[Football] Football gone soft.

BensGrandad · Dec 24, 2017

studio150 said:
But the match officials did nothing other than not include the incident in their report so you don't want any retrospective reviews of anything. On this basis not doubt you are giving the Palace cup game a miss due to VAR

You are misunderstandingf me my views on retrospective action would be confined to the match officials admitting they made a mistake or missed it and then taking action not a panel afterwards. VAR will help to make that happen so Yes I am going to the Palace game irrespective

BensGrandad · Dec 24, 2017

dazzer6666 said:
Didn’t have to kick him in the face though.

Open to debate but no doubt the panel will come out against him. Perhaps the panel should be ex players who have played the game not refs who 9 times out of 10 are refs because they werent able to play the game very well.

dazzer6666 · Dec 24, 2017

BensGrandad said:
You are misunderstandingf me my views on retrospective action would be confined to the match officials admitting they made a mistake or missed it and then taking action not a panel afterwards. VAR will help to make that happen so Yes I am going to the Palace game irrespective

More likely to get consistent outcomes with a panel (which have to be unanimous I believe) than a single official, and also a risk that the match ref will be influenced by the reaction to any admission that he missed something.

dazzer6666 · Dec 24, 2017

BensGrandad said:
Open to debate but no doubt the panel will come out against him. Perhaps the panel should be ex players who have played the game not refs who 9 times out of 10 are refs because they werent able to play the game very well.

You would prefer ex-players rather than qualified, experienced officials to make judgements on whether the Laws were broken or not ?

brightn'ove · Dec 24, 2017

BensGrandad said:
Influenced by TV as KVLT pointed out on BT score line. Put in another way I would think CH would be annoyed if GM or TH didnt contest such a ball. Whether or not he went to far and could have pulled out is open to interpretation but he had to go for the ball

He really really doesn’t look like he’s going for the ball. Unless he mistook the keeper’s head for a football.

BensGrandad · Dec 24, 2017

dazzer6666 said:
More likely to get consistent outcomes with a panel (which have to be unanimous I believe) than a single official, and also a risk that the match ref will be influenced by the reaction to any admission that he missed something.

Hence my suggestion of the 3 match officials look at it again after the game. It would only mean delaying their departure by a maximum of 90 minutes ,if that much by putting it on fast forward. My recorder goes at 4X, 10X 60X or 300X the actual speed and at 10X you can see things to go back and look at.

BensGrandad · Dec 24, 2017

dazzer6666 said:
You would prefer ex-players rather than qualified, experienced officials to make judgements on whether the Laws were broken or not ?

I would prefer ex players who have been in the situation to refer the matter for further discussion rather than refs who have never been in that situation. Shearer would know better than Dermot Gallagher whether he could have avoided it but I am just using them as examples as Shearer is a TV pundit. Or better still somebody like Bobby Zamora

dazzer6666 · Dec 24, 2017

BensGrandad said:
Hence my suggestion of the 3 match officials look at it again after the game. It would only mean delaying their departure by a maximum of 90 minutes ,if that much by putting it on fast forward. My recorder goes at 4X, 10X 60X or 300X the actual speed and at 10X you can see things to go back and look at.

Why the rush ? It’s done before the next round of games anyway. How do you know how long it would delay their departure ? Finding, reviewing (from multiple angles multiple times), debating and making a decision, preparing a summary, recording and communicating the decision etc on potentially several incidents could take an age.

DanRedman · Dec 24, 2017

BensGrandad said:
Charlie Austin charged with violent conduct after challenging the goalkeeper for a ball against Huddersfield and as I saw it accidentally catching him in the face. Then again he doesnt play for 'a big club'

Very much intentional. Deserves it. If Hemed gets 3 matches then he should bet the same, if not more.

dazzer6666 · Dec 24, 2017

BensGrandad said:
I would prefer ex players who have been in the situation to refer the matter for further discussion rather than refs who have never been in that situation. Shearer would know better than Dermot Gallagher whether he could have avoided it but I am just using them as examples as Shearer is a TV pundit. Or better still somebody like Bobby Zamora

Ex-players who may not know recent law changes, latest advice handed out to refs etc........we should get ex-criminals to hear appeals in court as well on that basis [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

BensGrandad · Dec 24, 2017

dazzer6666 said:
Ex-players who may not know recent law changes, latest advice handed out to refs etc........we should get ex-criminals to hear appeals in court as well on that basis [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

I think that they would have a better idea of the players intentions re violent play and diving.

graz126 · Dec 24, 2017

BensGrandad said:
I have no problem with the ref deciding AT THE TIME or a panel looking at video straight after the game. If that happened he would have been charged by 6pm What I object to is a TV program that is nothing whatsoever to do with football administration having a say on who should or shouldnt be charged, which is what happened in this case as the decision to charge him wasnt made until later in the evening after presumably they had seen TV footage. All matches are taped so what is to stop the ref and linesman or even a retired ref joining them and all watching the video straight after the game so a decision on whether the ref missed something that he would have punished had he seen it, is made within a couple of hours before it is ever shown on TV. The decision would then be taken by and influenced by people in football not the BBC or Sky Pundits. Is this wrong?

