The mancityfans.net football forum

With Tony Pulis putting it out there this weekend following our game (not that it would have made a difference to the result), it seems the refereeing is either getting worse, or we are scrutinising it in much more detail. E.G. I didnt know it was the wrong man until someone told me at half time?

It wont be too long before every game will be available LIVE, it just makes sense with the technology available. The Billions of pounds the industry is generating means it needs to put the decisions at the forefront and not to some overweight twat with an agenda!

Here is an article from the BBC on it http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/32002859

and here is one from the USA with a typical NFL theme for our transatlantic cousins http://www.mlssoccer.com/blog/smorgasbo ... ags-soccer



A poll has been added to see what you guys think, its not mandatory to vote ;-)

Maybe. Not sure if the American football system would be conducive to football (Sawker), but when you look at how Rugby Union operates, you feel it's time that football was made as conclusive when it comes to match deciding decisions.

Video refs,sin bins and drinking in the stands aswell.

Good subject matter and yes we should IMO.

I dont see any reason why this could not be brought in and used perfectly well. I think that the games of Rugby and Cricket have been enhanced by the review system. There would need to be very clear rules though.

*Who can review?
*How long should each review take?
*Should the clock be stopped?
*There should be no appeal on the outcome of the decision, ala JohnTerry and crew surrounding the ref feeling hard done to!
*Rules should be in place for allowing the game to flow until a natural stoppage before review, thus stopping coaches from influencing counter attacks.
*If a flag/review is raised, and the passage of play continues and a goal is scored, this means.
A- the appealing teams goal will count if they win or lose the appeal (unless an infringement is found on the appeal footage that wasnt called for originally.
B- the opposition of the appeals goal will count if the appeal is lost
C- the opposition of the appeals goal will not count if the appeal is upheld
*The opposition is not allowed to intervene in the appeal process, its not their appeal and therefore they have no say in what is being reviewed

Just a few for the list but its all fairly simple and common sense IMO

video replay for all red cards and penalties or at least penalties should be introduced and is long overdue.

would stop teams who rely on the ref getting those points they need.

It's an absolute joke how it works for some things in cricket & Rugby. Umpires ask for replays on every runout decision as do refs with trys in Rugby.

Some decisions which are clearly wrong have to be left unchanged, for example because the camera can't see the fielder's fingers underneath the ball & be sure it's a clean catch, even though everybody knows it is. So you have the crowd sat there watching endless replays, knowing what the correct decision would be, but having to then watch an incorrect decision given because the camera is only 99% sure rather than 100%.

Players will challenge a decision on the best batsman being given out, even though they know he's out, just on the offchance that something may have happened, which nobody has seen, which rescues it.

In football: Aguero scores an overhead volley from 40 yards, Pulis challenges it for, 'what the hell why not' reasons, & some Jamie Carragher type cunt adjudicates that Kolarov technically obstructed one of their defenders who 'may' have got there to stop him.

The week after, he adjudicates that the winning goal bouncing in off Sturridge's elbow, was accidental, & therefore the ref was wrong to disallow it.

The goal line system is fine, but as soon as you involve humans in having an opinion, they cannot be trusted, especially in football, which has the most biased inept cunts in the whole sporting world.

Wonderwall wrote:I dont see any reason why this could not be brought in and used perfectly well. I think that the games of Rugby and Cricket have been enhanced by the review system. There would need to be very clear rules though.

