PDA

View Full Version : NHC Is Football The Only Sport...



Sylar
15-02-2011, 07:35 PM
Where players can still benefit from cheating or major human error?

Sports like tennis and cricket now both have the Hawkeye replays, rugby has video replays, golf is governed by rules with such scrutiny placed on the actions of players, the NFL has a challenge system and use of video replays.

Week in, week out, players and clubs in football benefit from "wrong" decisions, which can cost clubs success and ultimately money, with no culpability to those who cheat/make the mistake.

Are there any other professional sports out there where this can happen with such consistency?

lapsedhibee
15-02-2011, 08:09 PM
golf is governed by rules with such scrutiny placed on the actions of players

Good to see Tiger "Eldrick" Woods fined for gobbing on the pitch the other day. Would like to see that introduced in fitba - not only for Hadji-Diouf style gobbing but also Yogi/Mixu/Lemon style slavering.

heretoday
15-02-2011, 08:17 PM
When I see players gobbing all the time I think they can't be very fit.

You could understand it in the old days when Bobby Charlton used to have ten fags at half time or whatever.

Maybe they are doing it to be macho, in which case fair enough.

Sylar
15-02-2011, 08:17 PM
Good to see Tiger "Eldrick" Woods fined for gobbing on the pitch the other day. Would like to see that introduced in fitba - not only for Hadji-Diouf style gobbing but also Yogi/Mixu/Lemon style slavering.

Indeed, it was - they've also hammered Elliot Saltman for incorrectly marking his ball (8 times) and disqualified Dustin Johnson from winning the USPGA last year after he grounded his club in the hazard.

The point is, that players are punished in golf after the fact and the benefits of their actions immediately wiped away.

This isn't the case in football, as results still stand.

HibsMax
15-02-2011, 08:23 PM
I would include the NFL in that list as well. Sure, there is the challenge system but players routinely cheat and get away with it. Holding for example.

Sir David Gray
15-02-2011, 09:12 PM
I don't understand why FIFA refuse to implement a challenge system that is similar to what they have now in tennis.

Give the manager the power to challenge three decisions over the course of 90 minutes. If you're wrong with your first challenge, you go down to two challenges and if your challenge is upheld then you retain your three challenges. If a player sees something that they think has gone against their team, they must inform their manager in a timely manner and suggest to them that a challenge should be made.

Once a team's had three incorrect challenges, it's tough luck if you are denied a stonewall penalty in the dying seconds.

In the case of a cup match, if it goes to extra time then both teams receive one additional challenge on top of what they had at the end of the 90 minutes.

FIFA's insistence that a Champions League match should be played under the same conditions as a Sunday league semi-pro match is just a nonsense.

Apart from anything else, they're not even played under the same conditions as things stand at the moment. I don't believe Sunday league teams have the luxury of having seven substitutes sitting on the bench, nor am I aware of all of them having any linesmen.

There is far too much at stake now in modern day football for FIFA to ignore the need for this type of thing to be brought in. There is literally a difference of millions between winning and losing at elite level football and I'm afraid the compromise of having two extra officials on the goalline does not really go far enough.

JE89
15-02-2011, 09:34 PM
I don't understand why FIFA refuse to implement a challenge system that is similar to what they have now in tennis.

Give the manager the power to challenge three decisions over the course of 90 minutes. If you're wrong with your first challenge, you go down to two challenges and if your challenge is upheld then you retain your three challenges. If a player sees something that they think has gone against their team, they must inform their manager in a timely manner and suggest to them that a challenge should be made.

Once a team's had three incorrect challenges, it's tough luck if you are denied a stonewall penalty in the dying seconds.


.
Not for me. Would take too long and when one nil up with 5 mins to go managers would challenge 3 tackles to slow down play if unused. I like the rule in tennis - a stop-start game where these things work but not for me in football

ScottB
15-02-2011, 10:37 PM
Having video evidence isn't some cast iron guarantee that everything is judged right, there's still controversy in rugby, I've seen some bizarre judgments in F1, both sports with full video evidence as it where.

I honestly believe these dodgy decisions tend to balance out over the season, I have mixed feelings about having video evidence, but if you're going to have it in football, it would need to be for every call.

Kevvy1875
15-02-2011, 11:05 PM
'Although I am proud of England and Chris Ashton's outstanding performance, I am unhappy with the manner in which he celebrates his try scoring. My son plays for Bishop's Stortford U13's and in his match on Sunday morning against local rivals Hertford, one of our players ran in a try in from 40 metres and tried to emulate Chris Ashton. The try was disallowed for not grounding the ball properly. I would like to let Martin Johnson and professional players realise the effect lack of discipline has on younger players. I also feel it is disrespectful to the opposition. I don't want to see our game slip to the moral depths of football. I feel rugby helps teach children important standards for everything in life ahead.
Stephen Thomas, UK'



Just a quote from a BBC question and answer blog. This guy wasn't cheating...just showboating but the principle remains the same.

