Liverpool FC Forum

by **Big Niall** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 6:06 pm

be honest, would you like it if every game was officiated 100%, no controversy, nobody being able to complain about it afterwards.

Thats half the fun. I've blamed the refs for Manu winnning 8 leagues in just over a decade (they've only been responsible for 6

)

by **mrcool2003** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 12:35 am

stu_the_red wrote:As someone said, it won't stop clowns and cheats like Maradonna and Saviola using the hands to gain an unfair advantage.

If won't stop goals that are offside...

What if the ball crossed the line, however the player was then found to be on video a couple of innches offside?

Then you're moving the goal posts again. Once its brought in for one thing, it won't be long before its brought in for anything. Anyone who want's this isn't and never will be a REAL football fan.

im not a england supporter, you's all seem to remember maradona using the hand to score a goal against england in the world cup

but y ou's dont talk about the goal he also scored in that match, one of teh best goals you 'll see the dribbling and the skill it took to score that

right enough, the john barnes goal against brazil was pretty good too at the time

by **115-1073096938** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 1:29 am

****** england. I'm using it as an example. I'm never and never will be an England fan. Anyone who knows me knows this!

Reds through and through!!

But my point was clear. You'll always get idiots crying about something. For me, you cry about the lot or nothing.

Imagine if it another scenario happens like that, it goes in of the hand... but does it cross the line? The ref recieves his buzz.... it does.... BUT IT WAS HANDBALL!!! IT SHOULDN'T HAVE STOOD!!! imagine without the technology, its not counted, adjusted incorrectly to have not crossed the line and the player handled the ball in... justice is done, thats what makes football what it is, two wrongs CAN make a right!! If you take this out of the game you're killing it!

by **LFC #1** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 4:22 am

I kind of agree here Stu, as I think bringing technology into the game sets a dangerous precedent.

If you bring this in, does it mean that technology will then be brought in for other things in the future?

why not just stick an extra official behind each goal, whose job is too make the decision of whether the ball crossed the line or not, but could laso help with fould in the box etc.

by **Judge** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 9:10 am

LFC #1 wrote:I kind of agree here Stu, as I think bringing technology into the game sets a dangerous precedent

ok LFC1, picture this:

its the last day of the season and LFC need to beat manure to win the title, and a draw is good enough for the mancs. so with 5 seconds on the clock, the ball is hoofed over the manure keeper and crosses the line blatantly, and the manc keeper scoops it out (reminiscent of manure v spurs), and the ref disallows it, and the mancs go on to win the title. everyone bar the linesman and ref see it.

would you be saying that goaline technology shouldnt be introduced, i think NOT

by **Big Niall** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:21 am

If it was the other way round and we won the league due to a bad decision, we'd laugh and be delighted the game is not being decided by robots.

by **Judge** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 1:42 pm

Big Niall wrote:If it was the other way round and we won the league due to a bad decision, we'd laugh and be delighted the game is not being decided by robots.

what, it would never be a bad decision against the mancs if LFC won

by **115-1073096938** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 2:10 pm

ok LFC1, picture this:

its the last day of the season and LFC need to beat manure to win the title, and a draw is good enough for the mancs. so with 5 seconds on the clock, the ball is hoofed over the manure keeper and crosses the line blatantly, and the manc keeper scoops it out (reminiscent of manure v spurs), and the ref disallows it, and the mancs go on to win the title. everyone bar the linesman and ref see it.

would you be saying that goaline technology shouldnt be introduced, i think NOT

For ****** sake thats the point. I wouldn't be saying it because i won't support the game anymore when that kind of ****** is introduced.

ITS ALL PART OF THE ****** GAME!!!! Just as i've ALWAYS said if you don't take your chances you don't deserve to win, "luck" evens itselft out etc etc etc.

The fact is if you're good enough to be 10-0 up then that decision won't make any difference.

It ALWAYS HAS BEEN and ALWAYS SHOULD be a part of the game. I'll never change my opinion on this ever and the day its introduced is the day i lose interest. I'm actually starting to pull away from supporting the game now because i don't like the way its going and i'm sick of moronic fans like yourself.

by **gabbyh** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 2:29 pm

I am definitely moronic, because I feel anything that takes away the hard done by feelings of spite and ill-usage by the majority of fans, is a good thing.
Football is a game of speed and amazing skill. Unfortunately the immature rantings of its players and fans ruin it. I would love the refs to be wired up in footie as they are in rugby, it may teach the highly paid arrogant young ba*ta**s to behave. Also, I believe that if fans don't behave, clubs should be docked points, if players fight... a fine is piddling to them, the team should be docked points too.

A team gets docked points for going into liquidation, but doesn't get docked points for its players fighting on the field. Isn't that ****** over tit reasoning? Or is players fighting on the field part of the excitement and unpredictability of our wonderful game?

by **taff** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 3:29 pm

Totally agree Gabbyh.
How can players be booked for dissent when they all do it, and even continue ranting and swearing after being booked.

