|
Post by Norah on May 13, 2014 13:48:55 GMT
Was just "stirring"…. and not very well by the look of it either... I agree with you…well on most point sat least! ….although to further argue my case, in a high profile game such as our was which is televised the "proof" is there in the live TV coverage. By limiting 'appeals' to one each per match it would only be used in the cases of blatant cases, and, i would argue that it would not interrupt the flow of the game as it doesn't for instance in Rugby. It could be also used for recorded off the ball incidents too.
Plus..
It would also give the fourth official something to do!
|
|
|
Post by no1brewer on May 13, 2014 15:45:46 GMT
I liked the idea of using the technology and there are a hundred arguments for it. However, I witnessed when watching highlights of the Harlequins v Bath rugby match that the Referee no longer has the 'balls' to make a decision - every single decision he had to make he stopped the clock and asked the 4th official - not just whether or not it was a penalty/try etc but whether there had been infringements prior to the pass or score - it got so ridiculous that the players were getting fed up with it! Do not want to see football go the same way - goal line technology, fine, even after match video proof to castigate/clear players of red/yellow cards etc, but please not during the game, we don't want to lose the excitement of our game - I enjoyed the fact that lino's and ref's make mistakes, they're only human and it's all part of our game!
|
|
|
Post by everard on May 13, 2014 19:53:47 GMT
It seems me that football could learn one thing from rugby - the sin bin
Leaving aside whether either of Sharps' two yellows were justified - the red punishment is not - to miss two crucial games at this stage of the season punishes him and Burton Albion too harshly for the scale of the infringements.
I'm not sure if 10 mins in the sin bin for an orange card (two yellows) in our round ball game would be long enough to give the other side sufficient advantage - maybe twenty minutes or even 30 mins.....and if the offence is near the end of the game......I guess the guy just goes off till the final whistle....the ref would still give out reds and the sending off, if the offence merits it.....and in the totting up process the orange still counts as two yellows.....
Sits back and waits for someone to tell me what's wrong with this idea....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2014 20:07:28 GMT
I agree with that idea everard, we discussed something similar earlier in the season. Straight red would be a full sending off (except goalscoring opportunity that results in a penalty). Problems though if the 'keeper is sin binned, can you bring on one temporarily?
Anyway worthy of a proper discussion.
As for technology, not for me. Some refs would have watched the Sharps 'handball' on TV and still stuck with their original decision. That would just make things worse.
Also the totting up process (extra game for second sending off of the season) is wrong for a dismissal in the play offs, the season of 46 games is over. He should not be getting two games and missing Wembley or 1st game of the season IMHO.
|
|
E.D.
Youth Team
Posts: 105
|
Post by E.D. on May 13, 2014 20:13:02 GMT
Maybe there could be a review of yellow cards when two yellows lead to a red card, as in this case. If we make it to Wembley, Sharpsy will miss probably one of the biggest games of his career thanks to a refereeing error. Maybe Mr Greg Dyke could focus more on this kind of thing which affects ALL levels of football, rather than concentrate on that League 3 nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by everard on May 13, 2014 21:31:31 GMT
Maybe there could be a review of yellow cards when two yellows lead to a red card, as in this case. If we make it to Wembley, Sharpsy will miss probably one of the biggest games of his career thanks to a refereeing error. Maybe Mr Greg Dyke could focus more on this kind of thing which affects ALL levels of football, rather than concentrate on that League 3 nonsense. This is a point I was making E.D. but some missed it and went on to talk about how many yellows are given out and how impossible it would be to allow appeals for all of them..... I was only advocating a right of appeal if the yellows lead to a red - it seems to me illogical not to if appeals are allowed for the red which is given straight - in either case there could be a poor/just plain wrong decision involved, which ultimately leads to the red, which is then punished in the same way....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2014 9:38:26 GMT