*Who can review?
*How long should each review take?
*Should the clock be stopped?
*There should be no appeal on the outcome of the decision, ala JohnTerry and crew surrounding the ref feeling hard done to!
*Rules should be in place for allowing the game to flow until a natural stoppage before review, thus stopping coaches from influencing counter attacks.
*If a flag/review is raised, and the passage of play continues and a goal is scored, this means.
A- the appealing teams goal will count if they win or lose the appeal (unless an infringement is found on the appeal footage that wasnt called for originally.
B- the opposition of the appeals goal will count if the appeal is lost
C- the opposition of the appeals goal will not count if the appeal is upheld
*The opposition is not allowed to intervene in the appeal process, its not their appeal and therefore they have no say in what is being reviewed

Just a few for the list but its all fairly simple and common sense IMO

This is much more in line with what I was thinking. Very Good. Did you come up with this or was it buried somewhere in the BBC article.
This is much more like the Rugby model, which works very well and keeps the game flowing until a natural break. The advantage system works quite well too. This could help eradicate the blight on the game which is, the likes of Terry and team or Rooney/Rio etc in seasons past badgering the ref as a tactic.
A sin bin for this kind of behaviour could sort that out too.

iwasthere2012 wrote:

Wonderwall wrote:I dont see any reason why this could not be brought in and used perfectly well. I think that the games of Rugby and Cricket have been enhanced by the review system. There would need to be very clear rules though.

*Who can review?
*How long should each review take?
*Should the clock be stopped?
*There should be no appeal on the outcome of the decision, ala JohnTerry and crew surrounding the ref feeling hard done to!
*Rules should be in place for allowing the game to flow until a natural stoppage before review, thus stopping coaches from influencing counter attacks.
*If a flag/review is raised, and the passage of play continues and a goal is scored, this means.
A- the appealing teams goal will count if they win or lose the appeal (unless an infringement is found on the appeal footage that wasnt called for originally.
B- the opposition of the appeals goal will count if the appeal is lost
C- the opposition of the appeals goal will not count if the appeal is upheld
*The opposition is not allowed to intervene in the appeal process, its not their appeal and therefore they have no say in what is being reviewed

Just a few for the list but its all fairly simple and common sense IMO

This is much more in line with what I was thinking. Very Good. Did you come up with this or was it buried somewhere in the BBC article.
This is much more like the Rugby model, which works very well and keeps the game flowing until a natural break. The advantage system works quite well too. This could help eradicate the blight on the game which is, the likes of Terry and team or Rooney/Rio etc in seasons past badgering the ref as a tactic.
A sin bin for this kind of behaviour could sort that out too.

You absolutely can't have the game continuing while a review is taking place. The possibilities for abuse & incompetence are absolutely terrifying.

Ted Hughes wrote:

iwasthere2012 wrote:

Wonderwall wrote:I dont see any reason why this could not be brought in and used perfectly well. I think that the games of Rugby and Cricket have been enhanced by the review system. There would need to be very clear rules though.

*Who can review?
*How long should each review take?
*Should the clock be stopped?
*There should be no appeal on the outcome of the decision, ala JohnTerry and crew surrounding the ref feeling hard done to!
*Rules should be in place for allowing the game to flow until a natural stoppage before review, thus stopping coaches from influencing counter attacks.
*If a flag/review is raised, and the passage of play continues and a goal is scored, this means.
A- the appealing teams goal will count if they win or lose the appeal (unless an infringement is found on the appeal footage that wasnt called for originally.
B- the opposition of the appeals goal will count if the appeal is lost
C- the opposition of the appeals goal will not count if the appeal is upheld
*The opposition is not allowed to intervene in the appeal process, its not their appeal and therefore they have no say in what is being reviewed

Just a few for the list but its all fairly simple and common sense IMO

This is much more in line with what I was thinking. Very Good. Did you come up with this or was it buried somewhere in the BBC article.
This is much more like the Rugby model, which works very well and keeps the game flowing until a natural break. The advantage system works quite well too. This could help eradicate the blight on the game which is, the likes of Terry and team or Rooney/Rio etc in seasons past badgering the ref as a tactic.
A sin bin for this kind of behaviour could sort that out too.

You absolutely can't have the game continuing while a review is taking place. The possibilities for abuse & incompetence are absolutely terrifying.

That list was off the top of my head.

Ted I am not with you?

