Guest Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 14 minutes ago, Romesh said: no it won't. it hasn't killed rugby. it hasn't killed tennis. it hasn't killed cricket. 3 big sports that it helps out and 3 big sports that have profited from having video technology within the game. Maybe it won't kill the game but it will damage it. Since the beginning of time we've had to deal with bad referee's. It could profit all it can in other sports all it wants but I am pretty certain that it will just hurt the game. It was used at the club world cup, and the main example was the Atletico Nacional vs Kashima Antlers game. They used video technology to give Kashima a penalty for a player who was clearly offside but yet they did not see that and only saw the foul so it won't perfect referee errors, if improve it at all. Would also be a massive waste of time in a sport where the clock doesn't stop and the officials decide the added time at the end. From my point of view, video technology isn't necessary and would just make the sport worse. I don't mind goal line technology as that actually guarantees to correct a referee error, video technology won't guarantee that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machado Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 Lallana is the best English player these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smiley Culture Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 1 hour ago, LaSambadeStGermain said: Maybe it won't kill the game but it will damage it. Since the beginning of time we've had to deal with bad referee's. It could profit all it can in other sports all it wants but I am pretty certain that it will just hurt the game. It was used at the club world cup, and the main example was the Atletico Nacional vs Kashima Antlers game. They used video technology to give Kashima a penalty for a player who was clearly offside but yet they did not see that and only saw the foul so it won't perfect referee errors, if improve it at all. Would also be a massive waste of time in a sport where the clock doesn't stop and the officials decide the added time at the end. From my point of view, video technology isn't necessary and would just make the sport worse. I don't mind goal line technology as that actually guarantees to correct a referee error, video technology won't guarantee that. I don't know about other sports but in Rugby League, the video referees cannot rule on forward passes so was the video ref in that match you mention allowed to rule on offsides? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subscriber Dan+ Posted March 23, 2017 Subscriber Share Posted March 23, 2017 There's absolutely no way you can compare the size of Universitario and Leicester really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subscriber Dan+ Posted March 23, 2017 Subscriber Share Posted March 23, 2017 1 hour ago, Machado said: Lallana is the best English player these days. That isn't that unpopular really. On that subject I do think Kane and Alli, relative to their club form, have both been disappointments for England. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asura Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 2 hours ago, Romesh said: no it won't. it hasn't killed rugby. it hasn't killed tennis. it hasn't killed cricket. 3 big sports that it helps out and 3 big sports that have profited from having video technology within the game. I dont know about Rugby but you cant compare cricket and tennis to football mate. Cricket and tennis have breaks between the plays but football doesnt. You cant review a play without breaking it for a minute which disrupts the flow of football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 13 minutes ago, Smiley Culture said: I don't know about other sports but in Rugby League, the video referees cannot rule on forward passes so was the video ref in that match you mention allowed to rule on offsides? I actually don't know but that was an example. Basically my point with it was that I believe referees could still make errors in their decisions with video technology. I don't watch rugby league so I couldn't tell you about the forward passes or the rules of video technology. What I can tell you is that the offside rule shouldn't be bent to pander to that. Of he's off side when he receives the ball, it shouldn't be a penalty. Besides what if there are other decisions that aren't reviewed? There could be other incidents that are missed out. Referees can't fall down to player pressure either. If a referee doesn't see something and the players do, do you think it's really fair to the other team to have him check what happened and then decide? This is exactly why the TV's at games don't show goal replays. it could just be me liking the controversy in the games but from a marketing point of view the controversy is a good thing to have in football. I don't know about other sports but football is full of cheaters and simply too big to have it implemented. All I'm saying is that I don't think it will work and it definitely won't eradicate the "human error" issue that Batard was going on about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator Stan Posted March 23, 2017 Administrator Share Posted March 23, 2017 Just now, Asura said: I dont know about Rugby but you cant compare cricket and tennis to football mate. Cricket and tennis have breaks between the plays but football doesnt. You cant review a play without breaking it for a minute which disrupts the flow of football. True, and good point. But subs take about 30 seconds. I don't think a minute is that bad an amount to get to the correct decision so your team doesn't feel cheated out of a victory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 11 minutes ago, Dan said: There's absolutely no way you can compare the size of Universitario and Leicester really. I know you're having a pop at me but we've had this discussion once before haha. I don't remember what your opinion on it was but I respected it. And I still do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator Stan Posted March 23, 2017 Administrator Share Posted March 23, 2017 Just now, LaSambadeStGermain said: Besides what if there are other decisions that aren't reviewed? There could be other incidents that are missed out. Referees can't fall down to player pressure either. If a referee doesn't see something and the players do, do you think it's really fair to the other team to have him check what happened and then decide? This is exactly why the TV's at games don't show goal replays. it could just be me liking the controversy in the games but from a marketing point of view the controversy is a good thing to have in football. I don't know about other sports but football is full of cheaters and simply too big to have it implemented. All I'm saying is that I don't think it will work and it definitely won't eradicate the "human error" issue that Batard was going on about. Regarding the first paragraph, I think teams should be allowed a certain number of appeal(s) in a game. Maybe 1 per half (or even total) so teams don't take the piss and time-waste. And I love controversy, too. But people will always talk about football so losing some of that aspect about what to talk about is an argument I don't buy. I'd rather the game is eradicated or decreased of cheaters (at least efforts made to do so) as opposed to not trying at all just because the problem is too big. