to interrupt the disscusion on the interpetation of the offside rule, but a correct disallowed goal against Chelsea for offside is one thing, but an incorrect one deserves celebration.

The fact that it was against Rovers cheers me up no end.

It'll even itself out eventually. Maybe karma for Tevez's "goal" last season.

[Tris]

IMO it would need amending. We can argue the intricate sense of the words for ever, but the long and short is that not a single league (however powerful, rich or blessed with the best technology from their TV partners) has actually tried to go against the spirit of what Law 5 stands for.

I think there are good reasons for that. Mourinho's monitor throwing antics are the perfect illustration as to why. He was protesting an incorrect offside call. In a typical match (at any level) there may be 20, 30 or even 40 such calls to make. Players at every level appeal and/or protest even when they know they're wrong - both defenders and forwards.

To suggest technology could be used to improve offside decisions (as has been on this thread) is barmy. It would still be down to the ref to decide when to refer - in effect when to overrule his linesman - so if he did for one call after 5 minutes he'd have to refer every single decision after that.

Imagine the reaction of the crowds / players / pundits if one close decision was referred, but later another close one wasn't. Imagine the damage to the game of football if every time the psyched up players ganged up on the ref insisting on a referral he had to condede - it could be every 2 minutes. And of course the ref would subsequently be totally destroyed and ineffectual even on contested throw ins!

There is only one potential use for "technology", and that is "did the ball cross the line." These are so few and far between it's not worth it. We copped the most shocking one of last season (Tevez) - but that was only one goal out of 931. And nobody talks about it now, not even Sheffield United.

Mistakes are part and parcel of the game - look at Chelsea's last three games - a 2-0 reverse at Villa, a 0-0 draw with us, and 1-1 with Rosenborg. The richest club in the world is making mistakes, all of them from the owner via the boardroom through the coach to the players. Sheva should have scored 3 against us, but made 3 mistakes, far outweighing one mistake by the lino. That's the game, and that's how it should stay.

[dave birch]

Mistakes are part and parcel of the game - look at Chelsea's last three games - a 2-0 reverse at Villa, a 0-0 draw with us, and 1-1 with Rosenborg. The richest club in the world is making mistakes, all of them from the owner via the boardroom through the coach to the players. Sheva should have scored 3 against us, but made 3 mistakes, far outweighing one mistake by the lino. That's the game, and that's how it should stay.

Good point. Chelsea should be a team that wins games by more than the odd goal. They are making mistakes, as Tris points out, and should be looking to get their own house in order before criticising an official.

I remember refereeing a local game when one player kept having a go at me for perceived errors. His team was losing badly, so I suggested that if I only made half as many mistakes as his team, then I'd consider it a job well done. He zipped it for the rest of the game.

Maybe the ref should comment to players and managers when they have made monumental blunders. Officials are on a hiding to nothing.

[thenodrog]

Mistakes are part and parcel of the game - look at Chelsea's last three games - a 2-0 reverse at Villa, a 0-0 draw with us, and 1-1 with Rosenborg. The richest club in the world is making mistakes, all of them from the owner via the boardroom through the coach to the players. Sheva should have scored 3 against us, but made 3 mistakes, far outweighing one mistake by the lino. That's the game, and that's how it should stay.

Dunno bout that Tris. I like the idea of a ref in the stands with video technology. It would go a long way to ruling out big club bias and nullifying outside influences affecting decisions e.g. crowd / media / big time managers etc. No one can deny that there are many refereeing instances of 'homers'. Saturdays disallowed goal at Chelsea and the foul count being imo fairly isolated incidents in clashes between big clubs and the rest.

btw only 25000 in the Bridge for a Champions league game is very good news.

[dave birch]

Theno, I take your points about a "ref in the stands",and particularly about nullifying outside influences.

A bloke that plays for one of our sides was the ref in rugby league in Australia (and the World for that matter). He's now the bloke who gives the decisions via the slo mo when requested. I must ask him whether he cops any flak for any of his decisions.

I'll get back on that after I've seen him.

[USRoverME]

Theno, I'm not sure that a 4th official will be THAT much more insualted from teh big-club bias than the ref on the field.

I mean certainly the Ref on the field is in full view and will take the direct verbal and physical reaction during the match from the players and the fans, but other than that, how is the official in the stands different? So, he can't be phyisically assaulted immediately after a decision, but the review official's name will be known, and he'll get the same plastering in the press as any other official, and hopefully the same "review" of his decisions as any otehr ref. Granted, his decisions shoul, in theory, be better due to the replay, but still, some decisions, even on review, are hard to call, there will still be controversy, and refs will still get pressured, and big clubs have more leverage.

[CAPT KAYOS]

To suggest technology could be used to improve offside decisions (as has been on this thread) is barmy. It would still be down to the ref to decide when to refer - in effect when to overrule his linesman - so if he did for one call after 5 minutes he'd have to refer every single decision after that.

There is only one potential use for "technology", and that is "did the ball cross the line." These are so few and far between it's not worth it. We copped the most shocking one of last season (Tevez) - but that was only one goal out of 931. And nobody talks about it now, not even Sheffield United.