Some might view it as snobby Rugby folk but I agree these players do have duty as Role Models to have a wee think about their attitude when Kids are watching. That's the standards that exist for Rugby as an example of where good sportmanship is the norm rather than exception.

The only football I see these days is live at ER. I cannot be bothered wasting my time on this earth watching guys on a wee box falling around in a twisted game of call my bluff/Football. At least at ER I don't have to see replays of it with two commentators usually calling it 'simulation'......I call it cheating.

1875godsgift
16-02-2011, 03:27 AM
I don't understand why FIFA refuse to implement a challenge system that is similar to what they have now in tennis.

Give the manager the power to challenge three decisions over the course of 90 minutes. If you're wrong with your first challenge, you go down to two challenges and if your challenge is upheld then you retain your three challenges. If a player sees something that they think has gone against their team, they must inform their manager in a timely manner and suggest to them that a challenge should be made.

Once a team's had three incorrect challenges, it's tough luck if you are denied a stonewall penalty in the dying seconds.

In the case of a cup match, if it goes to extra time then both teams receive one additional challenge on top of what they had at the end of the 90 minutes.

FIFA's insistence that a Champions League match should be played under the same conditions as a Sunday league semi-pro match is just a nonsense.

Apart from anything else, they're not even played under the same conditions as things stand at the moment. I don't believe Sunday league teams have the luxury of having seven substitutes sitting on the bench, nor am I aware of all of them having any linesmen.

There is far too much at stake now in modern day football for FIFA to ignore the need for this type of thing to be brought in. There is literally a difference of millions between winning and losing at elite level football and I'm afraid the compromise of having two extra officials on the goalline does not really go far enough.
To be honest, I think that would be too time consuming and complicated. I think each team should be allowed one call, reliant on video evidence.
The manager or captain would make the call and would have to be certain that they felt it was legitimate, because it would be the only chance they would get!

cwilliamson85
16-02-2011, 09:05 AM
In every sport there are cheats.

The only way to improve football is video technology.

I would maybe only use it in crucial goal scoring opportunities though or you will have players / managers using it for time wasting.

Penalty (yes or no) or Goal (over the line or not)

Also what ever happened to players getting booked for diving? Yes I know Naismith got booked in the last old firm game for diving but when a player goes down and thumps the ground for not getting a penalty surely this must result in them getting booked. It’s the only way to stop it.

hibbytam
16-02-2011, 09:29 AM
In response to the question, rugby- 'bloodgate'. Although this one was caught, it's not an isolated incident of cheating. And add to it the numerous 'fingers in eyes/ god knows where else' to try and get an advantage. That's cheating. And then there's the numerous drugs that are involved in athletics, and cycling. I think it's common in football because the rewards are far greater, and the scrutiny for failure is far more intense than in other sports, mostly because it's so widely followed.

On video technology, I can't see why the big games can't have a video ref watching as the game goes on, and have the ref in contact with him throughout the game, to ask about various bits and bobs. Much the same as assistants do on the sidelines now. Wont interrupt the flow of the game any more than happens already.

And on the theme of rugby, why aren't the mics used by the ref and linesmen picked up by the TV people? I do think this would help explain the decisions made, and give an obvious deterrent to players talking back to the officials.
Off topic slightly......hm.

Sir David Gray
16-02-2011, 11:17 AM
In response to the question, rugby- 'bloodgate'. Although this one was caught, it's not an isolated incident of cheating. And add to it the numerous 'fingers in eyes/ god knows where else' to try and get an advantage. That's cheating. And then there's the numerous drugs that are involved in athletics, and cycling. I think it's common in football because the rewards are far greater, and the scrutiny for failure is far more intense than in other sports, mostly because it's so widely followed.

On video technology, I can't see why the big games can't have a video ref watching as the game goes on, and have the ref in contact with him throughout the game, to ask about various bits and bobs. Much the same as assistants do on the sidelines now. Wont interrupt the flow of the game any more than happens already.

And on the theme of rugby, why aren't the mics used by the ref and linesmen picked up by the TV people? I do think this would help explain the decisions made, and give an obvious deterrent to players talking back to the officials.
Off topic slightly......hm.

I think they trialled this about 20 years ago and it quickly came to a halt after Tony Adams was heard calling the referee, David Elleray, an "effing cheat".

