Blatter's time penalty proposal

[Easy 10]

Pretty much what happens in cricket now. However, the players prefer to have the final decision as the correct one and the Decision Review System places umpires under scrutiny - I'm sure someone is keeping a chart of how many decisions get overturned for each umpire - they can't be right all the time.

So why not the same for football refs and linos?

Because it leads to over-dependence by officials. They'll check decisions "just to be safe", meaning the celebration of taking a wicket is often on hold while the decision is referred.

I've seen umpires referring to a replay for run-out decisions where the batsman is a MILE out of the crease. A standard decision could and should quite easily have been made, but because they have the safety net of a replay, they'll postpone the decision and instead of celebrating, everyone has to wait around for someone upstairs to decide.

That would be proper RUBBISH in football, waiting to see if the goal should stand or not.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Because it leads to over-dependence by officials. They'll check decisions "just to be safe", meaning the celebration of taking a wicket is often on hold while the decision is referred.

I've seen umpires referring to a replay for run-out decisions where the batsman is a MILE out of the crease. A standard decision could and should quite easily have been made, but because they have the safety net of a replay, they'll postpone the decision and instead of celebrating, everyone has to wait around for someone upstairs to decide.

.

EXACTLY.

And that's ANNOYING in the worlds SLOWEST sport EVER.

Imagine it in our lovely FREE-FLOWING FOOTER

 

[Creaky]

Again a sport which is a play-by-play game with natural breaks, like tennis.

Its a simple decision of "is it a wicket?"

Offisdes however do not always lead to goals, however they can lead to the team progressing and eventually scoring.

If there was areview system in place for ofisides there would be VERY little incentive for a linesman to give any 50/50 decision. I'm not talking about goal scoring decisions. I mean silly little offsides. He may as well just let things go and think "I'd much rather have this reviewed than give this offside and find out it wasnt all along".

In cricket the batsman can be given NOT OUT by the umpires original decision and then a review takes place if the bowling team feels its incorrect.

In football you can't give offside and then review it. You can only allow play to go on and THEN give offside. Again, no incentive for a linesman to ever make a decision of offside. How long do you allow play to go on if a goal wasnt scored from the contentious offisde? The player may have been through, had a shot saved, passed it back, more play happens.......so when do I question the offside decision that wasn't given? or do I just "forget" about it and let play go on...never having punished a potential offside?

I'm not saying I don't want it in football because i'm a purist etc. I'm saying it because, when you think of all the little fiddly aspects of the game it just wouldn't work.

There would only need to be a review if a goal was scored and the on-field referee had any doubts as to whether it should be allowed or not - essentially as they do in Rugby League when a try is scored and the referee has any doubts about the validity of the try. How far back in play the review would cover would be up to the reviewing referee.

I see no reason why this should cause those running the line or the referee to query every goal - not every try is reviewed in rugby - abdicating responsibility by an official on the pitch can actually be seen as a 'failure' by them.

The review footage could be shown on the screen, again in the same way it is done in RL - this tends to dispel any partisan doubts as to the outcome of the decision and fans can clearly see why the decision was made.

All the above could be used to review a penalty if the referee has any doubt whether or not a player has dived - the review would in many cases take less time than that currently taken up by players arguing with the referee.

 

[Creaky]

Because it leads to over-dependence by officials. They'll check decisions "just to be safe", meaning the celebration of taking a wicket is often on hold while the decision is referred.

I've seen umpires referring to a replay for run-out decisions where the batsman is a MILE out of the crease. A standard decision could and should quite easily have been made, but because they have the safety net of a replay, they'll postpone the decision and instead of celebrating, everyone has to wait around for someone upstairs to decide.

That would be proper RUBBISH in football, waiting to see if the goal should stand or not.

Doesn't happen in Rugby League - quite the reverse - having to send a decision 'upstairs' is an admission that the official wasn't in the correct position to be able to make the decision themselves.

Reviews, if displayed on the big screen as the review is taking place, also adds greatly to the atmosphere. Foul play or 'cheating', such as diving, if highlighted from different angles on the big screen tends to animate the fans!

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

There would only need to be a review if a goal was scored and the on-field referee had any doubts as to whether it should be allowed or not - .

But there could have been an offside which was not given in the build up, say 10 passes before the goal.

What happens then? the opposition argue it and the ref says "there was an offside 40 seconds ago so the goal is ruled out"?

 

[drew]

There are so many other ways the game could be improved before meddling around the edges of the game like this. There are laws already in place to prevent fake injury. Firstly, time is added on at the end of the game. Secondly, an offender can be booked. I'd much rather some of these ideas were considered:

1) Offside - ALWAYS allow benefit of the doubt to the striker. At professional level, allow play to continue and pull it back if offside on a video replay
2) Only the captain to be allowed to talk to the ref. If not, yellow card or:
3) Sin bin
4) Allow ref to be able to award a penalty even if a foul is committed outside the box, where a foul is deemed to prevent a goalscoring opportunity.