A flag is raised indicating a review, the 4th official confirms the details of the review and it goes upstairs. They can do the full review and if its upheld, stop the game before the ball goes out of play, what is wrong with that? How can that be abused? The players wont know? If the players know a review is pending, they might want it to e reviewed and kick the ball out? There are endless situations but I dont get where you are coming from?

Ted Hughes wrote:

iwasthere2012 wrote:

Wonderwall wrote:I dont see any reason why this could not be brought in and used perfectly well. I think that the games of Rugby and Cricket have been enhanced by the review system. There would need to be very clear rules though.

*Who can review?
*How long should each review take?
*Should the clock be stopped?
*There should be no appeal on the outcome of the decision, ala JohnTerry and crew surrounding the ref feeling hard done to!
*Rules should be in place for allowing the game to flow until a natural stoppage before review, thus stopping coaches from influencing counter attacks.
*If a flag/review is raised, and the passage of play continues and a goal is scored, this means.
A- the appealing teams goal will count if they win or lose the appeal (unless an infringement is found on the appeal footage that wasnt called for originally.
B- the opposition of the appeals goal will count if the appeal is lost
C- the opposition of the appeals goal will not count if the appeal is upheld
*The opposition is not allowed to intervene in the appeal process, its not their appeal and therefore they have no say in what is being reviewed

Just a few for the list but its all fairly simple and common sense IMO

This is much more in line with what I was thinking. Very Good. Did you come up with this or was it buried somewhere in the BBC article.
This is much more like the Rugby model, which works very well and keeps the game flowing until a natural break. The advantage system works quite well too. This could help eradicate the blight on the game which is, the likes of Terry and team or Rooney/Rio etc in seasons past badgering the ref as a tactic.
A sin bin for this kind of behaviour could sort that out too.

You absolutely can't have the game continuing while a review is taking place. The possibilities for abuse & incompetence are absolutely terrifying.

Doesn't work like that in Rugby Ted although I understand your concerns. The rules would definitely need to be tailored for football, but I believe the referee should remain in control of what he wants to take to the TMO. It's not without its criticism in rugby either.
I don't think the game going on while a previous ruling is being adjudicated on happens in rugby and wouldn't be welcome in football either.
However, I think WW has sketchily outlined something better than what is going on at the moment.
Goal line technology is a start, but the number of penalties, sending offs, offside goals etc that determine a game has to be addressed and also the cutting out of surrounding a referee, encouraging him to make a rash decision on the spot would be welcomed.

The oppo scores, or is about to, & the game is stopped & pulled back to award a goal to the other team, which on replay, is not that cut & dried.

Absolutley wide open to corruption, bias or general incompetence changing the outcome. Just imagining a game v the rags with this in place. Doesn't bear thinking about.

City fans backing this are like Everton fans backing ffp Imo. We would not do anything but lose from this.

lets all have a disco wrote:Video refs,sin bins and drinking in the stands aswell.

And the players walking off as a team together clapping all sides of the ground.

Definitely not. It would be abused with stupid reviews on every goal. Preliminary celebrations prior to review.
Goal line technology is fact. Even offside is subject to opinion. But pens, red cards etc will often divide views.
A review system will introduce more trouble than it solves. No thanks.

iwasthere2012 wrote:

Ted Hughes wrote:

iwasthere2012 wrote:

Wonderwall wrote:I dont see any reason why this could not be brought in and used perfectly well. I think that the games of Rugby and Cricket have been enhanced by the review system. There would need to be very clear rules though.