Whilst not many players will accuse the referee of being a cheat, many footballers swear at the officials when they're unhappy at a decision and it wouldn't be suitable to broadcast this in live matches when children will be watching.

In rugby, the players are completely respectful towards the referee and are actually like naughty schoolboys when they are being spoken to and they accept the decision without any problems.

The whole culture of football would have to change before this idea would work.

Future17
16-02-2011, 03:15 PM
I don't want to see our game slip to the moral depths of football. I feel rugby helps teach children important standards for everything in life ahead.


That's hilarious.

Moody Mulder
16-02-2011, 04:07 PM
I'd back anything that dilutes scottish referees sychophantic nature towards the old infirm and their "honest mistakes" which funnily enough always seem to benefit the same 2 teams week in week out !

MrRobot
16-02-2011, 07:28 PM
To be honest, I think that would be too time consuming and complicated. I think each team should be allowed one call, reliant on video evidence.
The manager or captain would make the call and would have to be certain that they felt it was legitimate, because it would be the only chance they would get!

The problem with it is if there was a penalty shout while the player is voicing his challenge the opposite team could break on a counter attack. They would then need to halt play to review, and if they do that, it wasn't a penalty then they have just stopped a possible goalscoring chance for the other team.

Simple, one extra official watching on a monitor at the side, speak to the ref when he see's it on the screen, close up etc and then ref can award with not just his judgement, but from a close angled camera.

Sylar
16-02-2011, 08:04 PM
The problem with it is if there was a penalty shout while the player is voicing his challenge the opposite team could break on a counter attack. They would then need to halt play to review, and if they do that, it wasn't a penalty then they have just stopped a possible goalscoring chance for the other team.

Simple, one extra official watching on a monitor at the side, speak to the ref when he see's it on the screen, close up etc and then ref can award with not just his judgement, but from a close angled camera.

Not necessarily - in the NFL (for example), say a long pass is intercepted, but there's a question of whether or not the ball touched the ground first before it was picked off (thus killing the play). The team who make the interception can "break up the field" and score a TD. Once the ball is dead, then the play is reviewed and if the ball did indeed touch the ground (or if the challenge in the opposite box was indeed a penalty) THEN it would be applied.

I don't think that's the way forward though in all honesty.

MrRobot
16-02-2011, 11:53 PM
Not necessarily - in the NFL (for example), say a long pass is intercepted, but there's a question of whether or not the ball touched the ground first before it was picked off (thus killing the play). The team who make the interception can "break up the field" and score a TD. Once the ball is dead, then the play is reviewed and if the ball did indeed touch the ground (or if the challenge in the opposite box was indeed a penalty) THEN it would be applied.

I don't think that's the way forward though in all honesty.

Yeah I suppose that would work aswell but then that mean there problems with the team scoring, the review happening, their goal being chalked off then starting back. Alot of unnecessary play going on. I don't think there is any real way of them getting a solution that isn't flawed in some way.

Making the refereeing position a job rather than a hobby in Scotland IMO is the way forward. As it stands im sure they all have other jobs too, whereas in England it is their full time job. I could be wrong on this though ?

Pete
17-02-2011, 12:27 AM
In response to the question, rugby- 'bloodgate'. Although this one was caught, it's not an isolated incident of cheating. And add to it the numerous 'fingers in eyes/ god knows where else' to try and get an advantage. That's cheating. And then there's the numerous drugs that are involved in athletics, and cycling. I think it's common in football because the rewards are far greater, and the scrutiny for failure is far more intense than in other sports, mostly because it's so widely followed.

On video technology, I can't see why the big games can't have a video ref watching as the game goes on, and have the ref in contact with him throughout the game, to ask about various bits and bobs. Much the same as assistants do on the sidelines now. Wont interrupt the flow of the game any more than happens already.

And on the theme of rugby, why aren't the mics used by the ref and linesmen picked up by the TV people? I do think this would help explain the decisions made, and give an obvious deterrent to players talking back to the officials.
Off topic slightly......hm.

It's simply common-sense for this to happen. A ref only has his interpretation of the incident to rely on and the help from his officials. For gods sake there are replays of nearly every incident on big screens for the fans to watch yet an extra official isn't allowed to look at images and advise the on-field officials of incidents that they have missed. It will take ten seconds max for a ref to ponder while he listens to the guy and take his advice.
Far from undermining the officials it will help them and will give the whole officiating structure some credibility and respect...something that is lacking.
I think some people at the top of world football are scared of the very idea of "technology". It's as if they think that if they let something like this in then the next stage will be robotic refs. Maybe it says a lot about how prehistoric and outdated they actually are.