Mistakes are part and parcel of the game

Tris I agree with most of your post especially the above.

StuW, Jal everybody - Tris adds more susbstance to it but my points are its not exactly brain surgery to get decisions right and that there are certain elements that can be improved that do not need TV/Video evidence ie linesman being in line. What galls me is how they appear not spot the most obvious ones on the offsides yet the ones that are a midgeys dick to spot ie when an an attackers nose is too long and extends beyond the defender they do see -this to me counteracts the argument of the impossibility of not being able to see when a ball is played /looking the line and making the decision and gives rise to question the statement I have just mentioned of how they can spot them (does that make sense?)

[USRoverME]

Capt, I get your point, but it doesn't make sense to me....

To use a saying my dad likes, "Even a blind squirrel gets a nut once in a while."

They occasionally get a really close call right, but at the same time, they get a lot of really close calls wrong. Is it poor positioning, poor refereeing, poor interpretation fo the rule, or some other reason. Jsut because they are occasionally in the right spot doesn't mean they weer always there... it also doesn't mean they weren't thinking "I'm not sure, so to be safe, I'm flagging it."

Going back to TRis' post, I'm going to slightly disagree about using video for offsides being "unreasonable". It could be made to work. Basically, tell the linesmen to let close plays go-on, and if they turn into somethign big, a goal, a penalty, a freekick in a dangerous spot, evena corner, then you've got your chance to review without really wasting any more time than what is being "wasted" on the field anyways (since we all know how long teams take to set up or delay in front of pens, kicks and the like)

[JAL]

Tris I agree with most of your post especially the above.

StuW, Jal everybody - Tris adds more susbstance to it but my points are its not exactly brain surgery to get decisions right and that there are certain elements that can be improved that do not need TV/Video evidence ie linesman being in line. What galls me is how they appear not spot the most obvious ones on the offsides yet the ones that are a midgeys dick to spot ie when an an attackers nose is too long and extends beyond the defender they do see -this to me counteracts the argument of the impossibility of not being able to see when a ball is played /looking the line and making the decision and gives rise to question the statement I have just mentioned of how they can spot them (does that make sense?)

Putting theory into practice with every person who ever runs the line easy, problem solved, but for that one split second moment when a critical decision isnt quite right after maybe hundreds and hundreds of hours getting the critical decisions correct and thus that person progresses through the assistant referees career ladder to the pinnacle (premiership football) of his career, its easy to chastise that person for getting it wrong but having done it myself at a far lower level from my experience i'd say its far from being easy.

On the whole the assistant referees in the premiership with the exception of Mr.Devine are very good and credit should be given to them for a tough task that they carry out in a continually changing challenging environment.

[Tris]

Going back to TRis' post, I'm going to slightly disagree about using video for offsides being "unreasonable". It could be made to work. Basically, tell the linesmen to let close plays go-on, and if they turn into somethign big, a goal, a penalty, a freekick in a dangerous spot, evena corner, then you've got your chance to review without really wasting any more time than what is being "wasted" on the field anyways (since we all know how long teams take to set up or delay in front of pens, kicks and the like)

Not workable IMO - as JAL points out the guys running the line in the PL are at the top of their profession and do their jobs to the very best of their ability. You can't suddenly tell them to only do half a job because there's someone with a TV in the stand to press rewind just in case the ball goes somewhere important after a half decision.

The whole idea opens a can of worms which shouldn't be opened. Mourinho's monitor antics are a stark reminder of what could lie ahead. Imagine that sort of public petulance if recourse to TV replays WAS available! You'd have the players, manager and crowd pressuring the on field officials to hand over every disputable decision to TV review. It would lead to anarchy. Refs would end up referring everything and their on field authority would be destroyed - along with the game of football!

[stuwilky]

StuW, Jal everybody - Tris adds more susbstance to it but my points are its not exactly brain surgery to get decisions right and that there are certain elements that can be improved that do not need TV/Video evidence ie linesman being in line. What galls me is how they appear not spot the most obvious ones on the offsides yet the ones that are a midgeys dick to spot ie when an an attackers nose is too long and extends beyond the defender they do see -this to me counteracts the argument of the impossibility of not being able to see when a ball is played /looking the line and making the decision and gives rise to question the statement I have just mentioned of how they can spot them (does that make sense?)

I challenge you to try and run the line in a high tempo game of football..... and stay in line. Its impossible - even for the fittest of people.

[MCMC1875]

I challenge you to try and run the line in a high tempo game of football..... and stay in line. Its impossible - even for the fittest of people.

Stu

Perhaps your Prozone rating is a bit low.

[stuwilky]

Stu

Perhaps your Prozone rating is a bit low.

I cant see why MC, I go to the bar and back loads of times.......

[USRoverME]

Not workable IMO - as JAL points out the guys running the line in the PL are at the top of their profession and do their jobs to the very best of their ability. You can't suddenly tell them to only do half a job because there's someone with a TV in the stand to press rewind just in case the ball goes somewhere important after a half decision.