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asura Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 Just now, Romesh said: True, and good point. But subs take about 30 seconds. I don't think a minute is that bad an amount to get to the correct decision so your team doesn't feel cheated out of a victory 30 seconds only if your team is winning but it will be much faster when losing On a serious note, I dont know how that works but to me more than the video technology they should adapt the retrospective decisions like ruling out offside goals after the match and awarding bans/warning points for every dive a player makes, etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator Stan Posted March 23, 2017 Administrator Share Posted March 23, 2017 Just now, Asura said: 30 seconds only if your team is winning but it will be much faster when losing On a serious note, I dont know how that works but to me more than the video technology they should adapt the retrospective decisions like ruling out offside goals after the match and awarding bans/warning points for every dive a player makes, etc The retrospective decisions rule (or lack of) infuriates me sometimes. Especially the 'referee saw it so we can't take action' rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asura Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 Just now, Romesh said: The retrospective decisions rule (or lack of) infuriates me sometimes. Especially the 'referee saw it so we can't take action' rule. True Kaluwitharana ... no reason to not chalk out offside goals after the match Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 I also would like cheaters to be lowered in football but unfortunately the sport is simply too big, and video technology is not the solution for me. Just based of what I witnessed at the Club World Cup it's not going to work. Who is to say that they just won't find other ways to cheat? It's all in the personality of the player. The game doesn't have to be rigid for the sake of trying to get rid of a problem that's been around since the beginning of time. You brought up one issue about the number of appeals so it's doesn't make it easier to time waste, but I still don't think it's right for the referee to fall to player pressure. It's not allowed in the sport as it is and for a good reason. Cheaters have always been around and always will. It's fine to put an effort to try and lower the amount, but for me video technology isn't the right way to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subscriber Dan+ Posted March 23, 2017 Subscriber Share Posted March 23, 2017 23 minutes ago, LaSambadeStGermain said: I know you're having a pop at me but we've had this discussion once before haha. I don't remember what your opinion on it was but I respected it. And I still do I'm not having a pop at all. I think it's hard enough to compare clubs in different countries within a continent, let alone clubs from different ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 13 minutes ago, Dan said: I'm not having a pop at all. I think it's hard enough to compare clubs in different countries within a continent, let alone clubs from different ones. Ah, I misunderstood you - possibly due to the domestic leagues being a factor. Although that still doesn't take away that we've had historic players as well as the 15 million fans. It's a different culture though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smiley Culture Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 40 minutes ago, LaSambadeStGermain said: I actually don't know but that was an example. Basically my point with it was that I believe referees could still make errors in their decisions with video technology. I don't watch rugby league so I couldn't tell you about the forward passes or the rules of video technology. What I can tell you is that the offside rule shouldn't be bent to pander to that. Of he's off side when he receives the ball, it shouldn't be a penalty. Yes, referee's could still make errors, video technology isn't completely definitive, at the end of the day, it's still a human decision after reviewing whatever incident. Rugby League won't rule on forward passes because with all the angles on offer to the video referee, each shot can be deceptive and the decision can take much longer to rule upon. I'm sure there would be certain things the video refs in Football couldn't rule upon. The rules haven't been changed in Rugby League to pander to the video referee system and any video ref system in Football wouldn't have any rules changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subscriber Dan+ Posted March 23, 2017 Subscriber Share Posted March 23, 2017 34 minutes ago, LaSambadeStGermain said: Ah, I misunderstood you - possibly due to the domestic leagues being a factor. Although that still doesn't take away that we've had historic players as well as the 15 million fans. It's a different culture though. It's very hard to compare really. You do have a bigger fanbase but for example, no South American club has the capability to top the achievement of being champions of Europe. There's a glass ceiling which totally distorts any fair comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 16 minutes ago, Dan said: It's very hard to compare really. You do have a bigger fanbase but for example, no South American club has the capability to top the achievement of being champions of Europe. There's a glass ceiling which totally distorts any fair comparison. No South American club can be champions now. In 1972? Definitely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cicero Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 Only player that could do a better job than David Luiz in our system is Leonardo Bonucci. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spike Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 How many footballing kids do you lot think are diddled by kiddy-fiddlers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pig on the Wing Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 5 hours ago, LaSambadeStGermain said: Ah, I misunderstood you - possibly due to the domestic leagues being a factor. Although that still doesn't take away that we've had historic players as well as the 15 million fans. It's a different culture though. Leicester City would probably only be the third biggest club in the third tier of English football, in all fairness... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 Paolo Guerrero is one of the most underappreciated strikers of this generation. While I definitely don't think he's world class like some pundits and people here in South America like to think he is, he has the right mentality and is a serious striker. His hold up play and strength is superb and on his day any defender will struggle with him. He's proven himself in the South American qualifiers and the Copa America. Not a finishing striker but so good with everything else. Can play in any league in the world and do a job, easy. Would have done a better job at Boca than Carlos Tevez should that move had gone through (second spell). His strength is enough to withstand that league compared to Tevez. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subscriber Dan+ Posted April 2, 2017 Subscriber Share Posted April 2, 2017 N'Golo Kante was better last season than this season, but gets more plaudits this season because of who he plays for. /bitterness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subscriber Dan+ Posted April 3, 2017 Subscriber Share Posted April 3, 2017 Calling someone "fickle" is more often than not absolutely stupid. I cannot word how much I dislike these twats who go "you weren't saying that a couple of weeks ago" when you praise your team for winning after rightly criticising them for being shit two weeks ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.