Liverpool FC Forum

by **red37** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 1:03 pm

Im against it on the whole.

For decisions involving the ball crosing the goal line, there is a viable case. But when you start to go down the road of 'Video referees' ala Super League (which actually works very well) In that particular sport...the intuitive nature of this fast moving spectacle and some of the passion/spontenaiety involved may start to get diluted.

The subject of Video technology might well be a grand idea to have its own thread. Should anyone have enough to say on the matter and the inclination to create one.

by **taff** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 1:17 pm

football is different to rugby so the video technology argument has to be debated thus

the main stumbling block i see is that if it is introduced then managers and players would demand for it to be used to many times in a game. football is such a big business that i could see lawyers being used to debate decisions.

by **username** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 1:30 pm

I dont see whats wrong with a quick look at the video for a big decision that there not sure about, it wont take any longer, teams stand there complaining about it for 2 minutes anyway

by **JamCar05** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 1:38 pm

red37 wrote:Im against it on the whole.

For decisions involving the ball crosing the goal line, there is a viable case. But when you start to go down the road of 'Video referees' ala Super League (which actually works very well) In that particular sport...the intuitive nature of this fast moving spectacle and some of the passion/spontenaiety involved may start to get diluted.

The subject of Video technology might well be a grand idea to have its own thread. Should anyone have enough to say on the matter and the inclination to create one.

I agree with this. Video evidence just isn't for football imho. It would take so much intensity out of the game, if we were to stop the game each time someone contested an offside decision, a freekick etc. And most of the time, you can't even be sure about the decision being right anyway, as the pictures might not always be conclusive and can often depend on different angles (ie from one angle it looks like a definite freekick, but from another it doesn't). Then the refs would not only have to watch one videoclip, but would have to watch it from say seven different angles and THEN discuss which one looks the most valid one. Imagine standing in the crowd and having to wait for this a number of times during a game - as Homer J. Simpson would so eloquently put it: BORING! I know some people might suggest that each team had maybe 2 calls each for watching a decision on video, but even then I think I'd be against it for the above reasons.

By all means bring on the goalline technology though (if it works properly), as this wouldn't be so time consuming and doesn't happen all that often, but can be very crucial when it does happen (I know a dubious offside decision can be so aswell, but you already know my arguments from above

)

by **red37** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 1:51 pm

I mean - i see 'some' point and place for it...in the major 'big' issues. And lets face it the referees assistants are next to useless when it comes down to actually doing anything constructive by and large. So the scope is there - its just the implementation of the thing and the disruption it could cause. Like username says...The players contesting a dubious decision are bound to harass the officials anyway (regardless of the fact they should not be doing so) - in the light of that fact, there is i admit a period of time thats wasted which could well be spent replaying an incident to the attention of an appointed official on the sidelines.. But, some of the fluidity and more especially the Drama - the human element (by default the inherent mistakes) all add to the whole package.

And while its wrong to rely on those errors becoming a gamebreaker (we've already been the victim and the benefactor) on two such occasions this term...they do at least fuel the fires of debate and go some way to making the game of Football as appealing and as controversially pulsating at times that it is.

OK there are blatant, and downright clear cut scenarios in which its use could be helpful. But equally care must be taken to avoid the watering down of the whole spirit of the game. Sadly, much of that has eroded for reasons that belong in other threads. I would just advocate a little caution in asking for carte blanche over the situation via a Television Lens. At the very least there is a strong argument for goal line technology...but not any that makes the referee's decisions entirely redundant - i mean, who would kop all the stick then? There has to be some scapegoat to call rotten from the stands!!

btw. apologies for wandering off topic mods! :suspect:

by **red37** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 2:25 pm

Opened up a fresh thread for this Video technology debate lads.

by **hello_red** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:39 am

we won, we got two penalties and two of there players sent off and they are moaning and we have bragging rights. end of!

I am happy they are :censored:

and dont give a flying :censored:

whether it was fair or it was a pen at the end. to qoute Carra! 'wasnt a penalty' 'its a mans game'!

by **D___C** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 7:53 am

The Manhattan Project wrote:Even if Lescott had won a penalty, Reina would have saved it anyway, so we still win 1-2.

Totally agree mate...Pepe is the penalty saving king and would have had a great chance of saving it had it been given.

by **mungi** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 8:37 am

yea reina would of saved it anywayz. they r just cut that we got bragging rights

by **DAV** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 9:27 am

If we had Video technology we would not be having this debate. Well, for me debate and controversy are one of the things that makes football so great.

by **Leonmc0708** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 9:35 am

peewee wrote:to be fair, as much as i dislike neville he has a point, we were all pretty annoyed when chelsea were given a penalty they didnt deserve agaisnt us, if we complain about ref decisions then we cant suddenly say a wrong decison is right when it goes in our favour

Equally when you say stuff like

"I handballed it cus Tim Howard might have saved it and we could have gotten away with a draw"

then you cant then talk about rights and wrongs.

by **bigmick** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 9:51 am

Yeah I can't really be taking too many lectures on the rights and wrongs of refereeing from Phil Neville. He had already performed his usual array of niggly little fouls himself and is just generally a horrible little ponce so feck him.

I actually don't think Kuyt should have gone anyway. HE didn't actually touch Neville and the day we start sending people off for jumping too high we'll end up with six a side. Moyes nonsense after the game about if a player leaves the ground it's a straight red is laughable. We ask defenders to dive in front of shots to block them all the time, is he suggesting the minute you dive block you should go? It's all about contact and it always has been, and there wasn't any.

by **account deleted by request** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 9:56 am

similar tackle by Henry

by **Ciggy** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 10:01 am

The fact is Neville and his team mates are a bunch of yard dogs and bullies that are football impersonators Kuyt is not a thug or a bully and meant no intent.

You had to laugh at that parrot Stubbs about Baros's sending off a few seasons ago when Hibbert had just nearly snapped Garcia's leg in half didnt even get booked for it and the biggest thug ever to grace the halls of Goodison was on the pitch the other end none other than Duncan pigeon Kunthorse Fergusson.

by **Leonmc0708** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 10:06 am

s@int wrote:similar tackle by Henry

Thats not similar mate, I think Dirks was a block, that was a two footer by Henry.

Difference in the tone of Andy Gray is remarkable.

Liverpool FC Forum

Post match everton v liverpool - Are we happy now ?

Who is online