It seems me that football could learn one thing from rugby - the sin bin Leaving aside whether either of Sharps' two yellows were justified - the red punishment is not - to miss two crucial games at this stage of the season punishes him and Burton Albion too harshly for the scale of the infringements. I'm not sure if 10 mins in the sin bin for an orange card (two yellows) in our round ball game would be long enough to give the other side sufficient advantage - maybe twenty minutes or even 30 mins.....and if the offence is near the end of the game......I guess the guy just goes off till the final whistle....the ref would still give out reds and the sending off, if the offence merits it.....and in the totting up process the orange still counts as two yellows..... Sits back and waits for someone to tell me what's wrong with this idea.... I guess the first talking point, for me anyway, is how much do we want to interfere with the game as it is. There are always grey areas and weak spots and room for improvement but finding a solution can be tricky. The sin bin has been discussed at different levels, here is basically how it works in ice hockey, there are lots of permeatations - this is just as info not a recommendation: A normal foul, like tripping, highsticking, cross-checking - 2 min penalty in the sin bin for the player and team plays a man short for 2 min A serious foul, fighting, spearing, or a serious "one of the above" fouls - 5 min penalty in the sin bin and team plays a man short for 5 min Ref verbal abuse etc, 10 minute misconduct penalty in the sin bin for the player but the team still plays the normal number of players Note: the entire game is 60 mins long and the clock is stopped for every stoppage, ie: 10 min misconduct means the player misses 1/6 of the game. 5 min penalty means the team plays a man short for 1/12th of the game. Someone suggested all previous yellow and red cards should be wiped at the end of the regular season, ie: the totting up process abolished. In that case if in our end of season game this year, if one of Southend players was sent off for injuring one of our stalwarts (who then could not play in the playoffs or Wembley because of that injury) that player would serve his "sentence" at the start of next season. He would have been allowed to play in the playoffs against us! I would not want to be that player or the referee in last Sundays game in that scenario. Real can of worms there. Wide open to lawsuits, but the solicitors would love it. In the appeal of of a wrong yellow that leads to a red like sharpsie. That could work. There is the possibility that if the card was rescinded that Sir Alex may still argue that we lost because our player was wrongly sent off in the first half, we demand a replay. Thats a poke at Sir, not the idea behind the appeal process. But what is the solution?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2014 12:28:42 GMT
Peacock, that is not what we are saying about totting up. If he had been sent off in the last game of the season (as Bell more or less was last year) he should get the correct suspension which covers the next first team games which include the play offs. What we are saying is that in the play offs after the season has ended the red card he got during the season should not mean an extra game. The initial competition (the 46 games) is over, so there should be no carry over to the play off competition.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2014 17:55:38 GMT
I think that oxford and I were both talking about the same thing wrt appealing yellow cards from a chaotic administration pov. And appealing a yellow where there were 2 in the same game = off makes sense, but if the appeal failed an addition game suspension would apply (same as a failed appeal to a red in the current situation). I think the changes proposed on here to the totting up process make sense, suspensions for red cards late in the season would carry over into the playoffs but the Sharps situation would not include early season red cards leading to 2 games suspension, however a red in playoffs may still deserve a 2 game suspension depending on the severity of the foul (as it currently is).
But, the situation I was referring wrt "Someone suggested all previous yellow and red cards should be wiped at the end of the regular season, ie: the totting up process abolished." was on that other website....That person thinks that "if in our end of season game this year, if one of Southend players was sent off for injuring one of our stalwarts (who then could not play in the playoffs or Wembley because of that injury) that player would serve his "sentence" at the start of next season." ie: He should be allowed to play in the first playoff game against us! My point on that was "I would not want to be that player or the referee in last Sundays game in that scenario. Real can of worms there. Wide open to serious payback injuries and lawsuits, but the solicitors would love it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2014 19:12:50 GMT
I think we agree Peacock (!!!) and I am sure the way I described it was what Jonesy was meaning on Facebook. You could double check with him if necessary. It does though look like we agree all found that Sharps getting two games in the playoffs (for a one game offence) is harsh for the fact he had a red card in the normal season.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2014 22:45:41 GMT
Yes, I think we agree that a change should/ could be made to the current rules. But under the current rules it's not harsh, that's the way it is..semantics!
Wrt the other: I asked: Right so in our final game this season last week at Southend if Sharps broke Corrs leg and was red-carded for that he should miss games at the start of next season?
And He replied: Yes, absolutely, because a ban of *some* length always follows a red card. And so it should. I'm not saying a red card in a play off shouldn't mean a ban, but it's not a 'regular season' game so IMO the totting up process, which results in a longer ban, shouldnt apply.
