Re: The unpopular opinion thread

by Onyx Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:00 pm

That was due to them not pressing properly. They just sat back, especially against Italy, who had comfortable possession for a period of the game.

by jibers Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:07 pm

Yohan Modric wrote:That was due to them not pressing properly. They just sat back, especially against Italy, who had comfortable possession for a period of the game.

Dude you are obsessed with possession. Get a grip ffs!

by M99 Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:50 pm

MT is not a bot.

by Art Morte Thu Oct 24, 2013 10:33 pm

M99 wrote:MT is not a bot.

Opinions, not facts, man.

Ps. I can't be the only one who is scared of the people who developed MT ?

by fatman123 Thu Oct 24, 2013 10:46 pm

Other then goal line technology there is no need for further officiating aids in football

yep, i said it

by The Franchise Thu Oct 24, 2013 10:50 pm

How?

Goal line decisions hardly ever happen, compared to offsides and fouls in the box.

by Tomwin Lannister Thu Oct 24, 2013 10:52 pm

How can you justify saying there is 'no need'?

So, it's perfectly fine to have results in games (Some extremely important) effected by human error. because that's just how it is?

No, it's a big problem. And there are easy solutions. That's the attitude that Blatter has, and it's holding football back.

by fatman123 Thu Oct 24, 2013 10:59 pm

Becuase it just kills the game. What you guys think will happen is we have one look at it and we make the right decision everytime, game goes on, everyones happy, which would be great. But what happens is we get minutes upon minutes of slow motion frame by frame replays where every man and his dog knows what the right call is but the video ref can't call it.

The thing is, look at how much stick refs get now, imagine how much stick they're gonna get when they get it wrong with the aid of video technology. Not only that but because refs are so scared to get the call wrong every single decision with 0.5% of doubt gets sent for video review.

Worst of all in the end the video ref makes just as many stupid mistakes as on the onfield ref, ill get a few vids for you guys now

by Tomwin Lannister Thu Oct 24, 2013 11:02 pm

First of all, like I said. This would only apply to major decisions such as penalties and red card decisions.

So it would only really be used under 10 times per game

It's not then slowing the game down, because a 10 second slow mo clip followed by a final decision takes up in fact LESS time than it normally does. With the reff being crowded by 15 players and consulting with his extra officials.

So, if you limit the useage you don't lose any time at all.

As for your second point, well it's not going to solve everything. Of course it isn't. But you shouldn't just refuse to improve anything because it's not a 'perfect' improvement

If it cuts wrong decisions down significantly (Which it would) then it's a positive change.

by fatman123 Thu Oct 24, 2013 11:04 pm

Sorry I've only got rugby league videos, but i dont know any sport that uses video technology.

4min video ref decision:

vdeo ref gets it wrong on the biggest stage:

unnesecary replays, everyone can see whats happened:

Also what Tom said in regard to human error turning results in big games, how many times do players miss sitters, screw up simple chances or make dumb tackles and get sent off which costs their team points? That is human error too, so should all those players be dropped for someone else? or better still replaced by robots?

by The Franchise Thu Oct 24, 2013 11:04 pm

How does it kill the game if it hasnt ever happened?

It takes less time to see a wrong decision than it takes for people to crowd the ref and complain about it. So, that makes no sense to me.

I would say 1 in 10 decisions I need to see a reply more than 1 time and 1 in 50 I need to see more than 2. Its not that complicated, you dont need frame by frame anything.

Who cares what stick the ref gets? Anyone with a brain knows he is only human and can make errors..everyone else just stupid.

Video ref? What you on about? We see almost instantly if the decision is right or wrong.

And more important than all this, its not complicated to solve. Nearly all decisions you can tell with just 1 or max 2 replays. Anything more than that, if your so afraid of stopping the game for long, you can just give the refs original decision because the video evidence proves no better.

by Tomwin Lannister Thu Oct 24, 2013 11:07 pm

You know that's completely different and an irrelevant point

Football should be decided by players, not officials.

That's a whole different type of human error. Why you would even bring up the whole 'footballers make errors too' point is beyond me because you, I and everybody else knows that's completely different from this.

by The Franchise Thu Oct 24, 2013 11:07 pm

Come on man, no rugby, its a different sport with different intricacies. I can show NBA video where it takes a ton of time to make a decision with video evidence also..but thats because its a different game, where an out of bounds play can be game changing.

Football isnt like that, nobody is talking about video to see if its a throw in to one team or the other.

by fatman123 Thu Oct 24, 2013 11:08 pm

Tomwin Lannister wrote:First of all, like I said. This would only apply to major decisions such as penalties and red card decisions.

So it would only really be used under 10 times per game

It's not then slowing the game down, because a 10 second slow mo clip followed by a final decision takes up in fact LESS time than it normally does. With the reff being crowded by 15 players and consulting with his extra officials.

So, if you limit the useage you don't lose any time at all.

As for your second point, well it's not going to solve everything. Of course it isn't. But you shouldn't just refuse to improve anything because it's not a 'perfect' improvement

If it cuts wrong decisions down significantly (Which it would) then it's a positive change.