*Who can review?
*How long should each review take?
*Should the clock be stopped?
*There should be no appeal on the outcome of the decision, ala JohnTerry and crew surrounding the ref feeling hard done to!
*Rules should be in place for allowing the game to flow until a natural stoppage before review, thus stopping coaches from influencing counter attacks.
*If a flag/review is raised, and the passage of play continues and a goal is scored, this means.
A- the appealing teams goal will count if they win or lose the appeal (unless an infringement is found on the appeal footage that wasnt called for originally.
B- the opposition of the appeals goal will count if the appeal is lost
C- the opposition of the appeals goal will not count if the appeal is upheld
*The opposition is not allowed to intervene in the appeal process, its not their appeal and therefore they have no say in what is being reviewed

Just a few for the list but its all fairly simple and common sense IMO

This is much more in line with what I was thinking. Very Good. Did you come up with this or was it buried somewhere in the BBC article.
This is much more like the Rugby model, which works very well and keeps the game flowing until a natural break. The advantage system works quite well too. This could help eradicate the blight on the game which is, the likes of Terry and team or Rooney/Rio etc in seasons past badgering the ref as a tactic.
A sin bin for this kind of behaviour could sort that out too.

You absolutely can't have the game continuing while a review is taking place. The possibilities for abuse & incompetence are absolutely terrifying.

Doesn't work like that in Rugby Ted although I understand your concerns. The rules would definitely need to be tailored for football, but I believe the referee should remain in control of what he wants to take to the TMO. It's not without its criticism in rugby either.
I don't think the game going on while a previous ruling is being adjudicated on happens in rugby and wouldn't be welcome in football either.
However, I think WW has sketchily outlined something better than what is going on at the moment.
Goal line technology is a start, but the number of penalties, sending offs, offside goals etc that determine a game has to be addressed and also the cutting out of surrounding a referee, encouraging him to make a rash decision on the spot would be welcomed.

No problem with an incorrect sending off being rectified. But judgements on goals, absolutely not. These people are not consistent enough to be allowed that power. They judge stuff according to Sky.

No, football is a live sport not a video game.

I think all the conspiracy theory stuff is pure bullshit. The reviews will be shown to all, if it is not clear then the appeal cannot be upheld. How many times do you see a decision where the 10-15+ camera angles cannot capture the incident? Its very rare indeed. The technology will be used for the good of the game, if introduced there needs to be clear defined rules around its use. It will be an even playing field.

Ted if you think that 1 team is given a penalty and about to score but the appeal review shows correctly that the appeal should be upheld then why the hell not. The penalty should never have happened if the correct decision was initially given.

Now you are getting grey areas, lets say a man was sent off for giving away the said penalty! This is where a referee should keep his cards in his pocket until the outcome of the review.

Wonderwall wrote:I think all the conspiracy theory stuff is pure bullshit. The reviews will be shown to all, if it is not clear then the appeal cannot be upheld. How many times do you see a decision where the 10-15+ camera angles cannot capture the incident? Its very rare indeed. The technology will be used for the good of the game, if introduced there needs to be clear defined rules around its use. It will be an even playing field.

Ted if you think that 1 team is given a penalty and about to score but the appeal review shows correctly that the appeal should be upheld then why the hell not. The penalty should never have happened if the correct decision was initially given.

Now you are getting grey areas, lets say a man was sent off for giving away the said penalty! This is where a referee should keep his cards in his pocket until the outcome of the review.

For a start, football is riddled with corruption around the world. This gives a bigger opportunity for it & potential for organised crime to intimidate, bribe, blackmail etc to influence betting.

Second: very very few penalties given are 100% In fact very few are penalties at all. But the 'experts' say contact is a penalty, until the same expert sees a similar instance the week after, & suddenly there 'wasn't enough' contact. By an amazing coinicidence, these opinions seem to favour the same clubs, as do the referees on pitch.

After watching this for years, we now want a situation where Rooney's dive is called back & he is awarded a penalty. And again in the return game.

This would be worth an exta 15 to 20 points a season to rags/Liverpool etc.

Wonderwall wrote:

Ted Hughes wrote:

iwasthere2012 wrote:

Wonderwall wrote:I dont see any reason why this could not be brought in and used perfectly well. I think that the games of Rugby and Cricket have been enhanced by the review system. There would need to be very clear rules though.

