Xtratime Community banner

1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Premier Player
Joined
·
3,682 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
Its seems that the Refs are ignoring the replays from those Giant Screens those high tech Koreans and Japs had installed. I know TV replays will slow the game down and all that but big screens replays are different from NBA style TV replays

Surely the ref could look at the giant screen for 5 seconds and make a clearer decision. That is less time then the injured player needs to be stretched off or the protests the teams make to the ref when a goal is disllowed. Just one view and the issue is settled.

The Screen is damn big, and its in front of the ref, the french players were pointing to the screen when Dario Silva made a horrible tackle and he just refused to turn.

What business the ref have to look at the injured player or so long? That is the business of the medics.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,967 Posts
If the referee were to make his decision based on those giant TV screens, then it would undermine their initial decision if they were to change it. I feel that if decisions were to be made using TV replays (one decision will lead to many decisions and eventually every decision), the game will go into disrepute as players will appeal for everything and football will cease to be a flowing sport like what we are enjoying now. What happens if Owen went down in the box and the referee blew for a penalty and later reverse his decision? Is he going to go for a drop-ball in the box? It will be chaos. How about Diouf running through, beating the off-side trap, and slots the ball home, with Barthez putting up his hands, indicating off-side, and the referee blew his whistle for off-side. Replays show that it was not. So should the goal count?

To err is human. A referee making mistake is only expected. And we should accept it. Though those TV screens are useful, remember that as long as no FIFA initiative is being sent out to the men in black, they can't consult the TV screens for decisions to be made. And another problem is football, being a global game, are played in countries where they can't afford giant screens and instant replays. So aren't countries playing in these stadias be disadvantaged since referees cannot consult the giant screens?

paw;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
765 Posts
Very well put, paw. Couldn't say it better myself. I'd also hate to destroy the flow of the game. One of the reasons why American sports put me off is because they lack this flow - just as it gets exciting there's a time out. That would really destroy football - time outs!

Some efforts must be made in order to make the offside-rule less discussed though.
 

·
Premier Player
Joined
·
3,682 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 · (Edited)
No Paw, U misunderstood, I am totally against TV replays, that slows the game down and it should be discouraged altogether. What I am irritated at it the number of incidents when the player went down under the sending off challanges (Like the French player when he was brought down by Dario Silva). Then during the break when the injured player was stretched off away and the Frenchs were protesting. The Referee was doing nothing! NOt even when the big screen TV show that the challange was vulgar. The whole Crowd was going "OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHH" and the Referee pretended to ignore it, and a minute will pass before the player (VIera is stretched off the field). The Reeree KNOWS.
I am not saying that we should slow down the game, what I am saying is that.

There are a few more instances. Its not a matter of slowing down the game. Its have nothing to do with slowing down the game. The Referee will hang idle around while the player is injured. The screen is in front of him and for some yellow card offences, he just ignores it altogether or even failed to give some warning to the offending player.

Ok the offside thing may be a little far fetched, he won't have time to hang around watching TV, so I better cut this out.

In some cases the Referee will go up to the linesman and consult him when the goal is offside, that will take 30 seconds at least. And at that time, the big screen showed the goal was onside. (Just an example).

Is not a matter of time wasting, it is the fact that HE KNOWS, the SCREEN is there is OBVIOUS, just that the ref ignores it. It have nothing to do with the TV replays debates so on and so forth.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,967 Posts
MINDSCAPE said:
No Paw, U misunderstood, I am totally against TV replays, that slows the game down and it should be discouraged altogether. What I am irritated at it the number of incidents when the player went down under the sending off challanges (Like the French player when he was brought down by Dario Silva). Then during the break when the injured player was stretched off away and the Frenchs were protesting. The Referee was doing nothing! NOt even when the big screen TV show that the challange was vulgar. The whole Crowd was going "OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHH" and the Referee pretended to ignore it, and a minute will pass before the player (VIera is stretched off the field). The Reeree KNOWS.
I am not saying that we should slow down the game, what I am saying is that.

There are a few more instances. Its not a matter of slowing down the game. Its have nothing to do with slowing down the game. The Referee will hang idle around while the player is injured. The screen is in front of him and for some yellow card offences, he just ignores it altogether or even failed to give some warning to the offending player.
When the challenge by Dario Silva came in and brings down Vieria, the referee blew for a foul and within, say 5 seconds, he makes up his mind to give Dario a yellow card. That is it. He should make his decision without the benefit of a TV replay. If he looks up to that giant screen and sees that that challenge Dario makes looks really bad (from some angles, some innocuous challenge does looks bad) and he should get a red card, is he going to change his mind and flash the red card instead? A firm referee should not. But under the immense pressure of the crowd, it is hard not to. And being humans, we should know how pressure works on the minds. And referees are no less humans than us. Imagine the injured player is a Japanese or Korean and how the crowd would react if he does not send that offender off. So, the best thing for referees to do is not to look at any replays whatsoever, and be firm in all the decisions he makes. If he is sure, stick with it. Until after the game at least.

MINDSCAPE said:
Ok the offside thing may be a little far fetched, he won't have time to hang around watching TV, so I better cut this out.
Actually when a decision is made using technology called "Big-screen TV", then everything will be decided by this new "trial-by-TV method". Then the sole purpose of a referee becomes redundant as time pass. Who is to say that "Forcefully injuring a player and to determine whether the offender gets a yellow or red or no card" deserves to be tried-by-TV and not "offside that could or could not lead to the progression of moves leading to goal"? Eventually the referee will be nothing but a vase on the field.

MINDSCAPE said:
In some cases the Referee will go up to the linesman and consult him when the goal is offside, that will take 30 seconds at least. And at that time, the big screen showed the goal was onside. (Just an example).
When a referee consults his linesman, he consults the person who flagged the player for offside. He does not consult the linesman if the linesman did not flag for offside or any infrigement. So, my example still holds and I will bring it up again: If Diouf is onside but everyone feels that he is offside (including the linesman, who flagged incidentally), then is Diouf going to be allowed to put the ball into the net, with sleepish Barthez putting his hands up in the air and claims that Diouf is offside? The referee will look at TV replays and sees that Diouf was indeed onside, berates his linesman (though they never do that), and allow the goal to stand? At which point should play be stopped? The point when the move is completed (ie goal is scored) or the points where the player was onside but was wrongly flagged offside or when the ball is being played? There are many points of contentions and basically what I am trying to reach out is: there will be more controversies and it is better to let referees and his linesman to be the sole judges during the game.

MINDSCAPE said:
Is not a matter of time wasting, it is the fact that HE KNOWS, the SCREEN is there is OBVIOUS, just that the ref ignores it. It have nothing to do with the TV replays debates so on and so forth.
The screen is there for the benefit of the fans and players and staff to see replays of the goals. It is not meant for the referee. Which is why they ignored it. If it was, it would have been stated by FIFA that "Thou shall check the mega-huge TV screens that costs $50000 to make decisions" to all referees. And I think it has everything to do with TV replays.:)

Perhaps, Mindy, you should try watching American sport for its lack of flow and mindless commercials.:)

paw:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,867 Posts
we have similiar big screens at Ibrox and they are used for showing the game live, but without replays (apart from a repeat showing of any goals at half time)

thats the way i think they should be used, if they are to exist - NO replays, especially of contentous decisions as it undermines the ref's authority, breaks up the flow of the game and perhaps most importantly could lead to crowd trouble in a high pressure game
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top