Think this through in reality. How many times are you watching a football game and someone goes down in the box, ref calls play on and you get one replay a few seconds later of the challenge and you think 'its probably not a pen but i cant tell for sure off one look'. Its those calls that then require to be replayed over and over again in slow mo frame by frame etc to get a call, and sometimes its still the wrong call.

Moreover for a video person to make a call on a pen, offside etc, the ref is going to have to stop play too as the game cant continue while the video review is going on becuase that then opens a whole host of issues

by FalcaoPunch Thu Oct 24, 2013 11:10 pm

Guardiola isn't really that great of a coach.

by Tomwin Lannister Thu Oct 24, 2013 11:11 pm

As franchise said, you don't need frame by frame at all. Not even close

In the rare case that a quick replay or two isn't enough to help with a definitive answer, then the reff can make a judgement call. So, worst case scenario is the reff does what he does now, only much less frequently.

I already said offsides wouldn't be debated via video. And also, like I said. Just because this wouldn't solve everything, it doesn't mean we shouldn't implement it anyway. It would still help significantly.

by FalcaoPunch Thu Oct 24, 2013 11:14 pm

If the commentators can debunk an official call off of one replay in the matter of under a minute... why isn't it a thing yet?!

makes perfect sense to implement some sort if technology.

by fatman123 Thu Oct 24, 2013 11:14 pm

You guys type too fast Laughing

What youre missing is this, give the on field ref a fall back plan and hes going to take it, that way the media picks on the video ref if he makes the wrong call and the on field ref is in the clear.

Admitedly i cant imagine offside being too hard to call, although again if the ref/linseman is unsure and wants video assisntance they're going to have to stop the game to do so.

In regard to the games being different youre right, athough you're still going to get super slo mo replays of defenders diving in to see if his first touch was on the man or the ball and did he make contact or was he too late etc, just like we get super slo mos of groundings and aieral contests. Franchise you say you can make a call most the time on one replay, but put yourselves in these guys shoes, if they get it wrong they're all over the media and they're job is in jeopordy, what happens if you get a call wrong? nothing

And you say players crowd the ref as soon as they see a wrong call (ignoring the horrible cultural flaw that is) players crowd the ref becuase they see a chance to get their team an advantage, just like diving is, not because they want the right call made. Its very rare players ask for decisions to be given against their side

by Tomwin Lannister Thu Oct 24, 2013 11:18 pm

Sorry but I'd be glad to take a video refferee job

If you have 10 second replays to make up a decision, and somehow still make the decision that's blatantly wrong. Then you deserve to fall under scrutiny

Keep in mind it's been said that the odd incident where video replays don't help could go either way. And if fans still complain it went against them after THAT, then so be it. But it's pretty rare that a replay of a foul is completely inconclusive.

by Peccadillo Fri Oct 25, 2013 12:45 am

Tomwin Lannister wrote:Sorry but I'd be glad to take a video refferee job

If you have 10 second replays to make up a decision, and somehow still make the decision that's blatantly wrong. Then you deserve to fall under scrutiny

Keep in mind it's been said that the odd incident where video replays don't help could go either way. And if fans still complain it went against them after THAT, then so be it. But it's pretty rare that a replay of a foul is completely inconclusive.

Not to mention the mere fact video refs exist would offer a major deterrent for players to do the wrong thing.

by Tomwin Lannister Fri Oct 25, 2013 1:06 am

Add in new rules to gradually clamp down on those who simulate, and it's all but gone.

by fatman123 Fri Oct 25, 2013 1:11 am

you guys are so idealistic

by zizzle Fri Oct 25, 2013 1:57 am

Imagine this scenario. The ref whistles an offside in a dangerous position, the defenders and the GK stop immediately but the striker, eager to take his chance, takes a shot and scores. Replays show that the offside call was wrong. Would that goal be counted after the ref stopped the play ?

Same scenario but the striker doesn't shoot. What would be the situation then ? a free kick ? that obviously doesnt make up for a goal scoring apportunity.

I can think of more odd situations where replays would create problems but you get the picture. That's why im only for a limited implementation of technology and i would restrict it to penalty calls and red cards.

edit: now i think of it, players in the box would use the slightest contact as an excuse to go down and try to win a penalty. This would mean that every "soft" foul, every grab, and even every touch could result in a penalty. It's impossible to define which is a foul and what is not in a contract sport like football and and replays will most likely be abused.

by fatman123 Fri Oct 25, 2013 2:21 am

More good points from Zizzle

Its one of those things in football where a foul that will be given on the half way line isnt always given in the box

by Tomwin Lannister Fri Oct 25, 2013 2:29 am

I've said 2, maybe 3 times that ideally offsides would not be reviewed at all due to those complications.

As for players going down trying to get a soft penalty, well that's easy. Their dive will be shown in slow-mo and repeat offenders get booked for diving.

by zizzle Fri Oct 25, 2013 2:41 am

Technology would help reduce diving, no questions there, although massive fines and suspensions when incidents are review after the game would also achieve the same goal.

The problem is with soft contact that wouldn't warrant a penalty in regular situations. Like fatman said soft contact might be count as a foul in the field but not in the box, but with replays the ref has no choice but to call everything. Just imagine what a mess that would be during a corner kick for example.

by Sponsored content