Im not for too much comparison with rugby and football as they are different sports and technology enhances one but will detract from the other but all football fans should take note of the action taken against the England rugby coach over his outbursts. Compare this with no action against Mourinho for his behaviour on Sunday. And I actually like Mourinho and dont want to jump on the bandwagon there.

As far as Im concerned a lot of players and clubs act like petulant children and thank the lord we dont.

Another myth by rugby players is football is a soft game its not by any account but it does seem to promote childish behaviour which people seem to think is acceptable

by **gabbyh** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 4:42 pm

Rugby is stop start in its nature, but at least when the ball is out of play, the clock stops. Can't that be introduced to football. My husband prefers rugby. I am the one who has a four pack and sits and swears at the telly/radio when Liverpool play. As far as Kev is concerned, footballers are WAY overpaid because they rarely ever play the full 90 minutes. 3 or 4 minute injury time at the end of each half does not, according to Kev (and I have to in all honesty agree with him) make up for the amount of time the ball is out of touch.
Think..... in Rugby, when the ball is out of touch, the clock stops.
In football, when the ball is out of touch the clock still runs...it is timewasting on a grand scale!! Players can waste time taking a throw in, a corner, a goal kick.... OK if your are supporting the winning team, but really two-faced if you look at it in the light of a non footie supporter.
As far as I am concerned, footballers should try to concentrate on their skill with the ball rather than hoof it out of play.
With this rule, hoofing it out of play does not gain anything really, only breathing space at that time, but 45mins will still be played cos time will be stopped when the ball is out of play.

I see players being supplied with a ball that is not the one lost in the crowd, and have still seen players ignore that ball and pick up another. Timewasting!

Therefore to my mind, players who are paid X Thousand per week will earn their money by definitely playing 90minutes.
Is that too much to ask?

by **taff** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 5:03 pm

Youcould then say how league is more intense than union etc well until the last few years that was definitely the case

Football flows so I cant see that working as most of the time players want to get on with the game and you have injury time etc which is declared

Rugby is more concerned with phases so its a different style of time management

The one thing I find strange is in rugby the game cannot finish until the ball goes out of play whilst in football its down to the ref blowing as per the time. Ask the brazilians what they thought about Clive the Welsh ref when he disallowed a goal from a corner using those rules

by **Leonmc0708** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 5:20 pm

gabbyh wrote:Rugby is stop start in its nature, but at least when the ball is out of play, the clock stops. Can't that be introduced to football. My husband prefers rugby.

FOOTBALL, its NOT for girls

by **JBG** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 5:46 pm

Leonmc0708 wrote:
gabbyh wrote:Rugby is stop start in its nature, but at least when the ball is out of play, the clock stops. Can't that be introduced to football. My husband prefers rugby.

FOOTBALL, its NOT for girls

So why do you follow it then?

I semi-sympathise with Stu's point, but he obviously isn't old enough (what age are you Stu anyway?

) to remember some of the good rule changes over the years: the change in the offside rule and the eradication of the back pass were major steps forward which improved the game.

My point is that football is a constantly evolving sport: its rules have never been set in stone as it moves with the times.

I'd welcome a limited use of video technology in professional football: nowadays all professional matches have cameras at them and it would take no more than a minute or two for a fourth official to double check a controversial incident.

I wouldn't tamper too much with rules or pay much interest to silly changes advocated in the early 1990s by Johan Cruff and Michel Platinni such as making goals much bigger and introducing sin bins.

Having an opinion which is different to yours doesn't make the other person an idiot Stu: thinking that way makes you appear like a pyschopath.

by **115-1073096938** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 7:04 pm

Firstly JBG, i am.

Secondly, why should the game at the highest level have rules that players at sunday league level don't?

That ALWAYS been part and parcel of the game, the beauty of it is that its EXACTLY the same at sunday league as it is in europian cup final. The rules are the same, there is the same controversy, there is are the same mistakes just everything is to a different degree.

If they can manage this technology into ALL LEVELS, and i mean ALL LEVELS then i'd consider it, but the fact is can you see Man Utd getting an away draw at Dover or someone at Dovers ground. The game wouldn't be allowed to be played there as they wouldn't be able to afford the technology, imagine if United were then to go out of the compition by a wrongly allowed goal, while at the other end Liverpool get through because of a rightly allowed goal down to the technology because they had home advantage, it would cause a massive uproar and its simply wrong to expect ALL CLUBS at ALL LEVELS to be able to afford this.

Its just wrong. Plain and simply wrong and should never ever happen. the day it does ti my my club and the top division over here i won't follow the poffessional game anymore and i stand by that.

Liverpool FC Forum

Sad sad day! - Technology introduced for the world cup

Who is online