But they change the offsides rules (well tweak it) every few years anyways, which is why all refs have to go to refresher courses. FIFA and the FAs also put out points of emphasis most seasons as well, to look out fo shirt pulling or diving and the like. I don't see a directive in this mold as any different, except that it involves the 4th official actually DOING something, for a change.

The whole idea opens a can of worms which shouldn't be opened. Mourinho's monitor antics are a stark reminder of what could lie ahead. Imagine that sort of public petulance if recourse to TV replays WAS available! You'd have the players, manager and crowd pressuring the on field officials to hand over every disputable decision to TV review. It would lead to anarchy. Refs would end up referring everything and their on field authority would be destroyed - along with the game of football!

Going a little overboard there, methinks. So far with this discussion "evert disputable decision" has been limited to goal-line and offsides calls. There's probably, what maybe 1-3 tight offsides calls a game (obviously the are are more clear cut ones), and only rarely are there any tough goal-line calls (say 1 every 2-3 weeks in the league). I'm not for using in game replay for diving, sicne tht is much more subjective.

Besides every touchy decision the ref currently makes already gets a crowd of players around him pressuring him to make a decision, and the game is not yet so full of anarchy that it is destroyed, so how is this different? In fact, it would let him get players off his back with the occasional, " the guy upstais says I'm right", since the player don't know if the 4th officials is talking to him or not.

[Tris]

Besides every touchy decision the ref currently makes already gets a crowd of players around him pressuring him to make a decision, and the game is not yet so full of anarchy that it is destroyed, so how is this different?

Because at the moment everyone knows that the authority of the referee on the field is sacrosanct and in 99.9% of cases his decision won't be changed. Even if AFTER the game the TV techies use 8 angles and frame-by-frame slow motion to prove things otherwise.

If you give players and managers the option to upgrade their current manic protests that the ref is simply wrong, to protests which insist that the ref is wrong not to refer a disputed decision to replay invites anarchy.

If the referee turns down a close call to TV referral he will be slaughtered after the game for not referring it, rather than simply for getting the decision plain wrong as now. So you will end up with players insisting that everything is referred and refs being pressured into giving in to those demands.

I know it works in other sports, but it simply cannot ever work in football. Football is at it's best when it flows freely with quick restarts and few interruptions.

[blue phil]

Basically, tell the linesmen to let close plays go-on, and if they turn into somethign big, a goal, a penalty, a freekick in a dangerous spot, evena corner, then you've got your chance to review without really wasting any more time than what is being "wasted" on the field anyways (since we all know how long teams take to set up or delay in front of pens, kicks and the like)

It wouldn't work . What if the game goes on and the ball doesn't go out of play for 5 minutes ? Either team could score in that time and with the lino keeping his flag down it could lead to untold confusion and be more trouble than it's worth .

[colin]

Tris is right, the whole point about football is that it is free-flowing and fast, that's the beauty of the game.

All this stuff about video replays is down to MANAGERS WHOSE TEAMS HAVE NOT WON. If Chelsea had beaten us 2-0 even with that disallowed goal do any of you think that Jose would have been moaning?

The fact is that no manager/player/supporter/chairman whose team has won a game EVER complained about the ref or assistant ref.

Mourino may be one of the biggest whimpering moaning whinging managers going (and he's got a lot of competition) but did anyone hear him ripping Schevchenkokotheclown to bits for being a crap finisher, or blaming himself for picking the wrong team or playing the wrong tactics or God forbid, just saying "We didn't deserve to win because we weren't good enough?" Horse's bottom you did.

Nope, it's all down to the officials isn't it? But only when you don't win.

Come back here on Monday night and quote me all the managers who have won over the weekend who are complaining about refs. You know how many there will be.

[CAPT KAYOS]

Capt, I get your point, but it doesn't make sense to me....

To use a saying my dad likes, "Even a blind squirrel gets a nut once in a while."

Thanks USRoverME

Folks , looks like we all have a valid points but again as Tris says its fast and free flowing and bringing in technology is not the answer due to said points.

My argument still is the aspect of how can their calls for offside be justifiable if they are not in line? - we all know its not easy and yes there will always be the scenario of the win some/ lose some which we can all accept, but IMO if they are not up with play ( keep watch this season) they should not even raise their flags - yet we appear nowadays to have happy flaggers who just flag for the sake of it - much the same as some referees blow the whistles.

Question - Does anybody know /heard/seen evidence that decisions are looked at after a game and officials ( behind closed doors) questioned on alot of decisions - are they scrutinised/ what is their jurisdiction in a game? as it would appear not to be the caseand nothing is ever made clear. Yes we have the 4th 'I'm a joke official' who in my book does absolutely bugger all other than ensure the manager stays in his little box and gets them riled for no reason. Also the referees association that never seems to give justification for decisions or back the officials - everything just seems to get swept under the carpet as if there is no problem.

There are just certain aspects that I feel could make their life easier ( as well as the stopping of the crowding by the players) and still disagree to the point that its not as difficult to run the line as we are led to believe.