Breaking news on SSN - Willie Collum

[maineflyer 0]

No one liked him but this would never have happened when Jim Farry ran the SFA? He would have told Celtic to fuck off long ago but the acquiescence of the current SFA arse wipes is as much at the root of the current situation as celtic's absence of sportsmanship.

 

I said in another post recently that the people now threatening referees would be detonating bombs in the streets of Scotland in another ten years time. Pander to disaffected morons and political pygmies and your reward will be something you definitely do not want. The papes and their pseudo-irish nonsense have been courted and excused in equal measure until they now feel entirely vindicated whatever extremes they go to. You would be making a grave underestimation to see this as only a football matter, these people will bring us all down before they're done ... unless someone reminds them soon that they are still only guests in this country, increasingly unwanted guests.

[pete 2,499]

One of the problems for referees is that we're using modern technology to only show where they got it wrong. It's really not fair for them as they cannot use it positively and so puts enormous pressure on them to actually be better than technology - like asking a line judge to be better than hawkeye.

 

If we can use technology retrospectively then what is stopping us using it in the game - surely a line has already been crossed?

 

If we had rugby type replays then the pressure would be taken off the referee for difficult real time decisions where it is impossible to see all the angles.

 

One of the criticisms is that it would stop the flow of the game but there are plenty of ways round this. For example couldn't there be an automatic "play-on" while the camera ref has say 20 seconds to stop the game for a free kick/penalty/off-side decision?

 

Some incidents - like Broadfoot's are going to stop the game anyway either for a free kick or a dive and so why not get such an important decision as right as we can.

 

If the referee removes himself from such an impossible decision then the pressure is moved onto the camera ref who at least sees what the rest of us see on the footage and then it's a matter of his interpretation with no right of appeal.

 

The controversy is then all about whether you agree with his decision - but at least it's a well considered one using the same information as any critics.

 

I think it works really well in rugby where the referees are not being treated anywhere near as badly.

 

Other sensible options to take from rugby is to only allow the captain to talk to the referee, for the referee to talk to the players during play, warning them that they are about to transgress, and to introduce a sinbin to allow proportionate and granulated punishment - for instance, for the likes of Stoke's challenge, McCulloch's "barge", the raising of hands and MacGregor's knee in the head. If you got 5 or 10 minutes for the latter it would discourage stuff which escalates the tensions and allow the guilty party to cool down.

 

I also think the type of pressure on referees being conducted by Celtic should result in points being deducted - it just adds to the hysteria which results in unacceptable death threats, abuse and possible violence towards guys who are just trying to do a difficult job which is vital to the game.

 

Discipline and control have been lost in football with respect for referees at an all time low. Their job is now impossible and something has to be done before we have no decent referees left. The SFA and also FIFA have to act.

 

Don't believe in a play-on. What would happen if the other team scored in that 20 seconds all hell would break loose as the game had not stopped. Just as in Tennis or Rugby(I think) you are allowed to call 3 decisions but for football i would make that 2. The Ref can use it when he feels he needs it. You should only be able to challenge a penalty,sending off or a goal or disallowed goal(Offside, handball,over the line) not for every decision the ref makes. Only decisions that really count. Offside on the 30 yard mark where you may have scored, tough shit. Yellow card tough shit. etc.

[craig 5,199]

Don't believe in a play-on. What would happen if the other team scored in that 20 seconds all hell would break loose as the game had not stopped. Just as in Tennis or Rugby(I think) you are allowed to call 3 decisions but for football i would make that 2. The Ref can use it when he feels he needs it. You should only be able to challenge a penalty,sending off or a goal or disallowed goal(Offside, handball,over the line) not for every decision the ref makes. Only decisions that really count. Offside on the 30 yard mark where you may have scored, tough shit. Yellow card tough shit. etc.

 

Why should that make a difference though ? Every team and every fan would KNOW the rules beforehand - so if the game played on and the video reviewer saw that the first team scored then they should be awarded it. Play resumes with a KO to the team that lost the goal.

 

So long as everyone knows the rules then there should be no major fallout - other than if you disagree with the video reviewer (for instance, I reckon you could sit 10 people down and go over that Broadfoot incident and 2 or 3 would still have given it even after reviewing - I know I would !).

 

I agree Re the type of decisions though.

[pete 2,499]

Why should that make a difference though ? Every team and every fan would KNOW the rules beforehand - so if the game played on and the video reviewer saw that the first team scored then they should be awarded it. Play resumes with a KO to the team that lost the goal.

 

So long as everyone knows the rules then there should be no major fallout - other than if you disagree with the video reviewer (for instance, I reckon you could sit 10 people down and go over that Broadfoot incident and 2 or 3 would still have given it even after reviewing - I know I would !).

