[Football] Football gone soft.

[drew]

I am old fashioned and believe that it is one of the refs prime tasks to look out for such incidents in game. If you can help him by bringing in VAR so much to the good. But do not take action based on a TV program 6 hours later that has no standing in football in relation to rules etc other than showing highlights to promote their program and justify the viewing figures.

Sorry but that's utter garbage. I don't see how you can claim to be old fashioned then in the next breath support VAT!!! Cannot see anything wrong with using video footage to deal with anything the ref has missed, whether it be part of an immediate VAR or if it takes further time to review it. One of the good things that Rugby has is the option to cite players for foul play. If enough get caught then fewer incidents are likely to occur. Let's not forget that those at the top of the game set the example that others below follow. If players know they are going to get caught out and banned and lose their place in the team then they are less likely to commit the offence (there will of course be some that will still think they can get away with it).

One of the problems I have with the new rule about diving is that you only get punished if the ref is fooled. Anyone seen to dive, whether they fool the ref or get booked or nothing happens should still get a ban if video evidence shows no contact.

 

[drew]

We must agree to disagree as I believe it is all part of football..

Nice, you believe thugs should prosper. Would you rather watch someone like Vicente take the ball past other players sublimely or would you rather watch Joey Barton stamp on Kayal?

 

[Birdie Boy]

Deliberate flick out, 3 game ban minimum as he is injured..

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

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'

CA was being a snide c*nt when he went in on the keeper. Hopefully his ban will start when his hamstring thing finishes. Else it's a meaningless ban.

 

[Withdean]

Can a ref call a foul for simulation?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Publius Ovidius]

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'

I may be biased, but Austin had every opportunity NOT to kick the goalie in the face , nowhere near the ball, and could have caused a serious injury...remember peter Czech?

It was a nasty premiditated kick at his face....ban the useless fecker for life.

 

[dazzer6666]

Deliberately flicked his boot at the keeper’s face, got to be a ban. Can see why the ref wouldn’t have seen it in real time but obvious from the replays. Nasty thing to do and completely unnecessary.

 

[clapham_gull]

I do wish people would realise that no intention is required for a sending off offence to occur. This lack of knowledge of the basic rules that govern our game lead to stupid threads like this where we get told the game has gone soft.

The issue with Austin’s situation isn’t that he got sent off (he should have been sent off), it’s the lack of consistency across the whole game with regards to big decisions.

Yes but I used the word intention in a different context. The question being whether the intention was to kick the goalie in the head or kick the ball out of his hands.





Sent from my BTV-DL09 using Tapatalk

 

[BensGrandad]

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?

 

[SIMMO SAYS]

Unfortunately for you that's not what your original first posts said.
Like normal you try and weasel your way out.
Happy Christmas btw

 

[dazzer6666]

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?

Sure the disciplinary panel have a number of ways of having potential offences brought to their attention. Key for the retrospective ones is consistency of decisions. Not sure they are massively influenced by pundits - it’s a panel of 3 refs.

 

[KVLT]

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?

What the blazes are you wittering on about? Who says that Sky and the BBC influence the panel's decisions?

For what it's worth on BT sport score they were assessing it within 60 seconds of the incident, so should the panel be reaching a decision even quicker than that?

You do spout some ruddy piffle.

 

[BensGrandad]

Sure the disciplinary panel have a number of ways of having potential offences brought to their attention. Key for the retrospective ones is consistency of decisions. Not sure they are massively influenced by pundits - it’s a panel of 3 refs.

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.

 

[dazzer6666]

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.

Guess the panel have a number to review/discuss, and by definition they are things the ref missed. VAR may help things too.

 

[BensGrandad]

What the blazes are you wittering on about? Who says that Sky and the BBC influence the panel's decisions?

For what it's worth on BT sport score they were assessing it within 60 seconds of the incident, so should the panel be reaching a decision even quicker than that?

You do spout some ruddy piffle.

That is the problem it should be the match officials doing it not TV. Hopefully after the cup game VAR may come into use so these incidents will be picked up immediately and take the power from TV pundits.

 

[Publius Ovidius]

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.

Happy Christmas Brian

 

[dazzer6666]

That is the problem it should be the match officials doing it not TV.

It’s not TV. It’s an independent panel of refs.

 

[studio150]

That is the problem it should be the match officials doing it not TV.

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

 

[BensGrandad]

It’s not TV. It’s an independent panel of refs.

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

 

[dazzer6666]

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

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