Referees/Umpires

noseall · 28 Jun 2010

imamartian said:
the point most people seem to be missing is, that in tennis, rugby, cricket etc. the game has a natural stoppage in which to check the video.

Say for example that the ball didn't cross the line yesterday, and germany launch a counter-attack and are four on two with our defence, should the ref stop play to check the vid, and germany lose their chance? what if in the counter attack a german player gets brought down and does his cruciate ligament, the ref then goes back to check the video, and it is a goal.... the ref can't undo the injury.

i personally would prefer technology, but it doesn't fit the nature of the game. And if you accept that refs are only human, their errors should balance out at the end of the day.

The most pertinent answer so far.

joinerjohn · 28 Jun 2010

imamartian said:
the point most people seem to be missing is, that in tennis, rugby, cricket etc. the game has a natural stoppage in which to check the video.

Say for example that the ball didn't cross the line yesterday, and germany launch a counter-attack and are four on two with our defence, should the ref stop play to check the vid, and germany lose their chance? what if in the counter attack a german player gets brought down and does his cruciate ligament, the ref then goes back to check the video, and it is a goal.... the ref can't undo the injury.

i personally would prefer technology, but it doesn't fit the nature of the game. And if you accept that refs are only human, their errors should balance out at the end of the day.

But in Rugby League, the ref asks for video evidence immediately after the incident. Play does not carry on until it's been reviewed.
In the context of the England match and Lampard's goal, the referee could have asked for an instant replay. It would have taken all of 5 seconds to show the vital point where the ball lands almost a yard over the line. Germany wouldn't have had a counter attack under way and the German player in your example wouldn't have the cruciate ligament injury.

All hypothetical though, but what a match it could have been if both teams came out 2-2 after half time.

imamartian · 28 Jun 2010

joinerjohn said:
In the context of the England match and Lampard's goal, the referee could have asked for an instant replay. It would have taken all of 5 seconds to show the vital point where the ball lands almost a yard over the line. Germany wouldn't have had a counter attack under way and the German player in your example wouldn't have the cruciate ligament injury.

but John, if the ball didn't cross the line, the german keeper was quite right to grab the ball and help his team counter..... the was no point the play stopped !! and there's no point arguing the facts... we discussing what the ref gave at the time.....

joinerjohn · 28 Jun 2010

Martian, the whole point is that we and millions of viewers, worldwide do know that the ball did cross the line. Even the German goalkeeper knows it crossed the line. Had FIFA utilised technology currently available, the ref would have known within 0.5 seconds that a goal had been scored, without the need for even a video replay. Only one person in the footballing world is against the use of technology. Sepp Blatter.
I wonder what he thinks now though? Referees/linesmen, have and are being shown to be very fallible during the biggest showcase football event on the planet.
The calls for implementing technology in football , can only become louder following the World Cup competition.

JMLanders · 28 Jun 2010

Having just read a couple of wikis/biographies of Blatter, he seems the sort of chap that could be bought for the right price - perhaps by an electronic company who may want to bid for the contract.

Blatter hasn't got long to go in his job and is probably thinking about his pension now

imamartian · 28 Jun 2010

joinerjohn said:
Martian, the whole point is that we and millions of viewers, worldwide do know that the ball did cross the line. Even the German goalkeeper knows it crossed the line. Had FIFA utilised technology currently available, the ref would have known within 0.5 seconds that a goal had been scored, without the need for even a video replay. Only one person in the footballing world is against the use of technology. Sepp Blatter.
I wonder what he thinks now though? Referees/linesmen, have and are being shown to be very fallible during the biggest showcase football event on the planet.
The calls for implementing technology in football , can only become louder following the World Cup competition.

John, i'm sorry you're wrong... it doesn't matter if you and 400billion people saw the ball cross the line.. the most important point is the linesman and the ref didn't!!! doesn't matter if it's wrong or right ! And as much as i feel all the emotive reasoning for introducing technology, it needs a massive analysis to see if it would work in such a fast game.. and even to see if some of the cheating players could use it to slow the game down for example..

sooey · 28 Jun 2010

He's got that sorted, he's bent enough, and old enough to run for pope.

sooey · 29 Jun 2010

John, i'm sorry you're wrong... it doesn't matter if you and 400billion people saw the ball cross the line.. the most important point is the linesman and the ref didn't!!! doesn't matter if it's wrong or right ! And as much as i feel all the emotive reasoning for introducing technology, it needs a massive analysis to see if it would work in such a fast game.. and even to see if some of the cheating players could use it to slow the game down for example..

All you'd have to do is take the fourth official away from harassing managers and holding up time boards. Stick him in the stand with a monitor and a button to press whenever he sees something badly wrong. He presses the button, a hooter sounds, the game stops for a few seconds while it's sorted. Cheating players already use the lack of video technology to slow the game down. They know that if they've just lost the ball and put the other team on the counter attack all they have to do is stay down looking hurt and the ref will stop the game, or their own team will stop, virtually forcing the other team to put the ball out.

snico · 29 Jun 2010

Cheating players already use the lack of video technology to slow the game down. They know that if they've just lost the ball and put the other team on the counter attack all they have to do is stay down looking hurt and the ref will stop the game, or their own team will stop, virtually forcing the other team to put the ball out

That is a huge issue that needs to be sorted out ASAP, especially at this level....a player loses a ball then rolls around on the floor so the team with the ball ends up kicking it out

imamartian · 29 Jun 2010

sooey said:
All you'd have to do is take the fourth official away from harassing managers and holding up time boards. Stick him in the stand with a monitor and a button to press whenever he sees something badly wrong. He presses the button, a hooter sounds, the game stops for a few seconds while it's sorted. Cheating players already use the lack of video technology to slow the game down. They know that if they've just lost the ball and put the other team on the counter attack all they have to do is stay down looking hurt and the ref will stop the game, or their own team will stop, virtually forcing the other team to put the ball out.

agreed.... don't they even have a couple of extra officials hanging around near each goal in some dodgy competition...?

And what about a sensor in the centre of the ball, which transmits a buzz to the ref when it's distance behind the line, between the posts is more than the radius of the ball!!!

joinerjohn · 29 Jun 2010

A German company have already developed such a system Martian. It's called Cairos and has been used in competitive football. Even they agreed that had this system been in use at this World Cup then Lamps goal would have been given.

Referees/Umpires

noseall

joinerjohn

imamartian

joinerjohn

JMLanders

imamartian

sooey

sooey

snico

imamartian

joinerjohn

Similar threads