Referee For Next Game Thread

[fine-n-dandy]

Are Celtic complaining about being reffed by Kevin Clancy!?

With a name like that I wonder what team he grew up supporting...

Shower of pricks.

They maybe feel they didn't get their money's worth

[strachanmcgheegoal]

Craig Thomson up next. Shite referee but could have been worse.

 

See rogers getting his mind games in early to make sure refs are scared to give any calls against them in the big game now.

 

Saying he thinks refs were shite in both semis. They may have been shite but that is what they all are

Was Thomson not ref for the Lustig Hayes red? Joy.

[nazrat]

Warning! Here comes the rugby ref argument...I recognise there are crap rugby refs too... (RSA?) But they have more control over the match and players and are under more scrutiny with video queries etc. There is no reason why football shouldn't go for video replays or challenges, it would add a few minutes to a game but probably improve credibility of referees and establishment.

 

I don't see a credible argument not to do it unless there is something to hide?

 

Also thinks they should pay refs more at top end and make it a career choice for younger not so successful players perhaps? With career pipelines and all that stuff.

[Parklife]

There is no reason why football shouldn't go for video replays or challenges, it would add a few minutes to a game but probably improve credibility of referees and establishment.

 

I don't see a credible argument not to do it unless there is something to hide?

 

 

There's plenty of reasons TBH.

 

As shown in the Confederations Cup, it'll just lead to referees not making a decision. They'll rely on the video ref to deal with every semi-controversial decision, which of course is not instantaneous. Which will result in the game on-going for a period of time, where another major incident may occur later in the passage of play at the other end of the pitch.

 

Challenges in particular are the worst idea. They'll be used tactically to break up the game when a team is winning and wants to kill their opponents momentum.

[fine-n-dandy]

There's plenty of reasons TBH.

 

As shown in the Confederations Cup, it'll just lead to referees not making a decision. They'll rely on the video ref to deal with every semi-controversial decision, which of course is not instantaneous. Which will result in the game on-going for a period of time, where another major incident may occur later in the passage of play at the other end of the pitch.

 

Challenges in particular are the worst idea. They'll be used tactically to break up the game when a team is winning and wants to kill their opponents momentum.

 

But if they go down the route they are speaking of, which is to play two x thirty min halfs but stopping the clock every time the ball is out of play then there should be no issues of wasted time etc.

 

They say the ball is only actually in play for an average of 25 mins per half as it is.

 

Would be worth trying this as an experiment at least. Maybe in friendlies to begin with for example.

[Betty Swallicks]

The Confederations Cup video ref "experiment" was an absolute abortion.

[Parklife]

But if they go down the route they are speaking of, which is to play two x thirty min halfs but stopping the clock every time the ball is out of play then there should be no issues of wasted time etc.

 

They say the ball is only actually in play for an average of 25 mins per half as it is.

 

Would be worth trying this as an experiment at least. Maybe in friendlies to begin with for example.

 

I'm not talking about time-wasting. I'm talking about breaking up a teams momentum and the flow of the game. Football isn't designed to be a stop/start game like American Football, we shouldn't make it one.

[NEM]

 

no one is beyond scrutiny

 

however no matter who we get, it will be the usual "Gollum again - no points for us", "Thompson again - no points for us"

 

do you know for example that the rangers fans are convinced collum supports celtic and the celtic fans are convinced he supports rangers?

 

it is pathetic, grow up is my message

 

 

Aye I'm sure the catholic RE teacher from Glasgow supports the huns.

 

They're not called Paranoia FC for fuck all

[strachanmcgheegoal]

 

cringe

 

hun and celtic talk

 

Clearly.

 

 

 

do you know for example that the rangers fans are convinced collum supports celtic and the celtic fans are convinced he supports rangers?

[GDON21]

Whats the script in serie A? I saw a ref in the last minute of juve vs Lazio run off and look on a tv screen then award a penalty. Is this allowed or was it a one off purely because it was for Juventus? they missed anyway and lost there unbeaten run.

[V for Vendetta]

 

I'm not talking about time-wasting. I'm talking about breaking up a teams momentum and the flow of the game. Football isn't designed to be a stop/start game like American Football, we shouldn't make it one.

 

I agree with Parklife on this its too big a change to tinker with Football in this way - changes the flow and ethos of the game too much I think.

 

American Football works in the opposite way, its essentially a series of set plays anyway and clock management is done to the second (by the best teams anyway).

 

Edit to add: Wouldn't mind seeing video ref used for all penalty claims but only referred to after the next stoppage in play. Maybe for all Red card decisions too. (more like in Rugby where its used for contentious try scores and sin binning decisions)

[fine-n-dandy]

 

I'm not talking about time-wasting. I'm talking about breaking up a teams momentum and the flow of the game. Football isn't designed to be a stop/start game like American Football, we shouldn't make it one.

Nothing will change regarding breaking up the flow of the game with this new idea they are talking about as the game/flow stops regardless when the ball is out of play anyway.

Idea is that this will prevent time wasting with injuries/subs/general booting the ball out of play because the clock stops when ever the ball is not in actual play.