*Who can review?
*How long should each review take?
*Should the clock be stopped?
*There should be no appeal on the outcome of the decision, ala JohnTerry and crew surrounding the ref feeling hard done to!
*Rules should be in place for allowing the game to flow until a natural stoppage before review, thus stopping coaches from influencing counter attacks.
*If a flag/review is raised, and the passage of play continues and a goal is scored, this means.
A- the appealing teams goal will count if they win or lose the appeal (unless an infringement is found on the appeal footage that wasnt called for originally.
B- the opposition of the appeals goal will count if the appeal is lost
C- the opposition of the appeals goal will not count if the appeal is upheld
*The opposition is not allowed to intervene in the appeal process, its not their appeal and therefore they have no say in what is being reviewed

Just a few for the list but its all fairly simple and common sense IMO

This is much more in line with what I was thinking. Very Good. Did you come up with this or was it buried somewhere in the BBC article.
This is much more like the Rugby model, which works very well and keeps the game flowing until a natural break. The advantage system works quite well too. This could help eradicate the blight on the game which is, the likes of Terry and team or Rooney/Rio etc in seasons past badgering the ref as a tactic.
A sin bin for this kind of behaviour could sort that out too.

You absolutely can't have the game continuing while a review is taking place. The possibilities for abuse & incompetence are absolutely terrifying.

That list was off the top of my head.

Ted I am not with you?

A flag is raised indicating a review, the 4th official confirms the details of the review and it goes upstairs. They can do the full review and if its upheld, stop the game before the ball goes out of play, what is wrong with that? How can that be abused? The players wont know? If the players know a review is pending, they might want it to e reviewed and kick the ball out? There are endless situations but I dont get where you are coming from?

some cunts will use a review flag to call back a breakaway tackle which leads to the review not being upheld and a breakaway or counter getting muffled out.

I think it has to be very simple....

Any cards can be reviewed. Yellow or red. Not the "absence" of a card in the natural run of play. For example tho, if someone was handed a yellow, but clearly it should have been a red that could be fixed. Or if the video replay judge decides that it was indeed a foul but not worthy of a yellow, then it gets rescinded. But if no call was made you couldn't just simply at the next stoppage of play demand a review and get a card doled out.

Simple as those two things. The hawkeye thingy or whatever takes care of the goal stuff so you don't need to add that into the mix.

I think if you add into it another level regarding things like corners vs goal kicks, or "non-calls" or other factors it just gets far too messy.

cheers

Ted Hughes wrote:

Wonderwall wrote:I think all the conspiracy theory stuff is pure bullshit. The reviews will be shown to all, if it is not clear then the appeal cannot be upheld. How many times do you see a decision where the 10-15+ camera angles cannot capture the incident? Its very rare indeed. The technology will be used for the good of the game, if introduced there needs to be clear defined rules around its use. It will be an even playing field.

Ted if you think that 1 team is given a penalty and about to score but the appeal review shows correctly that the appeal should be upheld then why the hell not. The penalty should never have happened if the correct decision was initially given.

Now you are getting grey areas, lets say a man was sent off for giving away the said penalty! This is where a referee should keep his cards in his pocket until the outcome of the review.

For a start, football is riddled with corruption around the world. This gives a bigger opportunity for it & potential for organised crime to intimidate, bribe, blackmail etc to influence betting.

Second: very very few penalties given are 100% In fact very few are penalties at all. But the 'experts' say contact is a penalty, until the same expert sees a similar instance the week after, & suddenly there 'wasn't enough' contact. By an amazing coinicidence, these opinions seem to favour the same clubs, as do the referees on pitch.

After watching this for years, we now want a situation where Rooney's dive is called back & he is awarded a penalty. And again in the return game.

This would be worth an exta 15 to 20 points a season to rags/Liverpool etc.

Corruption? How so? If anything it will reduce the corruption of the individual, as "Human error" is currently condoned and not seen as corrupt. However, Video replays on the big screen whilst we are all viewing the same footage will show us the correct decisions. You really need to stop thinking about the dippers and rags, what about us? We would have a hell of a lot more points as well and justifiably so!