I think he means the final game red card suspension should be applied next season, not for this seasons playoffs? Maybe it's poor wording, but that's the way I read it?.
Anyway, whatever. It should be noted somewhere in indelible ink that we agreed on something! LOL,
|
|
|
Post by E7#9 on May 14, 2014 23:11:17 GMT
Playing Devil's Advocaat now but maybe Sharps should have been more careful about the way he went into the challenge given that he knew that he was on a yellow card. Also perhaps Rowett should have subbed him after the yellow and before the red to make sure it would not happen.
|
|
johnc
Schoolboy Papers
Posts: 37
|
Post by johnc on May 15, 2014 12:46:17 GMT
E7#9 also playing devil's advocate, perhaps the referee was looking to caution Sharps for a real offence, but in doing so he had to show a red. The referee could and should have admitted to the FA that he had made a mistake and the first yellow shouldn't have been shown. The referee's assessor could also have made his report. The FA could then apply some discretion and decide that the sending off was sufficient, alternatively they could have imposed a one match ban instead of the two match ban. The referee appeared to have responded to an appeal by a single Southend player. However the FA and the referee have failed to do the right thing www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/suspensions/clubdiscipline?league=33&club=10556635
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2015 12:14:33 GMT
Just a thought… but in tennis and in cricket teams/ players are allowed a certain number of appeals per event…… if modern technology can decide those… in a couple of shakes of a lambs tail… then for certain matches then could this not be introduced into football… if only ONE per match…… There are after all such obvious miscarriages of justice that occur which alter the course of a match that are just so wrong…..!!!!… ok there would be no more hands of God but there would also be no more arms of Sharps. I think most people understand that point of view Norah, and we do get wound up after the referee makes a mistake (miscarriages of justice is a bit legal ) and cry out for changes to be made. Funny, how we rarely cry out when the player makes an even worse/more stupid mistake? There certainly are justifications for technology to be used from time to time and there is no doubt that it would help decide controversial decisions. But where would the line be drawn on what gets "reviewed", hand balls, penalties, nasty fouls, keeper handling out of the box, high foot challenge, ball out of play for a corner, goalkick throw-in, manager on the pitch, foul language, who threw the banana, I think you get my point, but every one of those situation has an effect on the game. A South American FIFA referee once said that "if a referee never called another handball for the rest of his career, he/she would be right 83% of the time" or words very close to that. Most "handballs" are not even though we all yell out for them at the games and curse the cheating ref. during and after games. (before he starts Sharps' wasn't handball either). The thing is multiple millions of pounds were spent developing goal-line technology and how often has it been needed? And who do we think is paying the price at the end of the day? The fans. I cried out for it but I'm "not sure" if it is worth it. To quote a famous frenchman, speaking about the Champions League games only "It would cost around 54 million euros (£46m) over five years for this technology,"..., that doesn't include any research and development costs. That money could be better spend on grassroots football, developing players skills and attitudes toward the game. How did we ever get to point where a famous english striker with hairplugs can be filmed effin and blinding a referee on global TV and getting away with it?? Should that be reviewed on video replays and have him sent off? For me this type of "solution" is the sterilisation of a game, its a game that's it. Corporations have turned it into something else in order to make money. I don't want to see the beautiful game "Americanised" any further, next they'll be pushing for stopping play for commercials (they are already doing that actually). further on the technology debate... Yesterday in the Premier League there were two what the media decided to call "controversial" decisions... Liverpool - West Brom Olsson was offside and the ball went in the net. Was a goal ever awarded? Only the refs know but that is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the referees talked it over and the correct decision was made. Villa vs Arsenal Walcott was fouled by Hutton in the box. A foul was not awarded initially, a discussion between the referees resulted in the correct decision being made. Who made the decision? Irrelevant. Even if an incorrect decision is made (as opposed to not making a call due to a blocked view) while play is stopped the decision can be changed or reversed before the whistle is blown to restart play. Once play restarts the decision cannot be changed, ie: in a different scenario, you cannot go back after a restart and award a caution. Now there is no question that the referee teams in these games took a lot of stick from the players, managers, pundits, fans, media etc. But we all really should be singing their praises. Referees need to use their AR's more for tough calls. This is the way to settle a situation like this, not with technology ie: stoppages to watch instant video replays.
|
|