1) How often have we seen this happen?
[yt]nsGeR6Xbf2I[/yt]

Sterling (I think) is a yard ON SIDE there. How many times in a game do you really think a decision like this would need to go upstairs? If it's that much of an issue, just add an appeal system.

4)
[yt]tGq7VcaHoqo[/yt]

Had Battiston just nudged this round Schumacher (the keeper) before he was flattened just outside the box, he'd have been able to tap it into an unguarded net. Surely a penalty would have been the correct decision if allowed?

And at the moment, an onrushing keeper can handle outside the box and step back in, rather than uses his head - at a cost of a card and a free kick rather than a penalty. I think that's wrong.

Currently, forwards are supposed to be given the benefit of the doubt. However, when you say professional level, are you referring just to the Premier League and maybe some of the championship because for video replays you need cameras at various points in the ground and I doubt whether leagues 1 and 2 would appreciate the added expense. Personally, I am totally against video replays influencing a result of a match. Happy for GLT but not video replays. There will still be some, as in cricket, where it is not clear cut. Also, how long before you start reviewing every single foul. You could also have a situation where a goal is scored in the last minute of stoppage time but because of a referral you have to wait several minutes before you know whether you have won or not!

As for deliberate handball by the keeper outside the box, isn't that an automatic red?

However, I do agree that only the captain should be allowed to speak to the ref and would agree with a sin bin.

Wasnt this already tried and abandoned as players would deliberately not move back to make a free kick 25 yards out move closer to make it more difficult to score?

It was abandoned because refs were totally inept at applying the rule. You could also allow the attacking team the option of moving the ball forward so, in the scenario you suggest, the motive of the defending team is cancelled out.

Why not play 80 minutes (such as in rugby) and stop the clock when the ball is not in play? It would stop all the nonsense of time wasting for throw ins and playing injured at the end of games..

Why not pay 90 minutes with an independent time keeper!


What I would like to see is the retrospective punishment that you have in rugby, particularly for diving and shirt pulling. However, I would suggest a ban of at least 5 games if not more.

 

[Stumpy Tim]

I would do away with red cards for a goal scoring opportunity if it results in a pen and a goal, ruins the game completely.

I agree with this, and would go further. I would say ANY foul that prevents a goal-scoring opportunity should be punished with a penalty and a yellow card. An early automatic red ruins the game, and of course currently denying a goal-scoring opportunity in a close game in the last ten minutes is a risk worth taking.

With diving, Blatter is right to bring this up but I think video evidence after the game is the way forward.

 

[Acker79]

There would only need to be a review if a goal was scored and the on-field referee had any doubts as to whether it should be allowed or not - essentially as they do in Rugby League when a try is scored and the referee has any doubts about the validity of the try. How far back in play the review would cover would be up to the reviewing referee.

I see no reason why this should cause those running the line or the referee to query every goal - not every try is reviewed in rugby - abdicating responsibility by an official on the pitch can actually be seen as a 'failure' by them.

The review footage could be shown on the screen, again in the same way it is done in RL - this tends to dispel any partisan doubts as to the outcome of the decision and fans can clearly see why the decision was made.

All the above could be used to review a penalty if the referee has any doubt whether or not a player has dived - the review would in many cases take less time than that currently taken up by players arguing with the referee.

How much time has to elapse between the suspect offside decision and the goal? What if possible offside leads to a shot, the shot is tipped over the bar, corner, crossed in, cleared by a defender, retrieved, shot saved, corner, goal. Do we then go back and look at the offside that may have occurred a few minutes earlier?

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

How much time has to elapse between the suspect offside decision and the goal? What if possible offside leads to a shot, the shot is tipped over the bar, corner, crossed in, cleared by a defender, retrieved, shot saved, corner, goal. Do we then go back and look at the offside that may have occurred a few minutes earlier?

Worse would be if the ball never went out of play between the offside and the goal.

Ulloa receives the ball offside but not given, keeper saves, ball is played back, makes it all the way back to Kusczak who launches it long, it's knocked down and goal.

It's chaos theory. The sequence of events would never have taken place if the offside had been correctly given originally. You could theoretically argue that a goal should be disallowed over a minute after the original offside took place. It would just be ridiculous.

 

[Freddie Goodwin.]

Refs have to 'retire' at an early age because of the physical demands yet their knowledge & experience then goes to waste. Why can't these be used as the 'ref in the stand' with access to screens? they can then be miked up to the onfield ref to act as 'assitance' with the onfield ref still having the last word. this might stop some of decisions which, at full speed seem fine but on review are flawed, like B'muffs pen.

 

[The Large One]

Actually, as a separate issue, I'd make the penalty area smaller, probably narrower.

It serves two purposes - an area where the goalie can handle, and an area when a foul by the defending side is punished by a penalty.

One - the keeper doesn't need such an enormous area in which to be able to handle the ball.
Two - there are occasions where a foul is on the corner of the area, yet the resultant punishment is deliberately carried out up to 20 yards away.