 

2 x 30 min halfs (when ball is actually only in play currently on average for around 25mins anyway) of actual ball in play time means we get more game time in reality (on average)

 

American football is a poor example as it is designed to stop & start all the time anyway & they WANT lots of stoppages for advertising/cash etc., so not really comparable to PROPER football.

Ice hockey is a far better example as that is designed to be played for each 20 min period with clocks stopping between plays & even subs are done on a rolling sub type system. Hockey is a good system & quite exciting I think & there is very little scope for any kind of time wasting & games tend to be finished within a fairly consistent time frame overall. Not counting when they go into extra time periods because of drawing games.

 

Football games would still take around 45 mins per half using this system & I think it is worth experimenting with this to see how it compares to current system.

[strachanmcgheegoal]

No issue with major decisions where the game is being televised anyway and especially if play has naturally stopped for a foul for instance.

 

Why is it 40,000 fans in the stand with phones and millions of tv viewers can clearly see its a foul/red card/goal but nobody's allowed to tell the ref. That's nonsense.

 

But I agree, in live play, apart from maybe the classic 'was the ball over the goal line' scenario video reffing will just make the refs lazy and would be a backward step for the game in general. That said, I'm all for retrograde action on individual players caught after the game on video. More proactive work in that area would stop a lot of the diving and other fuck wittery that we see.

[TheRock]

I always say in these situations...actually come up with a watertight set of rules of when/how video technology would be used. It's difficult, I think.

 

The problem is, in my belief, that people imagine the absolute no doubt decisions. Like take Henry's handball vs Ireland. If they had video replays that goal would not have stood. But what if instead of 2 seconds before the goal, the handball was 10 seconds? 30 seconds? What if the handball was followed by a corner instead and the France scored from the corner? Who calls for the replay? The manager? Captain? Referee's discretion? A 3 challenges thing? Again, what/when can you challenge? How long after an incident? People sometimes say 'major' decisions but what does that actually mean? A throw in given the wrong way isn't a major decision until one teams scores 10 seconds later. Referees discretion opens the door to them just getting the decision over using the technology wrong rather than the actual incident. Even the challenges thing bothers me because you'll probably still end up with a big decision in the 90th minute getting called blatantly wrong but the wronged team is out of challenges. The we're back to 'we have the technology, everyone at home and everyone in the stadium apart from the referee and linesman knows that was the wrong decision..why can't we use the technology better? And why is the ref so shite even without being able to rewatch the incident'. And this is before we even touchon looking at things 50/50 challenges where even when you watch is from multiple angles in slow motion you still don't really know if it was a red or not. Something like an offside is (usually) a matter of fact. If that tackle in the box was a penalty isn't always.

 

I suppose a counter argument to that is that even if it doesn't really help with the 50/50 decisions, at the 100% obvious wrong decisions will get corrected and that's an improvement. I just wonder how much time will be spent on the 50/50 decisions where videos don't really help versus the no doubters.

 

I'm not saying I'm against video technology as a general concept, I'm just not sure how it can be implemented yet without introducing a whole set of new problems and feel like we're miles away from an actual set of rules regarding the implementation that is close something the majority will be satisfied with.

[maryhilldon]

All the video decisions at the Confed cup seemed to benefit the defending team. I was a fan of the idea until it started fucking up my 'result and both teams to score' coupons.

[strachanmcgheegoal]

Question. If we get one decision right as a result of using the instantaneous video evidence we already have in big games such as the Henri goal or the Lampard one against Germany is the other commonly used example and the other 9 remain questionable because, as you say, inconclusive after many angles etc etc is that not still better than the current situation where every controversial decision is wrong by default?

 

I completely get what your saying Rock about its pitfalls but I don't get why its used as an excuse to not use it where merited.

[TheRock]

Yeah, I get your point and did mention that. It's just a question of if you feel like it's worth stopping the game for all these niggly little decisions for the in actuality not very common obviously wrong one. Most of the time, the Henry handballs *are' spotted so I do think you end up with far more 50/50 decisions or decisions the referee originally called correctly anyway that than times it's used to correct a bad decision. And while it will be great a wrong decision is reversed, I wonder how well recieved it will be when the game is stopped for another decision which ends up not feeling that important. Have a feeling the 'so glad we have video reviews' occassions will be few amd far between.

 

But I don't know. It's fine doing it in a tournament which is relatively few games. Won't really find out how it works in practical terms until a league does it for a full season and different variations of how it's applied are tried. It might end up working really well and all my fears are unfounded. I still say actually coming up with a robust set of rules for it tough though.

[strachanmcgheegoal]

Agreed. But the few and far between 'Henri' can be instantly fixed with the video review system we already have called Sky and BTsport.

[fine-n-dandy]

Steve McLean next up

[RAZOR]

Alan (9-0) Muir on Saturday.

 

Not that makes a difference of course.

[BWG]

We might win 9-0

[fine-n-dandy]

Willie Collum up next. Out to prove he can be shite for everyone (except Celtic) again tomorrow

[mcdougall(4)]

Seemed appropriate thread wise

 

Andrew Dallas, playing in the Kris Boyd testimonial for the 'Rangers 11'

 

So transparent.

[HairyPie]

^^^^^ Is that fucking true?

[shut up meg]

^^^^

 

No, they have a young player called Andrew Dallas on the books.