Pete
17-02-2011, 12:35 AM
I think they trialled this about 20 years ago and it quickly came to a halt after Tony Adams was heard calling the referee, David Elleray, an "effing cheat".

Whilst not many players will accuse the referee of being a cheat, many footballers swear at the officials when they're unhappy at a decision and it wouldn't be suitable to broadcast this in live matches when children will be watching.

In rugby, the players are completely respectful towards the referee and are actually like naughty schoolboys when they are being spoken to and they accept the decision without any problems.

The whole culture of football would have to change before this idea would work.

I like the idea of refs being miked...and simply can't have this any more as a reason not to have it.

If, from the start of next season every player was to be informed that there are mikes on the pitch then they should be hammered for swearing live on TV. Swearing on the pitch doesn't equal passion and if you can't control that sort of behaviour then something is wrong up top.

So many refs have put up with Wayne Rooneys swearing at them because they somehow accept "it's just the way he is". Maybe it is but I'm sure he would change overnight if he was made to and it wouldn't take anything away from his game.

hibbytam
17-02-2011, 01:31 AM
It's simply common-sense for this to happen. A ref only has his interpretation of the incident to rely on and the help from his officials. For gods sake there are replays of nearly every incident on big screens for the fans to watch yet an extra official isn't allowed to look at images and advise the on-field officials of incidents that they have missed. It will take ten seconds max for a ref to ponder while he listens to the guy and take his advice.
Far from undermining the officials it will help them and will give the whole officiating structure some credibility and respect...something that is lacking.
I think some people at the top of world football are scared of the very idea of "technology". It's as if they think that if they let something like this in then the next stage will be robotic refs. Maybe it says a lot about how prehistoric and outdated they actually are.

FIFA do seem out of date, and out of touch with the pressures of the game. There will always be decisions that will be uncertain on replay, but they seem to argue that the referees being wrong as part of the game, and are reluctant to help them get decisions right. Bizarre really, when even cricket uses technology to their advantage.


I think they trialled this about 20 years ago and it quickly came to a halt after Tony Adams was heard calling the referee, David Elleray, an "effing cheat".

Whilst not many players will accuse the referee of being a cheat, many footballers swear at the officials when they're unhappy at a decision and it wouldn't be suitable to broadcast this in live matches when children will be watching.

In rugby, the players are completely respectful towards the referee and are actually like naughty schoolboys when they are being spoken to and they accept the decision without any problems.

The whole culture of football would have to change before this idea would work.


I like the idea of refs being miked...and simply can't have this any more as a reason not to have it.

If, from the start of next season every player was to be informed that there are mikes on the pitch then they should be hammered for swearing live on TV. Swearing on the pitch doesn't equal passion and if you can't control that sort of behaviour then something is wrong up top.

So many refs have put up with Wayne Rooneys swearing at them because they somehow accept "it's just the way he is". Maybe it is but I'm sure he would change overnight if he was made to and it wouldn't take anything away from his game.

Yeah, I think miking the players up would force them to change their behavior on the pitch. Slap a couple heavy bans on the first few suggestions that the ref is an effing cheat, or whatever, and they'll quickly stop it. It's not like they'd have a case against it, and there are already laws in place for their punishment.
It would also be interesting to hear how the referees address the players, hopefully encouraging them give respect back too. I get the feeling that some refs aren't exactly the best at talking to the players, they seem to act like their naughty schoolchildren or something. Plus we'd know for certain things like why the assistant ref gave the penalty against us at the weekend, when he was yards away from the incident.

1875godsgift
17-02-2011, 03:20 AM
The problem with it is if there was a penalty shout while the player is voicing his challenge the opposite team could break on a counter attack. They would then need to halt play to review, and if they do that, it wasn't a penalty then they have just stopped a possible goalscoring chance for the other team.

That's a very good point, and the only way round it I can see is imposing a very short time limit on making the call, perhaps 30 seconds?
Every manager could maybe be issued with a vuvuzela which they could blow only once in a game to signal a stoppage, or alternatively just use it to randomly batter **** out of anybody who tried a wee pussy head butt?:confused:



[QUOTE=The Story So Far...;2737211]Not necessarily - in the NFL (for example), say a long pass is intercepted, but there's a question of whether or not the ball touched the ground first before it was picked off (thus killing the play). The team who make the interception can "break up the field" and score a TD. Once the ball is dead, then the play is reviewed and if the ball did indeed touch the ground (or if the challenge in the opposite box was indeed a penalty) THEN it would be applied.

I don't think that's the way forward though in all honesty.

Sorry, I really didn't understand any of that.