 

I agree Re the type of decisions though.

 

Sorry Craig I think that would be a disaster. The refs are getting Death threats now just imagine what would happen if he gave a goal and then disallowed it for a penalty at the other end. Plus while trying to follow play he has to confer with a video referee. No, that is far too complicated. stop the game and make a decision within a minute.

[craig 5,199]

Sorry Craig I think that would be a disaster. The refs are getting Death threats now just imagine what would happen if he gave a goal and then disallowed it for a penalty at the other end. Plus while trying to follow play he has to confer with a video referee. No, that is far too complicated. stop the game and make a decision within a minute.

 

It isnt complicated at all pete, so long as everyone knows the rules. You do make a valid point though is that it could throw things into chaos.

 

I would advocate what they do in the NFL whereby a coach can challenge a decision - he gets two challenges per game but if he is successful with a challenge he retains the right to two more. When the coach challenges the decision the referee goes to a "video booth" and he gets to look at whatever angles the cameras have available - but he only gets 90 seconds to view the footage (could reduce it to 60 seconds if you wanted, but often it only takes them 30 seconds). After that he has to make a decision - but, interestingly enough, he can only CHANGE his initial decision if there is CLEAR visual evidence that the original decision was a mistake.

 

It wouldn't hold the game up for any great length of time (no more than a substitution) and it would reduce the number of mistakes a ref makes and it would hopefully also reduce the pressure put upon them.

[pete 2,499]

It isnt complicated at all pete, so long as everyone knows the rules. You do make a valid point though is that it could throw things into chaos.

 

I would advocate what they do in the NFL whereby a coach can challenge a decision - he gets two challenges per game but if he is successful with a challenge he retains the right to two more. When the coach challenges the decision the referee goes to a "video booth" and he gets to look at whatever angles the cameras have available - but he only gets 90 seconds to view the footage (could reduce it to 60 seconds if you wanted, but often it only takes them 30 seconds). After that he has to make a decision - but, interestingly enough, he can only CHANGE his initial decision if there is CLEAR visual evidence that the original decision was a mistake.

 

It wouldn't hold the game up for any great length of time (no more than a substitution) and it would reduce the number of mistakes a ref makes and it would hopefully also reduce the pressure put upon them.

 

Craig you are talking about a sport(unfortunately and despicably) where in Rio de Janeiro they shoot each other, in Glasgow the odd slashing is known to happen and a boy was murdered a few years back for wearing a rangers top. Do you honestly believe that these people think oh well I know the rules then okay. I know these incidents are extreme but I honestly don't believe football fans are near ready to say we scored sir but the telly shows you should have had a penalty. Tally Ho.Stopping the game costs little time as seen in Rugby and there was also a football game that the fans reacted on a replay before the kick-off had taken place. It has to be stop the game for me the video ref will mostly have reviewed the images before the players are on their feet again.

[craig 5,199]

Craig you are talking about a sport(unfortunately and despicably) where in Rio de Janeiro they shoot each other, in Glasgow the odd slashing is known to happen and a boy was murdered a few years back for wearing a rangers top. Do you honestly believe that these people think oh well I know the rules then okay. I know these incidents are extreme but I honestly don't believe football fans are near ready to say we scored sir but the telly shows you should have had a penalty. Tally Ho.Stopping the game costs little time as seen in Rugby and there was also a football game that the fans reacted on a replay before the kick-off had taken place. It has to be stop the game for me the video ref will mostly have reviewed the images before the players are on their feet again.

 

Did you not read my response in full then pete ?

[pete 2,499]

Did you not read my response in full then pete ?

 

I think I did Craig, maybe I am not catching your drift. while your coach is walking about trying to get sight of a tv screen my supporters are throwing chairs at the referee for disallowing an excellent goal that is made in official play.

 

Maybe that is why Platini doesn't want it there are so many grey areas.

[Gazza_8 233]

Some incidents - like Broadfoot's are going to stop the game anyway either for a free kick or a dive and so why not get such an important decision as right as we can.

 

Not necessarily. Games sometime continue until the next break of play when the ref will either a) ignore it was a dive or b) book the player.

[craig 5,199]

I think I did Craig, maybe I am not catching your drift. while your coach is walking about trying to get sight of a tv screen my supporters are throwing chairs at the referee for disallowing an excellent goal that is made in official play.

 

Maybe that is why Platini doesn't want it there are so many grey areas.

 

Miscommunication Pete..... the coach, in the NFL, doesnt have the luxury of TV replays, they have to make a decision on the spot whether or not to challenge the decision (kind of like the ref has to make the decision on the spot himself - puts the coach, to an extent, in the refs position).

 

The coach has, maybe, 5 seconds to make a decision on whether to challenge.

 

I take it you havent watched the NFL