 

[marshy68]

i am not a fan of TV technology, but i am warming to an appeal system 1 per team per game on any decision - especially dodgy penalties!!!

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Refs have to 'retire' at an early age because of the physical demands yet their knowledge & experience then goes to waste. Why can't these be used as the 'ref in the stand' with access to screens? they can then be miked up to the onfield ref to act as 'assitance' with the onfield ref still having the last word. this might stop some of decisions which, at full speed seem fine but on review are flawed, like B'muffs pen.

If you've watched ANY BT sport this season where Mark Halsey has been asked his opinions on certain decisions, after being shown NUMEROUS replays, you wouldn't be saying that

In one particular highlight Steve McManaman was going MENTAL at him. "How can you say he got it right!!!!?"

 

[Freddie Goodwin.]

If you've watched ANY BT sport this season where Mark Halsey has been asked his opinions on certain decisions, after being shown NUMEROUS replays, you wouldn't be saying that

In one particular highlight Steve McManaman was going MENTAL at him. "How can you say he got it right!!!!?"

I've not but I'll try & give it a go. From local refs I know, they do seem very protective of each other and I think it's fine to defend a ref because he can only give things as he sees it so it shouldn't be a case of telling the ref he's wrong but helping him to a more informed decision.

I wonder how many refs cringe when they see decisions, honestly made, proved wrong later on TV? far better, methinks, to have assistance from a trusted colleague with access to pictures at the time.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

I agree with this, and would go further. I would say ANY foul that prevents a goal-scoring opportunity should be punished with a penalty and a yellow card. An early automatic red ruins the game, and of course currently denying a goal-scoring opportunity in a close game in the last ten minutes is a risk worth taking.

With diving, Blatter is right to bring this up but I think video evidence after the game is the way forward.

As someone else pointed out, unless its violent conduct or deliberate hand ball

didnt scholes bring down robert Lee in the last minute of a game they were winning 1-0, think they won the league by a couple of points

 

[Creaky]

Worse would be if the ball never went out of play between the offside and the goal.

Ulloa receives the ball offside but not given, keeper saves, ball is played back, makes it all the way back to Kusczak who launches it long, it's knocked down and goal.

It's chaos theory. The sequence of events would never have taken place if the offside had been correctly given originally. You could theoretically argue that a goal should be disallowed over a minute after the original offside took place. It would just be ridiculous.

Simple answer to that is that the referee wouldn't refer it upstairs for a decision. Officials may make mistakes on occasion but they aren't stupid!

I also like the system used in Rugby League where if an official hasn't seen an incident of foul play clearly enough to make an on the pitch decision he has the power to put the incident 'on report' which ensures that a retrospective review of the incident is carried out.

Again in Rugby League the 'video referee' is in radio contact with the onfield officials and can give instant advice regarding occurrences such as offside, foul play etc. to assist them in making correct calls.

In football we seem to have gone in the opposite direction to most other sports - for instance video replays on the big screen of contentious incidents, such as offside, penalty calls, foul play are not shown, in other words those incidents fans are most interested in having a second look at are witheld.. Apparently we are not as adult as fans of other sports and wouldn't behave responsibly if such replays were shown!

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Simple answer to that is that the referee wouldn't refer it upstairs for a decision. Officials may make mistakes on occasion but they aren't stupid!

So the goal would be legit....despite an offside in the build up to it?

The opposition manager would go MAD.

 

[Stumpy Tim]

As someone else pointed out, unless its violent conduct or deliberate hand ball

didnt scholes bring down robert Lee in the last minute of a game they were winning 1-0, think they won the league by a couple of points

I remember Ole Gunner did it for Man Utd in a game they were drawing, but Arsenal won the title anyway. It just summed up how desperate Utd were. But yes, that's the exact case where a penalty would be the better option than a red card.

One option is to ask the captain of the team fouled whether they would rather have a penalty or the man off. The player who did the foul would be suspended the same amount of games either way.

 

[symyjym]

There are so many other ways the game could be improved before meddling around the edges of the game like this. There are laws already in place to prevent fake injury. Firstly, time is added on at the end of the game. Secondly, an offender can be booked. I'd much rather some of these ideas were considered:

1) Offside - ALWAYS allow benefit of the doubt to the striker. At professional level, allow play to continue and pull it back if offside on a video replay
2) Only the captain to be allowed to talk to the ref. If not, yellow card or:
3) Sin bin
4) Allow ref to be able to award a penalty even if a foul is committed outside the box, where a foul is deemed to prevent a goalscoring opportunity.

Totally agree that if an offside is marginal or the linesman is unsure the play should continue, and if a goal is scored within a set time limit of say 5 seconds an official in the video box should view the replay and radio the decision down to the ref.

There would be no need to play the video on the big screen like rugby, and the decision would be made before the ball gets picked out of the net.

There have been so many games ruined by bad offside decisions this season.

 

[Creaky]

So the goal would be legit....despite an offside in the build up to it?

The opposition manager would go MAD.

Unjustifiably so - no different from the current situation of course