I totally agree with BG. The pundits on BBC or Sky do have a major influence on the final decision weather that is a panel of 3 refs or not. This in my opinion is exactly what happened in Tomer's case. And even though I never wanted Lukaku banning for his double kick out at Bong (I think it was) because he is in my fantasy league team. What he did was far worse than Tomer. I do actually think Austin should get a ban although only minimal but its a dangerous road we are taking. If these pundits are calling for these bans to be dished out.

boik · Dec 24, 2017

In the scheme of the speed that the game is played at there was a huge gap between the goalie grabbing and having complete control of the ball, and Austin deciding to move his foot towards the goalies head rather than away from it. He may not have been trying to hurt him, but his decision most definitely risked causing serious damage. When I heard the incident described on the radio I assumed they both went for it at the same time, but having seen it, it was nothing like that.

Acker79 · Dec 24, 2017

BensGrandad said:
So why is a decision not taken until late Saturday evening. I do not think that it was violent conduct but that is just my interpretation and others may think differently, but either way a decision could be made a lot earlier and perhaps by the ref concerned.

No one in the office because it's a saturday evening? Because the FA only take action if the ref didn't see it, so they need to wait for the referee's report before they can take action, which means having to wait for the referee to write and submit his report after the match.

Weren't you saying in another thread how when you were the supreme leader of the sussex FA or whatever, that if you saw an incident the ref missed you could report it to the FA for action? Why are you only focusing on MotD? There are so many options for how this was brought to the attention of the FA, and it always takes a while for the charge to be announced.

The FA aren't sat around watching Match of the Day waiting for Danny Murphy to tell them who to charge. As a former member of the FA surely you know that?

Buzzer · Dec 24, 2017

If you can't see that this is intentional then I despair. He even does a little hop on his left foot so he could keep his right leg raised.

[tweet]944596142343577605[/tweet]

BensGrandad · Dec 24, 2017

Acker79 said:
No one in the office because it's a saturday evening? Because the FA only take action if the ref didn't see it, so they need to wait for the referee's report before they can take action, which means having to wait for the referee to write and submit his report after the match.

Weren't you saying in another thread how when you were the supreme leader of the sussex FA or whatever, that if you saw an incident the ref missed you could report it to the FA for action? Why are you only focusing on MotD? There are so many options for how this was brought to the attention of the FA, and it always takes a while for the charge to be announced.

The FA aren't sat around watching Match of the Day waiting for Danny Murphy to tell them who to charge. As a former member of the FA surely you know that?

How would I know as I was on Surrey FA and the games on TV were not analysed as much as now with slow motion replays. My point is that they have the facility for the ref and his assistants to have a 2nd look and then if needed could include it in his report, which I would have no objection to.

WATFORD zero · Dec 24, 2017

I love you BG

Acker79 · Dec 24, 2017

BensGrandad said:
How would I know as I was on Surrey FA and the games on TV were not analysed as much as now with slow motion replays. My point is that they have the facility for the ref and his assistants to have a 2nd look and then if needed could include it in his report, which I would have no objection to.

I thought your time with the Surrey FA made you the font of all FA knowledge. And as you said before:

BensGrandad said:
When I was on Surrey County FA I could have made a complaint and it would have been investigated but sadly I am not now.

That wouldn't have been dealt with by 5:05 in those days, so I don't know why you are so cynical about it taking a few hours these days. It's not Match of the Day making it happen.

I'm not entirely sure why this particular incident has raised your ire, when for the past few seasons the FA has been taking retrospective action if the ref misses something. It's nothing to do with VAR. With all the past cases of the FA taking action a day or two after the match after a ref has missed something, even since the introduction of VAR trials in various locations, why has someone getting kicked in the face given you such concern for the state of the game?

LamieRobertson · Dec 24, 2017

I knew it wouldn’t be long befor Surrey FA would come up

Leekbrookgull · Dec 24, 2017

Try watching The WPL tackles (?) knee-capping standard practice.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Football] Football gone soft.

New member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

cringe

New member

New member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Languidly Clinical

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Not awoke

Well-known member

Share this page